Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTE5 <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />JANUARY 8, 1992 <br />the committee had with representatives from Roseville. <br />Blesener pointed out that the City Manager of Roseville <br />has indicated that the benefit to Roseville in this <br />would be the $30,000 Little Canada would pay Roseville <br />to administer the program. Roseville has indicated <br />that it believes it could administer Little Canada's <br />program without the addition of staff. The Roseville <br />City Manager felt that Roseville had a efficiency of <br />scale to offer, and that the Little Canada program <br />could be added by maximizing those efficiencies. <br />Blesener felt that if Roseville could maximize that <br />efficiency, they could probably save themselves money <br />without need for the added revenue from Little Canada. <br />Blesener pointed out that the Little Canada program <br />would add 25% to Roseville staff's present workload, <br />and Blesener did not think that could happen. <br />Blesener pointed out the comments from the January 2nd <br />meeting which indicated that Little Canada programs <br />would operate under the name and guidance of Little <br />Canada. Blesener stated that this would require <br />someone from Little Canada to oversee the program, and <br />he pointed out that the City Administrator is already <br />spending too many nights and hours on the job can the <br />Council could not add to his duties. <br />Blesener stated that in looking at the Roseville <br />option, he believes there is a lot more in it for <br />Roseville than for Littl Canada. Blesener felt that <br />the City had to direct its own recreation programs, and <br />can still have the best of both worlds. <br />LaValle stated that when he came this evening he felt <br />that the City needed to continue to explore the <br />Roseville option, and felt that a lot of the concerns <br />expressed this evening could be worked out. However, <br />after the input this evening, LaValle felt that the <br />Roseville option should be tabled and the City should <br />start going through the resumes. LaValle did state, <br />however, that comments made with reference to the <br />recreation committee were incorrect, and that everyone <br />was well aware of the Council's direction to that <br />committee. <br />Scalze stated that she would like to keep an open mind <br />and look at both options. Scalze reported that she has <br />been a LCRA member for 15 years and has put in a lot of <br />hours with the LCRA. Scalze stated that she is <br />disappointed to think that if the City Council does not <br />do what the LCRA wants, the LCRA will fold. Scalze <br />stated that she perceives this as a threat, and asked <br />if this is what charitable gambling money has reduced <br />us to. Scalze stated that under either option she as a <br />LCRA member would continue to work fund-raisers and <br />coach Little Canada children. <br />Page 18 <br />