2014-06-03_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

53parks and recreation system. A Park Board seems to make sense as we think ahead, 545, 10 or more years from now. 55Newby asked for more information on how a board and commission differ. 56Brokke responded that a Commission is advisory while a board is established by o 57ordinance and has specific responsibilities such as budget development, staffing 58responsibilities and property management. 59D. Holt also spoke to needed capitalization to maintain our parks and recreation resources. 60A Park Board has the potential for better management and attention toward deferred 61maintenance. 62Doneen mentioned that he sees a Parks Board as potentially relievingthe Council of some 63responsibility. 64Newby wondered if a Park Board might increase distance from the Council and lead to an 65out-of-site/out-of-mind situation. 66Wall mentioned that the HRA has a Council member on its board. Brokke added o 67that this might be true for a Park Board also. 68Wall also brought up how the once a year joint meeting between the Council and o 69Commission is not enough for providing information and taking direction. Commission Recommendation: 70 71Motionby Nolan Wall that current Parks and Recreation Commission members support a 72recommendation to the City Council to change the status of the Parks & Recreation Commission to 73a Park Board and undertake the necessary steps to encourage the City Council and local legislators 74to author, sponsor and enacta special law to create a fully-empowered Roseville Park Board. 75Second by Gelbach. 76Motion passed unanimously by the seven commission members in attendance. 77 78Chairman Holt added he would talk with CommissionersAzer and Stoner about their thoughts. 79 80Commissioner Wall excused himself following the Park Board item to attend another commitment. 81 KOTOSKI PARK DEDICATION –301-303 SOUTH OWASSO BOULEVARD 825. 83Brokke identified property as just west of LadyslipperPark. 84 85Doneen brought forward how the area includes a wetland feature and involves local natural 86resources. He can see how there might be a benefit to there being an addition to public wetland 87ownership over private wetland ownership. 88 89Brokke informed the group that this is a subdivision proposal and would result in either the cash 90amount of 6 units @$3500 each totaling $21,000 or the land acquisition of 10% of 3.28 acres 91totaling .32 acres. Brokke also recognized that anytime there are park dedication options adjacent 92to current park land there should be a healthy discussions of the options and the pros and cons for 93both. 94 Commission Recommendation: 95 96Diedrickmoved that Parks and Recreation Commission recommend to the City Council the 97acceptance of cash at $3500 per unit for a total of 6 units and $21,000 in lieu of land. Secondby 98M. Holt. Passed unanimously. 99 PARKS AND RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM UPDATE 1006. 101Brokke briefed the Commission on the individual proposalpackages. All proposal packages will 102be presented to the Council on May 12, 2014 for their consideration. 103Package A involves park buildings, shelters and related site work.