Wish folks would get their facts straight before they start ranting and raving at us.
Examples include:
The parks have come under fire for suggesting cuts to wading pools and toilet facilities, and are now looking for other places to cut, while spending large amounts of money on a questionable new headquarters building.

As stated many time before - after 120 years of rent it's about time WE OWN IT. And it is not the same pot of money as our programming funds. 


The park system has a budget of about $50 million, and the park board wants to raise the salary of the executive from the $112,000 that the current employee gets to $114,288.  They argue they can't
attract the right people without doing so.  Horse hockey.
At last Wednesday's meeting we directed staff to get the application for seeking to change the salary cap which is state driven by the Governor's salary.  We have never even talked about the amount we are seeking we are just checking out the process.  Several other Administrator's in this city have been exempted from the state regs.
Looking at the Park Board's financials, it appears there is significant overlap and duplication of management at the level just below the superintendent.  There are 6 assistants who are paid $94,000 to $96,000, according to the budget, although the budget also lists the superintendent as being $110,000, not $112,000 or $114,000.  And those are just salaries -- no overhead or benefits.  Each assistant appears to have 1 to 5 directors or managers working for them, typically with salaries in the $75,000 range.  The Park Board commissioners are expensed at $10,200 to $11,400 each for the 9 of them.
Excuse me, we currently have only four assistants.  Last year we had five.  I don't ever remember us having six assistants. And we are considering a reorganization which may reduce these by one when all is said and done.

While cities and counties state-wide are talking about merging and sharing services to save money, we have a separate park police department.  Now frankly, I think that's a good thing at the moment, because I can't imagine the Minneapolis police managing the parks.  But it's just the easiest example of duplicated services.
We are working hard on the duplication issue but I assure you a crime in the parks will get lots less attention if it is on the list of the City Police to take care of it.  And then there is the issue of  the City Council managing the park system - it's not as if they don't have enough to do already + how fast do you think we would see development around the lakes and other prime park land spaces? 

We also are working on more coordinated efforts with the school board especially in the area of youth activities.

Believe me we are trying to get a handle on this duplicative services issue.

Just some points of clarification,
Annie Young
citywide Park Commissioner



Reply via email to