Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 6, 2014 <br />ROSEVILLE CITY HALL ~ 6:30pm <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br /> Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt, Newby, Wall <br />ABSENT: <br /> Azer, Boehm, and Stoner all notified staff about being unable to attend <br />STAFF: <br /> Anfang, Brokke <br /> <br /> <br /> INTRODUCTIONS <br />1. <br /> <br /> ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />2. <br />No Public Comment. Agenda adjusted to accommodate Commissioner Wall who needed to leave <br />the meeting early. <br /> <br /> APPROVAL OF MINUTES – APRIL 1, 2014 MEETING <br />3. <br />Commission Recommendation: <br /> <br />Minutes for the April 1, 2014 meeting were approved unanimously with Wall abstaining due to his <br />not attending the meeting. <br /> <br /> PARK BOARD DISCUSSION <br />4. <br />D. Holt initiated the discussion with brief background information. This Commission has spent a <br />good amount of time researching and discussing Park Board considerations. D. Holt asked the <br />Commission to make a recommendation at tonight’s meeting so that there can be further <br />discussion with the Council during the joint meeting in June. <br /> <br /> <br />Most recently, Wall, Gelbach, Holt & Stoner met with Brokke. This meeting resulted in <br />Gelbach creating a SWOT analysis outlining the Park Board consideration. <br /> <br /> <br />Wall having taken the lead on this project from the beginning, spoke to how this SWOT <br />analysis fit into the bigger picture and reviewed a compilation of Park Board information. <br /> <br /> <br />M. Holt asked about lines 38 & 39, wondering what was meant by “other options”. <br /> <br />Brokke explained that this was referring to possible political sub-divisions and what <br />o <br />the sub-divisions might be. <br /> <br /> <br />Diedrick asked “how difficult would it be to join with another entity to form a Park <br />Board”? <br /> <br />This would be an extensive process and requires willing parties. <br />o <br /> <br /> <br />Doneen reflected on the work done by Wall and others to outline the benefits & options of <br />a Park Board. Doneen admitted he is challenged by these discussions because the current <br />system is working well. On the other hand, there are 3 main areas of concern; natural <br />resource management, staffing and parks and recreation facility maintenance. <br /> <br /> <br />Newby inquired into the benefits. <br /> <br />Doneen responded, potential expanded transparency and possible increased <br />o <br />efficiencies. <br /> <br />D. Holt spoke to how the Master Plan brought attention to the parks & recreation <br />o <br />system and how in the recent past the park system was neglected due to timely local <br />situations. The Master Plan addressed not only current needs but also looked to the <br />future and how a foundation can be built to sustain future needs. Councils do their <br />best, but they can’t always give the attention needed toward making informed <br />decisions due to the vast needs of the community. Recent Parks & Recreation <br />Commissions have done a good job of filling the information gaps and keeping the <br />parks and recreation needs as a forethought. Parks and Recreation is an essential <br />service for our community, a Park Board would be able to pay the necessary <br /> <br /> <br />