Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />1 <br />MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 1, 2012 <br />2 <br />ROSEVILLE CITY HALL ~ 6:30PM <br />3 <br />4 <br /> <br />PRESENT: <br />5 Azer, Boehm, Diedrick, Doneen, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Ristow, Simbeck, Wall <br />ABSENT: <br />6 <br />STAFF: <br />7 Anfang, Brokke <br />8 <br /> <br /> INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />9 1. <br />10 Note: Meeting not televised due to unexpected absence of media technician <br />11 <br /> <br /> APPROVAL OF MINUTES – OCTOBER 2, 2012 MEETING <br />12 2. <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />13 <br />14 Minutes for the October 2, 2012 meeting were approved unanimously. <br />15 <br /> <br /> COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT <br />16 3. <br />17 Doneen & Simbeck updated the commission on the status of the Community Engagement Task <br />18 Force Report. Both mentioned the support of the task force for a new staff position that acts as a <br />19 volunteer coordinator and organizer/support staff for citizen engagement efforts. Simbeck spoke <br />20 positively on the process and the final report. Commission questions and discussion followed. <br />21 <br /> <br />rd <br /> HIGHCREST PARK 3 ADDITION PARK DEDICATION <br />22 4. <br />23 Etten introduced the agenda item which was followed by a recommendation motion. <br />24 <br /> <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />25 <br />26 Motion by Doneen, second by Simbeck to recommend the Roseville City Council accept cash in-lieu <br />rd <br />27 of land for the Highcrest Park 3 Addition. <br />28 <br /> <br />29 Commission discussion followed. Commissioners inquired into and defined the possibility of <br />30 acquiring land away from the area being developed as the park dedication. It was agreed upon that <br />31 while this is a viable option it is not appropriate for this development. <br />32 <br /> <br />33 Motion passed unanimously. <br />34 <br /> <br /> PARK DEDICATION RATE DISCUSSION <br />35 5. <br />36 Brokke introduced background information included in the Commission packet. D. Holt brought <br />37 attention to the fact that many communities surrounding Roseville have higher park dedication rates. <br />38 Simbeck added that Roseville is slightly below the average of the comparative communities. M. Holt <br />39 pointed out that staying competitive helps to alleviate some burden on Roseville Citizens and helps <br />40 to spread costs to others using the Park System. Commission went on to discuss the current Park <br />41 Dedication Rate for Commercial/Industrial development, including the pros and cons of setting a <br />42 percentage vs. a straight dollar amount per acre. Brokke informed the Commission that the <br />43 Commercial/Industrial rate has remained unchanged for a number of years. Many of the <br />44 Commissioners voiced support of staying competitive. Commissioner Ristow suggested keeping the <br />45 Commercial/Industrial rate unchanged for another year. <br />46 <br /> <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />47 <br />48 Motion by Ristow, second by Doneen, to maintain Park Dedication rates at their current level. <br />49 <br /> <br />50 Commission discussion followed. Many Commissioners voiced their opposition to the motion and <br />51 their support of increasing the Commercial/Industrial rate for Park Dedication fees for various <br />52 reasons including an effort to help relieve costs to tax payers and spread out costs to other users to <br />53 maintain and enhance the park system. <br />54 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />