2014-03-04_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

120 Wall suggested that further discussion, analysis and recommendation of what is in the best 121 interests of the City and residents occur in May in preparation for the June 10th joint City 122 Council /Commission meeting. 123 124 Wall communicated his impression of the Maple Grove visit as follows: 125 ® They appear to operate similar to Roseville even though they are a Park Board 126 ! Users and stakeholders appear satisfied 127 . They like the system that they are operating under 128 . Maple Grove is a very good model 129 • Appointments are made by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council which is similar 130 to Roseville 131 . The Community Center is very impressive 132 133 Staff indicated that procedurally a Park Board is more involved in staffing and budget 134 development with the City Council approving a levy. It would operate similar to the Roseville 135 gRA, 136 137 Staff observation was that the Roseville Parks and Recreation Commission is in actuality 138 operating similar to the Maple Grove Park Board with all members being vested and engaged at 139 all levels. With the value placed on Parks and Recreation in the community of Roseville, it does 140 make sense that this type of consistency is important in Roseville. 141 142 According to the City Code, the Roseville Commission is advisory only and is probably going 143 beyond their scope of work. 144 145 Further discussion included how long Maple Grove has been a Park Board, questions on board 146 members pay and how the City Council is kept informed. Response included that Maple Grove 147 has been a Park Board since inception, board members are not paid but it is believed that 148 Brainerd Park Board Members are paid a stipend of $25 month and the City Council in Maple 149 Grove is kept informed through a quarterly report provide by the director. Larger items such as 150 land acquisition and certain level of projects are reviewed by the City Council. 151 152 Diedrick wondered what the interaction with other City Departments in Maple Grove. Response 153 was that the Director attends Department Head meetings and the need for interdepartmental 154 coordination and cooperation still is important and exists. 155 156 Doneen provided his analysis on the primary difference between a Park Board and Commission. 157 Specifically, the day to day operations and project development moves away from the City 158 Council with the responsibility given to the Park Board. A Park Board would be a more focused, 159 separate board relieving the duties from the City Council. 160 161 Gelbach questioned that with increased accountability and responsibility, does that then mean 162 increased liability for Board Members. 163 164 Azer was complimentary of the existing Commission structure but is interested and would like to 165 learn more. 166 4