Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> PARK DEDICATION – USE OF FUNDS <br />6. <br />Public Comment from Lisa McCormick; <br /> <br /> <br />Thanked Commission for considering the acquisition of land as park dedication in the Twin Lakes <br />area. <br /> <br /> <br />McCormick inquired whether park dedication funds are dedicated to the area from which the funds <br />are collected. <br /> <br /> <br />McCormick would like to see funds used west of Snelling and suggested that a specified percentage <br />of funding be required to stay in the area from which the funds were generated. <br /> <br /> <br />Lastly, McCormick asked that park dedication funds be used to address safety concerns in the Twin <br />Lakes area. <br />Commission Comments; <br /> <br /> <br />Becker-Finn asked McCormick to provide the Commission with specifics about reports of crime. <br /> <br />Staff will check with police to learn more about possible crime activity in the Twin Lakes <br />o <br />area. <br /> <br />Following public comment, Brokke presented the Park Dedication information included in the Commission <br />Packet which included a draft of a Park Capital Funding Policy from Mayor Roe. <br /> <br /> <br />Commission voiced their concerns about the policy’s direction that could enable the Council to <br />transfer funds between sub-funds. <br /> <br /> <br />Doneen asked for a clarification on the use of CIP in this draft policy and worries that park <br />dedication funds would be used for Capital Improvement Projects. <br /> <br />Doneen commented that the ability to move park dedication funds around could lead to an <br />o <br />over-reliance on funding of Parks CIP with park dedication funds <br /> <br /> <br />Doneen also is concerned that land acquisition funds could get too lean under this policy set-up. <br /> <br /> <br />Holt questioned the set split of park dedication funds and recognizes that when an opportunity comes <br />along there needs to be a way to make it happen. <br /> <br /> <br />Holt added that a plan should be in place for the CIP to address assets without needing to tap into a <br />percentage of the park dedication funds. <br /> <br />You can’t plan for park dedication funds. <br />o <br /> <br /> <br />Stoner commented on how this policy might help others better understand how park dedication funds <br />are used/intended. <br /> <br /> <br />Newby suggested that perhaps the policy could read that the funds are only able to move one <br />direction, from the Capital sub-fund to the acquisition sub-fund. Newby also suggested that a <br />minimum level of funding be set and that the balance of a fund cannot dip below that level unless <br />being used for a significant acquisition. <br /> <br /> <br />Stoner asked Brokke to talk about his discussion with the Mayor in regards to this draft policy. <br /> <br />Brokke responded that the policy is a way to memorialize allocations and a way to protect <br />o <br />park dedication funds as Councils come & go. <br /> <br /> <br />Holt suggested taking information from this discussion to the upcoming joint meeting with the <br />finance committee. <br /> <br /> CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE REVIEW UPDATE <br />7. <br />Holt briefed the commission on the recent joint meeting between the Parks & Recreation Commission and <br />the Finance Commission. <br /> <br /> <br />Much of the meeting was spent informing the Finance Commissioners on the reasons why the Golf <br />Course is a value to the Roseville community. Holt interpreted the Finance Commission as <br />questioning the value of Cedarholm based only on the spreadsheet numbers. Holt recognized that the <br />joint meeting was enlightening for all and that the group had agreed to meet again. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />