2014-08-05_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville, MN - Official Website how to partner with them, or avoid competing with those private entities. Councilmember Laliberte again opined that the past needs of the community may be met with the new park buildings under construction. In speaking for senior citizens in the community, Councilmember McGehee opined that they didn't go to the private entities, but more often went to the community centers in Maplewood or Shoreview that were more geared to the older community with classes specific to their comfort level, further opining that those needs were not being met in the commercial environment. Chair Holt, in recognizing the public engagement discussions through the Master Plan process, admitted that it wasn't easy to define what actual amenities were desired, since there was a multitude of interests. In addressing costs, Chair Holt advised that the Commission, as part of the Park Renewal Program, had looked at them quite extensively, and the cost of a community center as envisioned was more than the entire bonding program. Not to discount the desire and/or need for a community center, Chair Holt realistically advised that there was no fundingavailable for one, and providing a community center was not as easy as we?d like it to be, with so many generations in the community needing to be satisfied. Given the extensive work required, Chair Holt asked that the City Council provide direction or a charge if they wanted the Commission to further study this and return with that information. Regarding the maintenance plan comments by Councilmember McGehee, Chair Holt advised that this was an important piece of the Renewal Program to maintain what was being constructed. Chair Holt advised that theCommission had no intention of not providing for such a maintenance plan, which he hoped the City Council would support, to address planning and capitalization efforts to avoid what led to the degradation of existing facilities in the first place by lack of support. Chair Holt advised that those numbers were being developed and would be put together as part of an upcoming annual and long-term CIP. Local Option Sales Tax Chair Holt noted that this had been brought to the Commission in the past as a goal and as a potential funding for a community center. Chair Holt advised that the Commission was again seeking guidance from the City Council as to whether pursue the legislative process, which was also time- consuming. If the City Council wanted the Commission to look at it further this year, Chair Holt asked that they provide specific direction to the Commission as a request for more information. Park Board Consideration Chair Holt noted that the City Council had tasked the Commission several years ago to review and consider a Park Board versus a Commission, which had taken two years to accomplish (Attachment C -research and analysis of a Park Board dated May 7, 2013). Commissioner Wall addressed this issue, including the necessary steps to establish a Park Board and the powers governing such a board under MN Statute, as detailed in the March 14, 2014 City Attorney opinion (Attachment B). Commissioner Nolan further referenced their discussion (Attachment D entitled, "Discussion regarding the legislative action to change from a commission to a board," dated May 6, 2014); and the subsequent motion passed unanimously that same date by seven Commission members in attendance. Commissioner Nolan noted that this would be a significant and involved process; and asked for the City Council's consideration, or any request for additional information. Councilmember Laliberte thanked the Commission for their work to-date, and information she?d received from watching their meetings and the information provided by the Commission, recognizing that it was well thought out. With all that being said, Councilmember Laliberte stated that she was still hesitant about creating a Park Board due to the creation of a separate taxing authority and further removed one step from residents for non-elected officials to make decisions. Councilmember Laliberte noted that she understood the rationale based on past history of why such a board was desired, but remained hesitant. Councilmember Laliberte stated that she?d prefer to meet more often with the Commission as suggested to stay on top of things of concern to them as a starting point if it was the desire of the City Council rather than establishing Park Board. Councilmember Laliberte opined if by meeting more often, especially with initiation of the Park Renewal Program projects, it would avoid the reason why a $19 million Park Renewal Project was necessary to address things done being done when they should have been done. Councilmember McGehee agreed with Councilmember Laliberte's comments for meeting more often, stating that she would not favor a Park Board at this time for many of those same reasons, for the need for the City Council to retain that direct relationship with residents and avoid the autonomy of a Board and its own taxing authority. Councilmember McGehee opined that parks are a resource for http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=&Type=&ADID=1785&PREVIEW=YES