Laserfiche WebLink
Pros/Cons <br />93 <br />94 <br />As theCommission considersthe best fitforRoseville and its residentsregardingtheformation <br />95 <br />ofaParkBoard,alist of potential pros andconsmaybehelpful inguidingthe discussion. The <br />96 <br />followinglist is meant to start thediscussion and is based on information alreadyprovided to the <br />97 <br />Commission and thevisitto MapleGrove: <br />98 <br />99 <br />PRO CON <br />Increased transparency Potential duplication of administrative services <br />Greater public influence – board has more <br />No longer an advisory commission <br />authority therefore lends to greater influence <br />Funding control and responsibility Added responsibilities of Board members <br />Increased Citizen engagement Increased oversight of Department staff <br />Limited City Council and City Manager <br />Increased authority over the Department staff <br />oversight/control <br />Board member increased accountability to the Public perception of implications of additional <br />residentstaxing 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 /> <br />oversight/control <br />Consistent and ongoing emphasis in Parks and <br /> <br />Recreation – through good times and bad <br />Increased staff efficiencies <br />100 <br />101 TimeSpent <br />102 <br />103 TheMaple GroveParksand RecreationBoard Memberscurrentlyspendabout 1-3 hours a <br />104 month in meetings and1-3 hours a month preparation timeonaverage.TheBoard Chair spends <br />105 abitmoretime dependingon whatisgoingon,typicallywith a onceaweek phonecalland/or <br />106 <br />meetingjustto keep open lines of communication. <br /> <br />107 <br />Summary ofCommissionDiscussiononApril2, 2013 <br />108 <br />109 <br />D. Holtintroduced the topic and indicated thatthis was a topic of interest bythe CityCouncil <br />110 <br />and that itis was important thattheCommission provideananalysisandrecommendation to the <br />111 <br />CityCouncil. <br />112 <br />113 <br />Wallindicated that he, Simbeckand staff havebeen workingtocompile information. He <br />114 <br />revieweddraft #1research andanalysisreport dated 4/2/13 that included the background, <br />115 <br />history,ParkBoard characteristics, astart ofaprosandcons list and was included in the packet. <br />116 <br />Healso mentioned that heand staffmet with the DirectorandBoard Chairof Maple GroveParks <br />117 <br />and Recreationandattended theirmeeting. His observations werethat itappeared to operatein a <br />118 <br />similarwayto Roseville. <br />119 <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br /> <br />