My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
06-12-2013 Park Board Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Park Board
>
Park Board Meeting Packets
>
1999-2020 Park Board Packets
>
2013 Park Board Packets
>
06-12-2013 Park Board Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/10/2014 1:09:28 PM
Creation date
7/10/2014 11:15:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Park Board
Park Bd Document Type
Park Board Packet
Meeting Date
06/12/2013
Park Bd Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
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
• <br />• <br />Park Board Meeting — August 6, 2012 <br />Minutes <br />Park Board Discussion <br />The Park Board Members discussed how Anoka County and the City of Hugo implement their <br />geocaching programs. Rick told them that Hugo isn't as detailed as the county. He said that <br />Councilmember Stoesz would like the City of Lino Lakes geocaching program to be like Anoka <br />County's. <br />Park Board Members said that Lino Lakes' parks don't have adequate parking, most of the parks <br />are too small, generally houses are located on four sides of the parks (privacy) and we do not <br />want people in non - maintained areas. They also said that the park boundaries are not marked <br />and that they blend into the resident's yards. They talked about what park would and would <br />not be suitable for geocaching. <br />Members wondered if this program makes the community more desirable to live in, isn't there <br />enough recreation programs and leisure space already in the city and why do we need to do <br />this. <br />They feel this is a problem and that city staff would have to check every cache that was placed <br />in Lino Lakes. They wondered if the city has enough staff and money in the budget to do a <br />program like this. They thought that if this program was implemented maybe the city could get <br />an Eagle Scout, boy scout troop or high school student to do it. Members felt this program was <br />more than the city could do. <br />There was also discussion about placing the information on the city's website. They wanted to <br />know who was going to be doing it and who would police it. <br />In general the members felt that this should not be done implemented by the city. There is <br />already a website that has been created for people that like to do geochaching and that it <br />should just be done from that site. They don't think the city should get involved or establish city <br />rules unless there becomes a problem with this within the city. <br />6. REVIEW RECREATION DEPARTMENT UPDATE: <br />Rick reviewed the update included in the member's packets. He talked about the success of the <br />Princess Party, Spring Fling and puppet shows. He said there were approximately 420 <br />participants in the Summer Playground Program. <br />He told members that the second annual Family Corn Roast and Community Night was held on <br />August 2 at Sunrise Park. It was another great success with approximately 500 people <br />participating. A couple board members said they had attended and thought the turnout was <br />great and the music was fantastic. <br />Mr. DeGardner told the board that the registration for football and soccer is currently taking <br />place and that the numbers were up slightly from last year. He went on to say that T -Ball ended <br />with approximately 170 kids aging from 3 -6 in the programs. <br />Rick asked members to read the update and contact him if they had any questions. <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.