Laserfiche WebLink
ROSEVILLE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION <br />1 <br />MEETING MINUTES FOR <br />2 <br />JUNE 2, 2015 <br />3 <br />ROSEVILLE CITY HALL~6:30pm <br />4 <br />5 <br />PRESENT: <br />6Becker-Finn, Bogenholm, Diedrick, Doneen, Gelbach, Heikkila, Holt, Newby, <br />7O’Brien, Stoner <br />STAFF: <br />8Anfang,Brokke <br />OTHERS: <br />9Roger Hess Jr. <br />10 <br />INTRODUCTIONS <br />111. <br />12 <br />ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT <br />132. <br />14No initial public comment at this time. <br />15Community member Roger HessJr.joined the commission meeting for the follow up <br />16discussion on the Cedarholm Golf Course. <br />17 <br />APPROVAL OF MINUTES –MAY 5,2015MEETING <br />183. <br />19May 5, 2015 minutes approved with a clarification by Nancy O’Brien for the reporting listed on <br />20line 62. <br />21On May 52015, O’Brien inquired as to whether staff has studied the time spent by Golf <br />22Course personnel on tasks away from the course and elsewhere in the parks & recreation <br />23system as well as, the amount of time being spent on work being done by other parks & <br />24recreation staff at the golf course. <br />25 <br />PARK DEDICATION –2715 LONG LAKE ROAD <br />264. <br />27Brokke briefed the commission on the identified property. What makes this park dedication <br />28discussion unique is that it deals with a CIC (Common Interest Community). Proposed work at this <br />29property triggers a park dedication discussion because the property owner is expanding the existing <br />30foot print resulting in a replatof the property. <br />31Commission discussed what criteria trigger discussions on park dedication. <br />32 <br />Commission Recommendation: <br />33 <br />34Motion by Holt, second by Gelbach, to recommend the Council accept cash in lieu of land <br />35for park dedication on the 2715 Long Lake Road redevelopment. <br />36Motionpassed unanimously. <br />37 <br />FOLLOW UP TO THE CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE TOUR <br />385. <br />39Following a brief introduction by Chairman Stoner the Commission moved right into questions. <br />40Commissioners inquired into; <br />41profit & loss discussions <br />42how we can make the GC work from a property management perspective <br />43who the golf course users are <br />44ways to absorb costs into the greater City budget <br />45Commissioners also spoke toward; <br />46looking at the big picture for the golf course and addressing financial considerations beyond <br />47just capital needs <br />48recognizing the golf course’s true value to our community <br />49recognizing the level of financial deficit over the past few years <br /> <br />