My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2015-05-05_PR Comm Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2015
>
2015-05-05_PR Comm Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/6/2015 11:19:23 AM
Creation date
5/6/2015 11:18:06 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
51 o Becker -Finn voiced her concern for setting precedence by splitting the park and the <br />52 effects on more areas throughout the City. <br />53 o Newby inquired into a way of arriving at the preservation sense of the park without <br />54 dividing it up. <br />55 An active discussion around the Commission table continued, with commissioners inquiring into <br />56 how classifications of other parks around the City were recognized. <br />57 • Gelbach commented that he views how the City cares for woodland areas as conservancy <br />58 parks no matter what they are classified. <br />59 o Holt commented that he feels that reclassification does not affect how properties are <br />60 viewed and considered for development & management. Changing a classification <br />61 does not have any impact on how a park is dealt with. All commissioners are <br />62 concerned about our natural resources. <br />63 o Stoner summarized that the neighborhood is concerned about Twin Lakes and <br />64 impacts on Twin Lakes. And recognized the petition from the community and look to <br />65 have future discussions on whether the commission should make a recommendation <br />66 to the Council. <br />67 <br />68 Commission Recommendation: <br />69 • Motion by Doneen, second by Gelbach, to accept the community petition. <br />70 • Nomination passed unanimously. <br />71 <br />72 Lisa McCormick asked for information on the park dedication process and recent actions by the <br />73 Commission. <br />74 <br />75 Anfang recognized a commentary from Rita Mix supporting the petition submitted by McCormick. <br />76 <br />77 6. CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE DISCUSSION <br />78 Golf Course Superintendent joined the Commission Table for the Golf Course discussion. <br />79 <br />80 Brokke summarized the upcoming discussion explaining capital needs, shift in course usage and <br />81 Council requests to review operations, uses, financial position, capital improvement needs and make <br />82 a recommendation. <br />83 <br />84 Cedarholm was built in 1959, it was acquired by the City in 1967 and operates as an enterprise fund. <br />85 <br />86 Golf Course staff are shared with other areas within the Parks & Recreation Department including <br />87 turf management and marketing services. <br />88 <br />89 Commissioners questioned why we can't just raise fees to expand revenues. McDonagh explained <br />90 that our fees are based on the local market for similar courses and the philosophy to serve the local <br />91 golf community. We achieve the revenues we do because of our strength in rounds played. If we <br />92 raise green fees do we chase away the young golfers or the family golfing together. <br />93 • Gelbach commented that an additional $2/round will balance the budget. How do we <br />94 recognize that increase without raising the fees. <br />95 <br />96 Holt inquired into bringing together a brainstorming group from a range of industry professionals to <br />97 share information. <br />98 <br />99 7. PARK and RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM STATUS <br />100 • 4 Park Buildings are completed and opened for use, 2 more buildings are coming online in <br />101 April. <br />102 0 Work continues on the Park Shelters with facilities opening April 15. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.