Laserfiche WebLink
<br />attention and have the required focus to continue maintaining and providing for the <br />parks and recreation system. A Park Board seems to make sense as we think ahead, <br />5, 10 or more years from now. <br /> <br /> <br />Newby asked for more information on how a board and commission differ. <br /> <br />Brokke responded that a Commission is advisory while a board is established by <br />o <br />ordinance and has specific responsibilities such as budget development, staffing <br />responsibilities and property management. <br /> <br /> <br />D. Holt also spoke to needed capitalization to maintain our parks and recreation resources. <br />A Park Board has the potential for better management and attention toward deferred <br />maintenance. <br /> <br /> <br />Doneen mentioned that he sees a Parks Board as potentially relieving the Council of some <br />responsibility. <br /> <br /> <br />Newby wondered if a Park Board might increase distance from the Council and lead to an <br />out-of-sight/out-of-mind situation. <br /> <br />Wall mentioned that the HRA has a Council member on its board. Brokke added <br />o <br />that this might be true for a Park Board also. <br /> <br />Wall also brought up how the once a year joint meeting between the Council and <br />o <br />Commission is not enough for providing information and taking direction. <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />Motion by Nolan Wall that current Parks and Recreation Commission members support a <br />recommendation to the City Council to change the status of the Parks & Recreation Commission to <br />a Park Board and undertake the necessary steps to encourage the City Council and local legislators <br />to author, sponsor and enact a special law to create a fully-empowered Roseville Park Board. <br />Second by Gelbach. <br />Motion passed unanimously by the seven commission members in attendance. <br /> <br />Chairman Holt added he would talk with Commissioners Azer and Stoner about their thoughts. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wall excused himself following the Park Board item to attend another commitment. <br /> <br /> KOTOSKI PARK DEDICATION – 301-303 SOUTH OWASSO BOULEVARD <br />5. <br />Brokke identified property as just west of Ladyslipper Park. <br /> <br />Doneen brought forward how the area includes a wetland feature and involves local natural <br />resources. He can see how there might be a benefit to there being an addition to public wetland <br />ownership over private wetland ownership. <br /> <br />Brokke informed the group that this is a subdivision proposal and would result in either the cash <br />amount of 6 units @$3500 each totaling $21,000 or the land acquisition of 10% of 3.28 acres <br />totaling .32 acres. Brokke also recognized that anytime there are park dedication options adjacent <br />to current park land there should be a healthy discussions of the options and the pros and cons for <br />both. <br /> <br />Commission Recommendation: <br /> <br />Diedrick moved that Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council the <br />acceptance of cash at $3500 per unit for a total of 6 units and $21,000 in lieu of land. Second by <br />M. Holt. Passed unanimously. <br /> <br /> PARKS AND RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM UPDATE <br />6. <br />Brokke briefed the Commission on the individual proposal packages. All proposal packages will <br />be presented to the Council on May 12, 2014 for their consideration. <br /> <br /> <br />