Laserfiche WebLink
ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />1 <br />DRAFT MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 6, 2014 <br />2 <br />ROSEVILLE CITY HALL~6:30pm <br />3 <br />4 <br />PRESENT: <br />5Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, D. Holt, M. Holt,Newby, Wall <br />ABSENT: <br />6Azer, Boehm, and Stonerall notified staff about beingunable to attend <br />STAFF: <br />7Anfang,Brokke <br />8 <br />9 <br />INTRODUCTIONS <br />101. <br />11 <br />ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />122. <br />13No Public Comment. Agenda adjusted to accommodate Commissioner Wall who needed to leave <br />14the meeting early. <br />15 <br />APPROVAL OF MINUTES –APRIL 1,2014MEETING <br />163. <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />17 <br />18Minutes for the April 1, 2014meeting were approved unanimouslywith Wall abstaining due to his <br />19not attending the meeting. <br />20 <br />PARK BOARD DISCUSSION <br />214. <br />22D. Holt initiated the discussion with brief background information. This Commission has spent a <br />23good amount of time researching and discussingPark Board considerations.D. Holt asked the <br />24Commission to make a recommendation at tonight’s meeting so thatthere can be further <br />25discussion with the Council during the joint meeting in June. <br />26Most recently, Wall, Gelbach, Holt & Stoner met with Brokke. This meeting resulted in <br />27Gelbach creating a SWOTanalysis outlining the Park Board consideration. <br />28Wall having taken the lead on this project from the beginning, spoke to how this SWOT <br />29analysis fit into the bigger picture and reviewed a compilation of Park Board information. <br />30M. Holt asked about lines 38 & 39, wondering what was meant by “other options”. <br />31Brokke explained that this was referring to possible political sub-divisions and what <br />o <br />32the sub-divisions might be. <br />33Diedrick asked “how difficult would it be to join with another entity to form a Park <br />34Board”? <br />35This would be an extensive process and requires willing parties. <br />o <br />36Doneen reflected on the work done by Wall and others to outline the benefits & options of <br />37aPark Board. Doneen admittedhe is challenged by these discussions because the current <br />38system is working well. On the other hand, there are 3 main areas of concern; natural <br />39resource management, staffing and parks and recreation facility maintenance. <br />40Newby inquired into the benefits. <br />41Doneen responded, potential expanded transparencyandpossible increased <br />o <br />42efficiencies. <br />43D. Holt spoke to how the Master Plan brought attention to the parks & recreation <br />o <br />44system and how in the recent past the park system was neglected due to timely local <br />45situations. The Master Plan addressed not only current needs but also looked to the <br />46future and how a foundation can be built to sustain future needs. Councils do their <br />47best, but they can’t always give the attention needed toward making informed <br />48decisions due to the vast needs of the community. Recent Parks & Recreation <br />49Commissions have done a good job of filling the information gaps and keeping the <br />50parks and recreation needs as a forethought. Parks and Recreation is an essential <br />51service forour community, a Park Board would be able to pay the necessary <br />52attention and have the required focus to continue maintaining and providing for the <br /> <br />