My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2002_1107_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2002
>
2002_1107_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2014 1:28:58 PM
Creation date
10/25/2010 1:49:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
61
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
Community Center — Is it Right for Roseville? <br />My name is Don Anderson. We have been residents of Roseville for 36 years and reside at <br />948 W. County Road D. We are in Roseville, but unfortunately the Postal Service has us in zip <br />code "55126". <br />I have been an active volunteer in the city, including 7'/z years on the Parks and Recreation <br />Commission, 5 of those as Chair, from 1992 to 2000. This was a period of growth in the city's <br />recreational resources, the Oval, Reservoir Woods, Owasso Hills and Pioneer Park were <br />established; many existing facilities were upgraded and plans for Lexington Park were <br />developed. During this time I also served on the Parks Infrastructure Committee and the City <br />Center Committee. Currently I serve as President of the North Suburban Gavel Association. <br />However, my comments should not be taken as a statement from that organization. <br />While serving on the Infrastructure and City Center committees, many of the community <br />centers in the metropolitan area were visited -- from Maplewood and Shoreview to Plymouth, <br />Maple Grove and Chaska, and all points in between. Do we need a facility as large as some of <br />those we saw? Probably not, but we could incorporate some of the features found; features <br />that should reflect the wishes of the residents of our city. Meeting rooms with a large theater <br />auditorium, Parks and Recreation staff offices, limited fitness facilities, storage facilities for <br />Roseville youth groups, possibly some type of water park (though not on the scale of <br />Shoreview's) seem to be favored by user groups. One has to keep in mind that Senior Center <br />activities at the Fairview Community Center are in a facility that is on borrowed time and may <br />have to be relocated. That is why it is so important to coordinate our plans with those of the <br />school district. <br />City staff should look at the final phase of the Oval development, which recommended some of <br />the above facilities. I feel we should limit the community center expansion to our existing city <br />hall site. I believe we can accommodate this expansion without moving the public works <br />facility. (I left the City Center committee because, I felt, the idea of also including housing on <br />this site was unrealistic if we were to incorporate any of the community center, police and fire <br />needs on this site). <br />Roseville does need some sort of a community center, surveys and public comment attest to <br />that. However, the size and nature of such a facility must depend on public input and study as <br />well as a cooperative effort with the school district. If this isn't done — and a one night public <br />meeting isn't sufficient study time — any referendum is doomed for failure. Witness what <br />happened a number of years ago, when a second ice rink and other recreational facilities were <br />proposed and, I feel, the public was not fully informed or educated on the need. That proposed <br />referendum also conflicted with a referendum presented by the school district. <br />My final comments -- when we looked into the feasibility of having a private fitness firm run a <br />community facility, the data did not favor the citizenry. The fees charged soon offset any <br />discount given to community residents. Also, given the proposed budget cuts on city services, <br />under the existing government structure, how can such a facility be staffed and operated it at <br />the level the public demands without further deteriorating other public services? <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.