Laserfiche WebLink
55 Motion failed 3-6 Doneen, Ristow and Wall voted in favor of the motion. <br /> 56 Azer, Diedrick, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt and Simbeck voted against the motion. <br /> 57 Motion by Diedrick, second by Simbeck, to recommend to the City Council an increase in the <br /> 58 Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication rate from 5%to 7% of the FMV. <br /> 59 <br /> 60 Diedrick and others suggested the following reasons for proposing an increase from 5%to 7%: <br /> 61 • Commission is fulfilling their responsibility to regularly review rates and look for ways to <br /> 62 reasonably raise revenues <br /> 63 • Maintains a competitive rate with surrounding and like communities <br /> 64 • Increased revenues will help alleviate some of the potential tax burden to citizens and spread <br /> 65 costs to other users of the Parks and Recreation System <br /> 66 • The Commercial/Industrial Park Dedication rate has remained at 5% since the late 1980's <br /> 67 • The increased use of the Park and Recreation System that is created with new development <br /> 68 • The quality and extent of the existing Capital Improvement Program(CIP) and the current <br /> 69 investment in the Parks and Recreation System with the need to replace/preserve/enhance <br /> 70 that investment <br /> 71 • The existing land values <br /> 72 • The Adopted Master Plan and authorized Implementation <br /> 73 With the increase to 7%, the Parks and Recreation Commission feel that this will better reflect the <br /> 74 average and bring Roseville more reasonably in line with neighboring and like communities. <br /> 75 <br /> 76 Ristow continued to voice his opinion that now is not the time to increase Park Dedication fees. <br /> 77 <br /> 78 Commission discussed the pros and cons of setting a specific flat per acre fee for the <br /> 79 Commercial/Industrial rate and decided the percentage of the Fair Market Value was most <br /> 80 appropriate. <br /> 81 <br /> 82 Motion passed 6-3. Azer, Diedrick, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt and Simbeck voted in favor of the <br /> 83 motion. <br /> 84 Doneen, Ristow and Wall voted against the motion. <br /> 85 <br /> 86 6. PARK& RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM <br /> 87 Brokke updated Commission on Renewal Program status. <br /> 88 • LHB has been approved by the City Council to serve as the Lead Consultant to provide <br /> 89 direction and support in the development of Concept Plan, Constriction &Design Standards, <br /> 90 project scheduling and RFP process <br /> 91 • Council has awarded the final Bond sale <br /> 92 Brokke reviewed the Milestone Schedule for the coming 9-10 months that will direct the tasks for <br /> 93 LHB and initial project needs. Brokke also reviewed the portion of the bonding program that <br /> 94 provides for the needed consultants and industry experts to carry out the extensive system-wide <br /> 95 Renewal Program. <br /> 96 <br /> 97 Anfang updated the Commission on Recreation needs and impacts as they relate to the Renewal <br /> 98 Program. Anfang pointed out that Recreation programs and events cannot be cancelled or postponed <br /> 99 during the Renewal Program. Recreation may use alternate locations for a year or temporarily. These <br /> 100 changes will be planned for ahead of time and communicated to the community. <br /> 101 <br /> 102 Doneen updated the Commission on the work of the Pathways, Trails and Natural Resources <br /> 103 Subcommittee. The subcommittee is a combined group of Parks &Recreation Commissioners and <br />