View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
Excerpt of Joint
Council/Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes
July 16, 2007
Report Item 5.a Joint
Meeting with the Park & Recreation Commission
Report Item 5.b Update on
the Imagine Roseville 2025 Process
Joint Council/Commission Meeting – Meeting with the Parks and
Johnson spoke on behalf of the Commission and introduced commissioners
present. Parks & Recreation Commission members present included:
Harold Ristow, James Stark, Jeff Johnson, Robert Willmus, Gale Pederson, and
Klausing complimented the Commission on the recent ceremony at Harriet
Alexander Nature Center (HANC) for the vision-impaired sculptures, and
thanked the Commission for their work and achievement.
noted that this work of art display was very unique and tastefully installed
at the arboretum, and was making a significant impact on the art community.
provided a Bench Handout, attached hereto and made a part thereof, reviewing
the department’s accomplishments from 1993 to present; noting that the City’s
park acreage had increased from 504 to 680 acres, but that Park Improvement
funds were reduced a total of forty percent (40%) in the last four (4) years.
opined that the City’s park system was a remarkable asset for residents.
reviewed specific agenda items developed by the Commission for tonight’s meeting,
asking that the City Council take this discussion under consideration as they
develop the 2008 budget.
Parks & Recreation maintenance and improvement resources
inadequate to meet the demands and expectations of the community – as
verified by Imagine Roseville 2025
thanked the City Council for the $25,000 increase in the 2007 budget;
however, he noted that with the 38.5% decrease in the OVAL budget, they were
left with a deficit.
opined that he had accepted the challenge of Councilmember Pust to identify
revenue sources, and provided his interpretation of three (3) alternatives
for additional funding:
Addition of an endowment fund for park improvements similar to the
City’s Pavement Management Plan (PMP) with interest on reserved funds being
available for the department;
referendum to be used for parks. Mr. Johnson provided his calculations
on the impact of such a referendum on homeowners on an annual basis. Mr.
Johnson sought clarification from staff and the City Council as to whether
bond funds could be used for increased staff for the department, or if only
for capital improvement projects.
c) Tax Levy
increase taxes. Again, Mr. Johnson provided his calculations on the
impact to the average taxpayer on a monthly and annual basis. Mr.
Johnson noted the emotional support expressed by residents in their recent
comments during the Imagine Roseville 2025 process.
repeatedly recognized the difficult balance required and challenges of the
City Council in meeting every department’s needs; however, he also recognized
the apparent public support and ownership for the City’s park system and
their desire for it to improve and not deteriorate.
from a business perspective, opined that the current equipment was about to
compromise the integrity of the business; and asked that the department’s
capital stock be viewed as an enterprise, and not be politically driven.
advised that it was the consensus of the Parks and Recreation Commission that
those three (3) options were what needed to be considered by the City Council
in order to maintain existing structures, equipment and facilities. Mr.
Johnson opined that it was also the consensus of the Commission that what was
needed for the Roseville park system was to improve “branding” consistencies
and maintain existing facilities; that new structures weren’t needed,
including the proposed community center. Mr. Johnson advised that the
public’s message during the visioning process was loud and clear that the
City needed to take care of what we have.
among Commissioners and Council members included: the concept of an endowment
fund and discretionary appropriation of such a fund; potential voter support
of a bond issue and removing pressures from other areas with confined uses of
bond funds; and vociferous and consistent public comments and perceptions of
the deterioration of existing equipment, structures and/or facilities.
Kough suggested the possible sale some golf course property for town home
development as a way to generate funds.
advised that would be a more appropriate discussion for the City’s Housing
and Redevelopment Authority (HRA), and in conjunction with Park Master Plans,
depending on locations.
discussion included programmed park space versus open space; ongoing
available and potential assistance from various recreation associations and
their proactive dedication of time, monies and efforts to subsidize the
City’s park system; increasing utilization of fields (open space); potential
for and cost of low-maintenance turf; and in-kind monies and/or labor
maintenance normally provided by the City.
