Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />D. Holt mentioned that the civic style does not normally exude a comfortable feeling. <br />Is there a way of using a timelier articulated architecture that is contemporary in a <br />classic way that fits into the Minnesota setting  <br /> <br /> <br />McILwain’s final comment was that the HCM staff will work toward an order and rhythm <br />through design that has a public quality. <br /> <br /> <br />Brokke updated the Commission that staff are working through the Lexington Park building <br />using a 5-week time frame. Because of this, the Commission will not see more design drafts <br />before the park proposals go to the Council on September 16. Proposals will be going out <br />based on the upcoming Council meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />A Best Value Pre-Proposal meeting for Lexington Park is scheduled for September 19. <br /> <br /> <br />The goal is still to begin work this fall. 2014 will be a BIG year. Staff are working <br />methodically, we do not want to error in any way. Lexington Park will be a real <br />signature piece in our park system. <br /> <br /> <br />Brokke also added that the remaining park plans are on schedule for an 18 week delivery of <br />plans and specs with the Best Value Pre-Proposal meeting scheduled for November. <br /> <br /> RECAP OF JOINT MEETING WITH THE CITY COUNCIL <br />4. <br /> <br /> <br />D. Holt updated the Commission on his follow up discussions with Council Members on key <br />topics from the joint meeting. <br /> <br /> <br />The next step in regards to the Park Board consideration is for the Commission to <br />further explore and discuss the options followed up by a strong recommendation with <br />documented direction for the Council to consider. The Commission will identify time <br />at a future meeting to further discuss PIP/CIP funding along with a soul searching <br />discussion on the Commission’s interest in establishing a Park Board. <br /> <br />Commissioners further discussed Park Board considerations to help all better <br />understand the background of this item. <br /> <br /> <br />The Park Board consideration was originally approached due to the <br />volatility of park maintenance and operation funding. <br /> <br /> <br />Commissioners inquired into the funding history for both PIP and CIP <br /> <br />Response included the need to move funding of CIP and PIP <br />o <br />forward to support assets – a Park Board operation might be the <br />best solution for supporting the work done through the renewal <br />program. <br /> <br /> <br />Consideration for a Volunteer Coordinator was discussed with Council Members <br />earlier. <br /> <br />Brokke reminded the Commission that the 2014 budget included 3 additional <br />parks and recreation staff positions – 2 of these positions are meant to replace <br />positions that were eliminated in previous years during budget reductions plus <br />a volunteer coordinator to address community response in the Imagine <br />Roseville 2025 document and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. <br /> <br /> <br />The City Manager recommended budget does include one parks and <br />recreation position, parkkeeper. <br /> <br />Commissioners pointed out how a volunteer coordinator could support the <br />Natural Resources efforts. Council members discussed with Holt the possibility <br />of reallocating bonding funds to fund a natural resources volunteer coordinator. <br /> <br />Staff will continue to explore ways to accommodate a volunteer management <br />position within the Parks and Recreation budget. <br /> <br /> <br />Lastly, Holt spoke to Council representatives about a Council liaison to the Parks and <br />Recreation Commission. Mayor Roe suggested that the Commission may want to <br /> <br />