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 11 <br /> funds were mixed with the overall City budget, Commissioner Doneen opined <br /> that they were more difficult for the public to track. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Councilmember Etten clarified his <br /> concerns along legal lines and functions, authority, property acquisition and how <br /> much responsibility is held by a Park Board versus the City Council. However, <br /> Councilmember Etten stated that he found the information contained in the report <br /> had alleviated some of his concerns versus his original concerns when the issue <br /> first came up for discussion with three (3) available options. <br /> Councilmember Willmus expressed his interest in continuing to explore the op- <br /> tion of Park Board; and suggested that it would be beneficial for Commissioners <br /> Nolan and Simbeck present during that continued discussion. <br /> Mayor Roe noted that this discussion was very preliminary and only a portion of <br /> items being covered in this meeting. <br /> Further discussion included the City of Minneapolis Park Board model; current <br /> State Statute language and any potential legislative revisions beyond City ordi- <br /> nance; how this fit with the Commission Subcommittee work being done by <br /> Councilmembers Laliberte and McGehee; clarification (line 110 of the report)that <br /> the City Council had apparently at one time directed investigation of a Park Board <br /> versus Commission. Additional discussion ensued regarding current shared re- <br /> sponsibility, personnel and equipment, for trails and pathways and natural re- <br /> source management between the Parks & Recreation and Public Works Depart- <br /> ments, and whether separating those areas could lead to additional expenses. <br /> Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of a more detailed future discussion; <br /> opining that this had become a large scale community issue based on the City not <br /> taking care of its assets; and opined that if there had been Park Board, he didn't <br /> think the issue would have been deferred for so long, and would have provided <br /> greater oversight and accountability for those assets, proving more beneficial for <br /> the community. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that she would have an issue with the Mayor <br /> making appointments to a Park Board versus selection by the full City Council, <br /> since the Board would have taxing authority. <br /> Mayor Roe and Councilmember Willmus clarified that a Park Board functioned <br /> similar to the City's HRA, with appointments selected by the Mayor and ratified <br /> by the full body; and approval by the body of an annual budget. <br /> Councilmember Laliberte opined that she had not initially been inclined to favor a <br /> Park Board; however, the information provided was good and needed her further <br /> review. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.