2010-08-03_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

In order for the question and/ or questions to be on the election ballot for the fall of 2010, a final question needs to be formulated, approved and submitted by Friday, August 20th. This timeframe would not be reasonable to allow the CAT, Parks and Recreation Commission to weigh into the final package of improvements. As a part of this process, it was a goal to create a "path to implementation". As the planning process continued, the CAT had premature discussions about how to fund the plan and appeared to be steering away from the intended "system plan" itself. I believed that a good plan will communicate itself to the community and suggested that the CAT allow the creative process to occur and continue with the completion of a great plan, rather than focus on funding prior to plan completion and understanding the entire scope. Many of the CAT members at that time indicated that they would like to be involved in the subsequent implementation stage, whatever process that entailed. Hence, they have focused on the plan with the understanding that the implementation discussion would come soon after. I now suggest that the completed plan be further and fully shared with the Community and that implementation options/methods be explored with residents and the Parks and Recreation Commission (implementation team) with the ballot question to be formulated and no later than the fall of 2011. The CAT and the Parks and Recreation Commission have been heavily vested and involved in this entire process and through the course of developing the plan have suggested that they want to be further involved in the implementation discussion, i.e. what gets implemented, when and how. A tight timeframe of an August 20th deadline for a question to be submitted will not allow reasonable time for them to be involved. If the City does decide to move forward this fall with a referendum question, based upon interpretation of the community's communicated interests and priorities, the following package would be suggested for consideration in formulating the question/questions : ITEM COST 1. * Develop a Perpetuating Trust Fund to augment existing annual funds for: o Operating and maintenance for parks, programs and facilities $SM o Annual improvements $SM $10M 2. *Natural Resource Restoration- ($200K over 10 years) $ 2M o Including EAB 3. * Improve/Renovate o Paint Roseville Skating Center - $100K o Complete a boardwalk loop at HANG - $SOOK o Fencing —various locations - $SSOK o Tennis/Basket ball Courts - $150K o Lighting —Lake Bennett - $500K 0 10 Playgrounds (10 x $70k) _ $700K o Other identified replacements, i.e. irrigation systems, - $SOOK 0 Page 2 $ 3M