2017-9-5_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

To:Parks and Recreation Commission From:Lonnie Brokke Date:August 30, 2017 Re: Notes for Commission Meeting onTuesday, September 5, 2017 Introductions 1. Public Comment Invited 2. Approval of Minutes of the August 3,2017Meeting 3. Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of August 3, 2017.Please be prepared to approve/amend. Requested Commission Action:Approve/amend meetingminutesof August 3, 2017. Comprehensive Plan – Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Review and Update 4. The Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Goals and Policies are in the review process as part of the City Comprehensive Plan update. These will eventually substitute those currently in the Parks, Open Space and Recreation Section in the Comprehensive Plan. Theenclosed spreadsheet is the review process that you arrived at in your May 2,2017 meeting, which lists the Goals and Policiesand then indicateswhether to keep, delete or revise. Areviewof Goaland Policies #1wasat your June6, 2017meeting. A review ofGoals and Policies #2, #3 and #4was at your August 3, 2017 meeting. A review of Goals and Policies #4, #5 and #6 will beat this meeting(September 5, 2017). Are-review of all sections will occur in October forfinalreview and recommendation. These Goals and Policies are relatively recent andwere developed by the Community and adopted by the City Council in 2010 as part of the Master Plan update. Requested Commission Action:Review/Comment onGoals and Polices#4, #5 and #6 Park Dedication Method Discussion 5. This is a topic that the City Council was interested in the Commission’s review and recommendation. The Commission had a lengthy discussion at the August 3, 2017 meeting (please reference draft minutes). It was feltthat because there were three Commission members absentfrom that meeting, a brief review of the topic was in order for this meeting for any additional input. The Commission discussed the benefits of the current method using comparisons of surrounding cities,the Master Plan andthe Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Specifically, that it seemsappropriate,clear, concise, and understandable. Other cities use the same method. The Commissionreviewed the systematic League of MNCities Method. They commented that it seems complex andmay allow more room for interpretation/negotiation.