My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2017-10-3_PR Comm Packet
Roseville
>
Commissions, Watershed District and HRA
>
Parks & Recreation
>
Parks & Recreation Commission
>
Packets
>
2017
>
2017-10-3_PR Comm Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2017 1:59:22 PM
Creation date
9/28/2017 1:59:13 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
132The totalapproved project costs include: <br />Project CostAmount <br />Actual Project Cost$2,953,900 <br />Alternative #2: Certified Lumber$82,000 <br />Total Project Cost$3,035,900 <br />133 <br />134Vice-Chair O’Brien questioned if the utilization of the Golf Course Fund means <br />135that it will bechangedfrom an Enterprise fund.Staffconfirmed that at this time it <br />136isan Enterprise Fund as there arestill some monies remaining.Further discussion <br />137on this topic are expected in the future. <br />138 <br />139Commissioner Stoner was concerned about the amount ofthe Park Dedication <br />140fund utilized for the Cedarholm Community Buildingproject. However, <br />141expressed appreciationthat the project is moving forward. <br />142 <br />City Council Joint Meeting Review <br />143ii. <br />144Commissioner O’Brien commented that the City Councilappeared to have <br />145specific requestsfor the Commissionin terms of the Capital Improvement Plan <br />146(CIP). <br />147 <br />148Staffagreed andsuggested that they provide background information on the <br />149Capital Improvement Plan(CIP)at anupcoming meeting. <br />150 <br />151The Commission had a discussion onthejoint meeting and the feedback they <br />152received from the City Council includingcapital assetsandlobbying forthe <br />153OVAL bondingat the legislature.They agreed that they would like to increase <br />154their understanding and participationin these items.Staff will provide <br />155background information at an upcoming meeting. <br />156 <br />157Commissioner Stonernoted that he felt theCouncilhad adesire for the Parks and <br />158Recreation Commission to be moreactive on a variety of issues and to come up <br />159with the next “big push”. <br />160 <br />161Vice-ChairO’Brienreiteratedthe feeling that the City Council was looking for <br />162the “next big thing”and that the Master Plan is not done. She also suggested <br />163creatingaprogresstracking system to assess thestatus ofremainingMaster Plan <br />164items. <br />165 <br />166Staff stated thatPhase 1of the Renewal Programis complete. Phase 2 is to sustain <br />167those items that were accomplishedin Phase 1.A community center is also <br />168identifiedin the Master Plan as a desire by the community. <br />169 <br />170Chair Gelbachquestionedhowbestto communicatewhat has been done. He <br />171suggested devisingaplanto get accomplishments outto the community. <br />172 <br />173 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.