Laserfiche WebLink
Attachment C <br />93 Pros/Cons <br />94 <br />95 As the Commission considers the best fit for Roseville and its residents regarding the formation <br />96 of a Park Board, a list of potential pros and cons may be helpful in guiding the discussion. The <br />97 following list is meant to start the discussion and is based on information already provided to the <br />98 Commission and the visit to Maple Grove: <br />99 <br />100 <br />101 <br />102 <br />103 <br />PRO CON <br />Increased transparency Potential duplication of administrative services <br />Greater public influence — board has more <br />authority therefore lends to greater influence No longer an advisory commission <br />Funding control and responsibility Added responsibilities of Board members <br />Increased Citizen engagement Increased oversight of Department staff <br />Increased authority over the Department staff Limited City Council and City Manager <br />oversight/control <br />Board member increased accountability to the Public perception of implications of additional <br />residents taxing authority <br />Increased "ownership" by Board members Less accountable because not elected <br />Decisions are less "political" <br />Limited City Council and City Manager <br />oversight/control <br />Consistent and ongoing emphasis in Parks and <br />Recreation —through good times and bad <br />Increased staff efficiencies <br />Time Spent <br />The Maple Grove Parks and Recreation Board Members currently spend about 1-3 hours a <br />104 month in meetings and 1-3 hours a month preparation time on average. The Board Chair spends <br />105 a bit more time depending on what is going on, typically with a once a week phone call and/or <br />106 meeting just to keep open lines of communication. <br />107 <br />108 <br />109 <br />110 <br />111 <br />112 <br />113 <br />Summary of Commission Discussion on Apri12, 2013 <br />D. Holt introduced the topic and indicated that this was a topic of interest by the City Council <br />and that it is was important that the Commission provide an analysis and recommendation to the <br />City Council. <br />114 Wall indicated that he, Simbeck and staff have been warking to compile information. He <br />115 reviewed draft #1 research and analysis report dated 4/2/13 that included the background, <br />116 history, Park Board characteristics, a start of a pros and cons list and was included in the packet. <br />117 He also mentioned that he and staff inet with the Director and Board Chair of Maple Grove Parks <br />118 and Recreation and attended their meeting. His observations were that it appeared to operate in a <br />119 similar way to Roseville. <br />3 <br />