View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Parks & Recreation
Parks & Recreation Commission Meeting Minutes
October 2, 2012
PRESENT: Azer, Diedrick, Doneen, Etten, D. Holt, M. Holt, Ristow, Simbeck, Wall
ABSENT: Boehm contacted staff with excused absence
STAFF: Anfang, Brokke
1. INTRODUCTIONS/ROLL CALL/PUBLIC COMMENT
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 15, 2012 MEETING
Minutes for the September 15, 2012 meeting were approved unanimously. Wall abstained from vote because he was not at the meeting.
3. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT TASK FORCE REPORT
Doneen & Simbeck reported that the final draft report has been presented to the Human Rights Commission for their approval and the Task Force is looking to bring their final recommendations to the Council later this month.
4. BEGIN DISCUSSION OF A PARK BOARD
Etten introduced the agenda item and stated how these are preliminary discussions following the Council request for information and input on the possibility of a Park Board in Roseville.
· Doneen clarified content of the city Attorney’s memo in regards to the definition and processes between a Park Board and a Park District.
· Brokke provided a brief explanation of the three possible structures including a Parks & Recreation Commission, Parks & Recreation Board and a Parks & Recreation District and that a District would require legislative approval. The focus was on exploring the Park Board concept.
· Etten explained that a Parks & Recreation Board would operate similar to the HRA Board.
· Ristow questioned the need for looking into a Park Board … if things are running fine at this time why make a change. Ristow suggested tabling the discussion.
o Dave Holt reminded the commission that the Council asked for information and for the commission to research pros and cons for a Park Board.
o Commissioners brainstormed preliminary pros and cons including;
§ (+) a very transparent and identifiable system. Tax statements would specifically identify tax amounts for park services
§ (+) a Park Board could potentially involve citizens with strong interests and knowledge in park system operations
§ (+) potential to streamline/speed up some processes
§ (-) potential for duplication of services
o Wall inquired into how it might affect budgeting processes
§ Brokke explained that a Park Board would be more involved and provide leadership, direction and approve a department budget
o Simbeck recognized the need for diversity on a board to best represent a community.
· Commissioners asked staff to compile a listing of pros and cons of a Park Board based on professional practices and knowledge. Commissioners will also contribute their idea of possible advantages and concerns for a Park Board.
5. PARK & RECREATION RENEWAL PROGRAM
Etten & D. Holt introduced the most recent Renewal Program events to the commission. Holt reported on the Best Value process used for identifying the potential best value for the lead consultant position. Holt talked about how the Best Value process minimizes decision making; as you drill down through the process the decision is made for you. Holt feels that the process leads to identifying contractors who can do the job most effectively and efficiently.
Brokke informed the Commission that LHB Consulting received the highest point value through the evaluation process and was within budget. LHB also identified additional services to the community and City staff as an added value to maximize project success. Brokke continued to summarize the LHB deliverables and project recommendations. Michael Schroeder will act as project manager for LHB.
In addition to information on the Best Value process used to select the lead consultant, Brokke explained how Arizona State University is training and working with City staff on the Best Value process. As we move forward ASU and staff will take the program to the community to keep those interested informed on the process.
Citizen involvement will continue with the Renewal Program.
· Doneen has agreed to lead a committee that brings together representatives from the Parks & Recreation Commission, PWET Commission and the Roseville and Mounds View School Districts. This group’s primary role will involve pathway projects with a secondary role related to Natural Resource Management.
· Doneen and staff is also working with community members from the original implementation teams Natural Resources & Trails Workgroup to provide volunteer service as appropriate projects arise during the Renewal Program.
6. DISCUSS NOVEMBER MEETING DATE
Commissioners agreed to reschedule their next meeting to November 1, 2012 at 6:30pm to accommodate Election Day.
7. STAFF REPORT
· B2 Pathway survey is near completion
· Commissioners asked about follow-up to their September discussion on the Reservoir Woods Communications Tower
o Brokke reported that he had shared the Commissions thoughts and recommendations with the City Manager and Finance Director.
o Brokke also informed the Commission that a neighborhood letter will be sent to the community surrounding the park.
· Plans for the work in Villa Park are moving along. Work will be done in conjunction with the Capital Region Watershed Project. Villa Park improvements will follow the Watershed work and coincide with early Renewal Program scheduling.
· Upcoming Community Recreation Events Include;
o Non-Public School Marathon – Central Park – October 6
o Lions Waffle Breakfast - Skating Center – October 7
o Halloween Spook-tacular – HANC – October 27
o OVAL Opens – November 9
o FORParks Home Tour – November 9 & 10
· Diedrick & Simbeck are working on framing Commission Goals for review by the greater group at an upcoming meeting.
· Etten recognized how commissioners around the table are stepping up for extra duties and are actively participating in many ways.
· Ristow recognized the greater good that will come from the Parks and Recreation Renewal Program, in addition to upgraded parks and recreation resources, the program will put people to work in the community, including Veterans. Mr. Ristow also spoke passionately of his frustration brought on by the lawsuit that set back work on the Renewal Program by more than 6 months and cost the City more than $300,000.
Motion by Ristow asking the Commission to recommend that the Roseville City Council look into the group responsible for recent legal litigations related to the bonding program and hold those involved responsible for court costs and additional interest fees. D. Holt seconded the motion for sake of discussion.
· Commission discussion followed;
o Commissioners recognized that the Council has made the choice not to pursue any further legal process on this matter.
o Many agree that there should be some consequences for these legal delays and the actions were based on myopic personal views.
o Commissioners understood Ristow’s (and other’s) frustration because people responsible for the legal actions are not being held accountable;
§ Commissioners reminded themselves and others that citizens have the philosophical right to bring forward a case if they feel the governmental process is not being followed. It is the hope that a due process is handled in a timely and prudent manner.
§ Commissioners also spoke passionately about the need for the City to heal, move forward and focus on future positives.
Following the discussion, Ristow withdrew his motion.
Meeting adjourned at 7:50pm
Jill Anfang, Assistant Director