Laserfiche WebLink
43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />47 <br />48 <br />49 <br />50 <br />51 <br />52 <br />53 <br />54 <br />55 <br />56 <br />57 <br />58 <br />59 <br />60 <br />61 <br />62 <br />63 <br />64 <br />65 <br />66 <br />67 <br />68 <br />69 <br />70 <br />71 <br />72 <br />73 <br />74 <br />75 <br />76 <br />77 <br />78 <br />79 <br />80 <br />81 <br />82 <br />83 <br />o The City should be united in its pursuit of a Park Board, demonstrated by: <br />• The Parks Commission adopting a resolution declaring support for Park <br />Board legislation (need unanimity due to its political nature) and followed <br />by: <br />• The City Council adopting a resolution declaring support for Park Board <br />legislation (again need unanimity) <br />• Local Representative must author the bill and get it passed through <br />appropriate committees <br />• Must pass majority vote of both chambers <br />• Must be signed into law by Governor <br />• City and community must lobby the legislature for support <br />• If Parks and Recreation chooses to pursue legislative action, we are about a year out on <br />the legislative timeline for an action like this. <br />• Future City Council make -up might not be as propitious and advantageous for Parks and <br />Recreaction as our current Council make -up. <br />Opportunities <br />• The Roseville Housing Redevelopment Authority (HRA) was approved by the legislature <br />using a process similar to what the Parks and Recreation Commission would have to <br />undergo (the HRA process has set a pattern for the process that we could follow). <br />• Future City Council make -up might not be as propitious and advantageous for Parks and <br />Recreation as our current Council make -up. A Board structure would assure a strong and <br />benevolent advocacy for Parks and Recreation. <br />• Increased "ownership" in the management of the City's parks and recreation system by <br />Board members. <br />• Increased accountability for Board members by the residents. <br />Threats <br />• Higher time commitment by members. Board activities would include more time from <br />board members to: <br />• Review budget <br />• Make personnel decisions <br />• Review projects <br />• Long and involved legislative process to achieve desired outcomes <br />• Future City Councils might not be as committed to funding parks and recreation at a level <br />necessary to maintain the existing investment <br />• Future economic circumstances may entice budget reductions which compromise the <br />maintenance and expansion of services (underscores need for a strong advocating body) <br />• Public perception of implications of additional taxing authority <br />• Board members may have less accountability because they are not elected and are <br />making decisions that were formerly considered by the Council <br />2 <br />