2013-06-04_PR_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Wall suggested that further discussion, analysis and recommendation of what is in the best th interests of the City and residents occur in May in preparation for the June 10 joint City Council/Commission meeting. Wall communicated his impression of the Maple Grove visit as follows: They appear to operate similar to Roseville even though they are a Park Board Users and stakeholders appear satisfied They like the system that they are operating under Maple Grove is a very good model Appointments are made by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council which is similar to Roseville The Community Center is very impressive Staff indicated that procedurally a Park Board is more involved in staffing and budget development with the City Council approving a levy. It would operate similar to the Roseville HRA. Staff observation was that the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission is in actuality operating similar to the Maple Grove Park Board with all members being vested and engaged at all levels. With the value placed on Parks and Recreation in the community of Roseville, it does make sense that this type of consistency is important in Roseville. According to the City Code, the Roseville Commission is advisory only and is probably going beyond their scope of work. Further discussion included how long Maple Grove has been a Park Board, questions on board members pay and how the City Council is kept informed. Response included that Maple Grove has been a Park Board since inception, board members are not paid but it is believed that Brainerd Park Board Members are paid a stipend of $25 month and the City Council in Maple Grove is kept informed through a quarterly report provide by the director. Larger items such as land acquisition and certain level of projects are reviewed by the City Council. Diedrick wondered what the interaction with other City Departments in Maple Grove. Response was that the Director attends Department Head meetings and the need for interdepartmental coordination and cooperation still is important and exists. Doneen provided his analysis on the primary difference between a Park Board and Commission. Specifically, the day to day operations and project development moves away from the City Council with the responsibility given to the Park Board. A Park Board would be a more focused, separate board relieving the duties from the City Council. Gelbach questioned that with increased accountability and responsibility, does that then mean increased liability for Board Members. Azer was complimentary of the existing Commission structure but is interested and would like to learn more. DRAFT E© ©;Ýz;Þ ,ä t© 7 w;-©;·z /zz