2014-03-04_PR Comm Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

93 Pros /Cons 94 95 As the Commission considers the best fit for Roseville and its residents regarding the formation 96 of a Park Board, a list of potential pros and cons may be helpful in guiding the discussion. The 97 following list is meant to start the discussion and is based on information already provided to the 98 Commission and the visit to Maple Grove: 99 PRO CON Increased transparency Potential duplication of administrative services Greater public influence — board has more authority therefore lends to greater influence No longer an advisory commission Funding control and responsibility Added responsibilities of Board members Increased Citizen engagement Increased oversight of Department staff Increased authority over the Department staff Limited City Council and City Manager oversight /control Board member increased accountability to the residents Public perception of implications of additional taxing authority Increased "ownership" by Board members Less accountable because not elected Decisions are less "political" Limited City Council and City Manager oversight /control Consistent and ongoing emphasis in Parks and Recreation — through good times and bad Increased staff efficiencies 100 101 Time Spent 102 103 The Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board Members currently spend about 1 -3 hours a 104 month in meetings and 1 -3 hours a month preparation time on average. The Board Chair spends 105 a bit more time depending on what is going on, typically with a once a week phone call and /or 106 meeting just to keep open lines of communication. 107 108 Summary of Commission Discussion on April 2, 2013 109 110 D. Holt introduced the topic and indicated that this was a topic of interest by the City Council 111 and that it is was important that the Commission provide an analysis and recommendation to the 112 City Council. 113 114 Wall indicated that he, Simbeck and staff have been working to compile information. He 115 reviewed draft #1 research and analysis report dated 4/2/13 that included the background, 116 history, Park Board characteristics, a start of a pros and cons list and was included in the packet. 117 He also mentioned that he and staff met with the Director and Board Chair of Maple Grove Parks 118 and Recreation and attended their meeting. His observations were that it appeared to operate in a 119 similar way to Roseville.