|
Roseville, MN - Official Website
<br />budget and staffing needs compared to the significant chunk of the budget represented by the Parks
<br />& Recreation Department.
<br />Mayor Roe stated that he also had concerns with such a significant part of the City's operations not
<br />being under direct control of the City Council, City Manager and the process used to manage the rest
<br />of the City's government. Mayor Roe noted that he found this troubling, not because he didn?t think
<br />the Park Board would do a good job, but for him it created too much distinction that would create
<br />more problems than it solved. However, Mayor Roe stated that he did like the idea of joint powers
<br />agreements for specific facilities, and joint efforts and projects with other communities. Mayor Roe
<br />advised that his preference would be not to pursue establishment of a Park Board further, but to
<br />seriously look at those opportunities.
<br />Mayor Roe noted that the City was now making significant strides in addressing previously
<br />inadequate funding of Park & Recreation maintenance and infrastructure needs, especially in getting
<br />those CIP needs out over a twenty-year span. While that process needed to continue improving,
<br />Mayor Roe opined that part of his response was based on the need to continue those efforts and
<br />recognize them in the overall funding picture. Mayor Roe stated that he liked the idea of meeting
<br />more often, and suggested that regarding the CIP projections, the natural resources component was
<br />an excellent place to address those community needs and program them accordingly.
<br />Overall, Mayor Roe stated that his response would be to use the tools already available and to the
<br />best of our ability. In terms of a future City Council not being as responsive to Park & Recreation
<br />needs, Mayor Roe opined that they needed to be held accountable by the community as they served
<br />or sought to serve on the City Council, especially in recognizing how parks & recreation aspects fit
<br />into the overall community and were not a second-class portion of the City ofRoseville.
<br />Regarding unification efforts, Councilmember McGehee opined that parks was an important part of
<br />the community and should be considered an essential service, and planning for its needs was an
<br />integral part of the City, not off on its own. Councilmember McGehee also supported the idea of joint
<br />powers agreements, especially for the southwest portion of Roseville, who frequent the Falcon
<br />Heights community park system, given its location directly across the street, and a way to address
<br />that neighborhood?s needs rather than expending funds to acquire asmall and inadequate space in
<br />Roseville for that area. However, Councilmember McGehee noted that Roseville residents had no
<br />way to access that building, and it may be nice to be able to do so to provide a meeting space for
<br />residents in southwest Roseville.
<br />Chair Holt wanted to ensure that the tone of joint meetings of the Commission and City Council were
<br />not intended to be "us" against "you," and stated his intent to change that perspective, since the
<br />Commission saw itself as an extension of and working for the City Council, given the City Council?s
<br />limited time and busy agendas dissuading their ability to delve into major issues to any great depth.
<br />Chair Holt noted that the City Council tasked the Commission to research this, which they did at
<br />length, and as Councilmember McGehee stated, considered itself to be an essential service to the
<br />community and would like to be positioned as such and strongly valued throughout the community,
<br />andexpressed the Commission?s interest in promoting that going forward.
<br />Commissioner Stoner stated that one of his concerns in the current system was about transparency.
<br />From his perspective, and using the community center as an example, Commissioner Stoner noted
<br />that the City Council had asked the Commission to survey the community for what they wanted, and
<br />they wanted many things, which had been reported back to the City Council; and based on the other
<br />financial needs of the City, the City Council said "No, it costs too much money." At that point, the
<br />Commission went back to the drawing board to streamline the proposal and determine what could be
<br />eliminated. However, then the taxpayer doesn?t like spending money on a community center and
<br />tells the City Council that, while the other side talks to the Commission with theirdesire to have a
<br />center. Under that scenario, Commissioner Stoner questioned where the transparency was in that
<br />process, opining that it would be better to have all those discussions contained in one place where
<br />both sides were engaged versus a back and forth dialogue. Also, Commissioner Stoner also noted
<br />the many issues covered on a City Council agenda that limited dialogue, in addition to half of the
<br />year being devoted to the annual budget and levy process, further eliminating timely discussions and
<br />creating more problems with transparency. Commissioner Stoner spoke in support of a "one stop
<br />shop," that allow all voices to be heard and identify a specific pool of money to be spend on Parks &
<br />Recreation programs and services, and the need to then parethings back with public comment on
<br />what was kept or what was out, which would serve to keep the community happy to know that
<br />everyone wouldn?t get everything they wanted.
<br />With additional comments regarding transparency, Chair Holt concurred that it was key, and the
<br />desire of the Commission was to make the process even more transparent to the public, and that
<br />transparency was a big issue that he felt a Park Board could address from that perspective versus
<br />http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES
<br />
<br />
|