Roe, with consensus of remaining Council members, noted the need for more
prioritization of needs in the parks system by the Commission to address the
most urgent needs.
emphasized that the department was losing ground, and anticipated that the
Park Improvement Fund would need an annual $75,000 to maintain existing
facilities and equipment. Mr. Johnson recognized the tough choices
faced by Parks and Recreation Director Lonnie Brokke; and [re-]
Imagine Roseville 2025 – Discuss Commissions’ Role
commended the City Council on their acceptance of the Imagine Roseville
2025 final report; and enthusiastically supported the merits of the
process, the report, and empowerment granted to citizens in providing input
into their community. Mr. Johnson noted the challenge to implement that
vision; and sought City Council direction to the Commission in how they could
Bill Malinen noted the daunting task staff had undertaken in developing the
specific and department-wide or department-specific program goals provided to
the City Council tonight in a later agenda item. Mr. Malinen
noted that regular feedback and input from Advisory Commissions would be
welcome, following a review of the first draft by the City Council, and
anticipated Council directive to Commissions following that review.
Pust opined her desire for advisory commission involvement and input running
a parallel track along with staff and City Council review of the 42-page
document developed by staff, listing short- and long-term goals, particularly
Roe concurred with Councilmember Pust’s comments; encouraging brainstorming
by advisory commissions to allow the City Council to have more information and
ideas, as well as priorities an implementation suggestions, available for
informed consideration and decision-making processes and how goals of each
specific commission were incorporated with the community’s vision.
advised that the Commission would await direction from City Manager Malinen
through Parks and Recreation Director Brokke.
discussion included advantages and disadvantages in pursuing a city sales tax
for regional park and recreation needs; perceptions and actual impacts of
sales taxes versus property taxes on senior citizen populations; and
potential impacts on the business community, as well residents, tax
Ihlan expressed her support for pursuing a bond referendum, seeking
additional information on impacts to businesses and residents and comments
from each as to their support.
volunteered the Commission to pursue additional information with staff on
bonding referendum potentials and impacts.
briefly addressed the recent increase in park dedication fees; and advised
that the Commission was in the process of researching and updating comparison
rates in other communities to provide a norm, and anticipated bringing that
updated information and more solid research to the City Council in November
of this year.
brought forward an additional non-agenda item related to asset depreciation
to equalize future needs and legacies. Mr. Johnson opined that, as responsible
servants of the community and looking to future generations, it was
imperative that the City provide n annual sinking fund for equipment and
facilities; and opined that had this been done initially, the department
wouldn’t be facing annual budgetary spikes.
Klausing concurred, and noted that Finance Director Chris Miller proposed
depreciation schedules for park equipment and facilities.
Pust noted the balance in current needs versus future needs, and how setting
aside funds for future improvements impacted current needs; emphasizing the
need for defined revenue sources, and expressing appreciation to the
Commission for taking that initiative in identifying potential options.
Kough asked due diligence from the Commission and department to ensure that
safety was a number one priority for City equipment and facilities.
thanked the Commission for their succinct and organized presentation and on behalf
of the City Council, staff and citizens, for their continuing work on behalf
of the City of Roseville and its Park and Recreation Department.
Update – Update on the Imagine Roseville 2025 Process
Malinen provided a brief overview of the Imagine Roseville 2025 Goals
and Strategies recently detailed by staff through initial brainstorming
sessions on the public input provided during the visioning process,
incorporating proposed timelines and costs. Mr. Malinen advised that
staff would be following the document during the 2008 budget process;
however, he noted that some items would need to be phased in for future
years, depending on City Council direction and a review by Commissions, staff
and the City Council of priorities and overall city-wide needs. Mr.
Malinen noted the detail to be completed by all entities in prioritizing
items, from broad to specific programs and needs, and future facilitated
meetings to accomplish a more detailed analysis by the City Council with
included City Council consensus to receive as much public participation and
follow-up involvement as possible to provide citizen ownership of the
process, goals and strategies.
Manager Malinen was requested by City Council consensus to solicit input,
comment and priorities from each advisory commission.