Laserfiche WebLink
52 <br />53No public comment took place on this item. <br />54 <br />PARK DEDICATION –USE OF FUNDS <br />556. <br />56Public Comment from Lisa McCormick; <br />57Thanked Commission for considering the acquisition of land as park dedication in the Twin <br />58Lakes area. <br />59McCormick inquired whether park dedication funds are dedicated to the area from which the <br />60funds are collected. <br />61McCormick would like to see funds used west of Snelling and suggested that a specified <br />62percentage of funding be required to stay in the area from which the funds were generated. <br />63Lastly, McCormick asked that park dedication funds be used to address safety concerns in <br />64the Twin Lakes area. <br />65Commission Comments; <br />66Becker-Finn asked McCormick to provide the Commission with specifics about reports of <br />67crime. <br />68Staff will check with police to learn more about possible crime activity in the Twin <br />o <br />69Lakes area. <br />70 <br />71Following public comment, Brokke presented the Park Dedicationinformationincluded in the <br />72Commission Packet which included a draft of a Park Capital Funding Policy from Mayor Roe. <br />73Commission voiced their concerns about the policy’s direction that could enable the Council <br />74to transfer funds between sub-funds. <br />75Doneen asked for a clarification on the use of CIP in this draft policy and worries that park <br />76dedication funds would be used for Capital Improvement Projects. <br />77Doneen commented that the ability to movepark dedication funds around could lead <br />o <br />78to an over-reliance on funding of Parks CIP with park dedication funds <br />79Doneen also is concerned that land acquisition funds could get too lean under this policy <br />80set-up. <br />81Holt questioned the set split of park dedication funds and recognizes that when an <br />82opportunity comes along there needs to be a way to make it happen. <br />83Holt added that a plan should be in place for the CIP to address assets without needing to tap <br />84into a percentage of the park dedication funds. <br />85You can’tplan for park dedication funds. <br />o <br />86Stoner commented on how this policy might help others better understand how park <br />87dedication funds are used/intended. <br />88Newby suggested that perhaps the policy could read that the funds are only able to move <br />89one direction, from the Capital sub-fund to the acquisition sub-fund. Newby also suggested <br />90that a minimum level of funding be set and that the balance of a fund cannot dip below that <br />91level unless being used for a significant acquisition. <br />92Stoner asked Brokke to talk about his discussion with the Mayor in regards to this draft <br />93policy. <br />94Brokke responded thatthe policy is a way to memorialize allocations and a way to <br />o <br />95protect park dedication funds as Councils come & go. <br />96Holt suggested taking information from this discussion to the upcoming joint meeting with <br />97the finance committee. <br />98 <br />CEDARHOLM GOLF COURSE REVIEW UPDATE <br />997. <br />100Holt briefed the commission on the recent joint meeting between the Parks & Recreation <br />101Commission and the Finance Commission. <br /> <br />