2014_0609_CCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment E ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 6, 2014 ROSEVILLE CITY HALL � 6:30pm PRESENT: Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt, Newby, Wall ABSENT: Azer, Boehm, and Stoner all notified staff about being unable to attend STAFF: Anfang, Brokke L INTRODUCTIONS 2. ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment. Agenda adjusted to accommodate Commissioner Wall who needed to leave the meeting early. 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES — APRIL 1, 2014 MEETING Commission Recommendation: Minutes for the April 1, 2014 meeting were approved unanimously with Wall abstaining due to his not attending the meeting. 4. PARK BOARD DISCUSSION D. Holt initiated the discussion with brief background information. This Commission has spent a good amount of time researching and discussing Park Board considerations. D. Holt asked the Commission to make a recommendation at tonight's meeting so that there can be further discussion with the Council during the joint meeting in June. • Most recently, Wall, Gelbach, Holt & Stoner met with Brokke. This meeting resulted in Gelbach creating a SWOT analysis outlining the Park Board consideration. • Wall having taken the lead on this project from the beginning, spoke to how this SWOT analysis fit into the bigger picture and reviewed a compilation of Park Board information. • M. Holt asked about lines 38 & 39, wondering what was meant by "other options". o Brokke explained that this was referring to possible political sub-divisions and what the sub-divisions might be. • Diedrick asked "how difficult would it be to join with another entity to farm a Park Board"? o This would be an extensive process and requires willing parties. • Doneen reflected on the wark done by Wall and others to outline the benefits & options of a Park Board. Doneen admitted he is challenged by these discussions because the current system is working well. On the other hand, there are 3 main areas of concern; natural resource management, staffing and parks and recreation facility maintenance. • Newby inquired into the benefits. o Doneen responded, potential expanded transparency and possible increased efficiencies. o D. Holt spoke to how the Master Plan brought attention to the parks & recreation system and how in the recent past the park system was neglected due to timely local situations. The Master Plan addressed not only current needs but also looked to the future and how a foundation can be built to sustain future needs. Councils do their best, but they can't always give the attention needed toward making informed decisions due to the vast needs of the community. Recent Parks & Recreation Commissions have done a good job of filling the information gaps and keeping the parks and recreation needs as a forethought. Parks and Recreation is an essential service for our community, a Park Board would be able to pay the necessary attention and have the required focus to continue maintaining and providing for the Page 1 of 5