2015-12-01_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

See pages 7 - 15 - for excerpt of the Park & Recreation joint meeting. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, November 16, 2015 Page 8 1 mendations of the Finance Commission and responses outlined in Attachment A 2 from the Parks & Recreation Commission. 3 4 City Council and Park & Recreation Commission Discussion 5 Councilmember McGehee stated as a Councilmember and resident in a different 6 part of the City, she was not excited about this draft policy or suggesting addi- 7 tional park acquisitions when historically the City continued to have shortfalls in 8 funding existing assets in the park system. Specific to acquisitions, with the City 9 Council's powers as a Port Authority (PA), Housing & Redevelopment Authority 10 (HRA) and/or Economic Development Authority (EDA);, Councilmember 11 McGehee suggested if an opportunity for acquisition became available that would 12 benefit the entire community, she didn't see why the City Council Wouldn't take 13 that under advisement. However, at this point in time, Councilmember McGehee 14 noted that the City was not receiving much interest on reserve monies, and there - 15 fore to ask that $1 million remain in that fund without any particular interest earn - 16 ings generated, while continuing to seek funds to be levied from taxpayers to con - 17 tinue funding general maintenance and improvements she found very worrisome. 18 19 Additionally, Councilmember McGehee stated that another issue not addressed at 20 all was the possibility of retaining some funding in the area from which it came. 21 Since most development was happening on the west side of Roseville, Coun- 22 cilmember McGehee noted that most expenditures were on the east side. Coun- 23 cilmember McGehee noted that there was a lot of development or redevelopment 24 potential in the Twin Lakes area, and interest expressed in more land acquisition 25 around Langton Lake. Even though this continued to be a long-term request by 26 Roseville citizens and taxpayers, Councilmember McGehee noted this proposed 27 policy appeared to offer no guarantee that monies would be spent there, at least 28 given historical experiences in things becoming available for acquisition in parts 29 of the community that had not been acted upon. 30 31 Councilmember McGehee stated she would like to see that addressed in this pro - 32 posed policy, and reiterated her concern in having $1 million sitting there for ac - 33 quisition until a reasonable level of sustainability was reached with existing assets 34 needing attention, not only in the parks & recreation area. 35 36 As far as park dedication fees are concerned, Councilmember Willmus clarified 37 that 'state statute clearly dictated specific uses allowable for those funds, specifi- 38 cally acquisition or improvements, but not ongoing, day-to-day operations. 39 '$Councilmember Willmus thanked the Parks & Recreation and Finance Commis - 40 sions for making note of those restrictions in their deliberations and recommenda- 41 tions. 42 43 Councilmember Etten expressed appreciation for the work of both commissions in 44 working on this policy recommendation coming forward tonight; and noted his 45 understanding based on discussions with City Manager Trudgeon was that the