My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2013_0610
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2013
>
CC_Minutes_2013_0610
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/12/2013 12:07:34 PM
Creation date
7/12/2013 12:07:17 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
6/10/2013
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
30
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, June 10, 2013 <br /> Page 10 <br /> nities building up their own retail centers, creating additional competition for Ro- <br /> seville's retail community. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that the Council consensus providing direction to the Commis- <br /> sion was to continue looking at the possibility of a community center; however, <br /> noting the need for considerable homework yet to be accomplished; and recogniz- <br /> ing that moving forward immediately may not be feasible. <br /> Specific to the comments of Councilmember McGehee, Chair Holt recognized the <br /> ongoing struggle, specific to the Park Improvement Program (PIP) and lack of <br /> funding over the years; and asked that the City Council take that into considera- <br /> tion as they developed future budgets, to reinstate and continue funding of the PIP <br /> to prevent any further deferred and more costly maintenance issues. <br /> Commissioner Azer provided a synopsis for the potential of a Park Board (At- <br /> tachment B) crediting the report researched and prepared by Commissioners No- <br /> lan Wall and Gregg Simbeck, who were unfortunately unavailable to attend to- <br /> night. Commissioner Azer noted that the report provide the pros and cons be- <br /> tween Parks & Recreation Commission and a Park Board, advising that the <br /> Commission sought direction from the City Council. <br /> Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for this report, as well as all materi- <br /> als being presented tonight by the Commission, including providing the negatives <br /> and positives of issues. Councilmember Etten advised that he was still undecided <br /> about a Commission versus Park Board, including questioning the willingness of <br /> people to put in the extra time required, if using the Maple Grove model as an ex- <br /> ample. Councilmember Etten stated that another concern of his was making sure <br /> a Park Board wouldn't get in the way of day-to-day functions and operations of <br /> the Parks & Recreation Department and noted the need for clear job definitions <br /> and how department served the community. <br /> Councilmember Willmus echoed thanks to the Commission for their reports; and <br /> regarding a Commission versus Board, opined that a Board would provide in- <br /> creased fiscal transparency for the community. <br /> Commissioner Azer opined that her main concern was that she thought this <br /> Commission of incredibly dedicated and hard working members, already did the <br /> work of a Park Board. If additional authority was added with a Board, Commis- <br /> sioner Azer opined that things would change; and suggested that Commissioner <br /> Nolan's rationale for more transparency was based on the City Council and Park <br /> Board making decisions, allowing for more awareness of activities. <br /> Commissioner Doneen noted that fiscal transparency would include the City <br /> Council providing a lump sum with a Park Board allocating those funds. When <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.