Laserfiche WebLink
? <br />River Road Transition Option No. 1: Immediate River Road Parks and Recreation District <br /> <br />Dissolution <br /> – The Districtwould simply cease operations and dispose of its assets as it sees fit <br /> <br />and to the extent there is a market for such assets. <br /> <br />Advantages: Recognizes the probable “ultimate” parks and recreation service configuration for <br />River Road under current regional policy (e.g.: City provides services within its <br />boundaries) <br />Challenges: Eliminates a popular and successful community institution perhaps “before its <br />time”; means the loss of a local governance option for the neighborhood; <br />potential lose of a community “center” (if no operator for Emerald Park is found) <br /> <br />? <br />River Road Transition Option No. 2: Dissolution Agreement with City – <br /> Negotiate an <br />agreement with the City for transition decision-making, timing of dissolution, disposal or transfer <br />of assets, and transfer of employment of District staff (note: such an agreement has been the <br />subject of active discussion between the District and the City in the past year, and could still be a <br />pragmatic element of an overall strategy for sustaining the District for a considerable period of <br />time). <br /> <br />Advantages: Provides clarity to the timing of the District’s dissolution, disposal of assets, future <br />of District employees, etc. <br />Challenges: Local investment in and support of the District may diminish once the transition is <br />underway; may send the wrong message to District taxpayers and patrons (e.g.: <br />that the District no longer needs community support or patronage). <br /> <br />? <br />River Road Transition Option No. 3: Contract for Recreation Services through City - <br /> <br />Negotiate an agreement with the City that specifies long-term decision-making arrangements, <br />timing of the transition of the District from a direct to a contract service provider, disposal or <br /> <br />transfer of assets, and transfer of employment of District staff.District would continue as a <br />governance body but all services would be supplied by the City under contract (similar to how the <br />City provides fire protection services to all of River Road through a contract with the River Road <br />Water District). <br /> <br />Advantages: Provides clarity to the timing of the District’s disposal of assets, future of District <br />employees, etc.; continues an element of neighborhood governance in recreation <br />service delivered to River Road (e.g.: the District would still be an independently <br />governed special district) <br />Challenges: Local investment in and support of the District may diminish once the transition is <br />underway; still eliminates many elements of local control; may weaken and <br />diminish status of the District as a key local institution <br /> <br />? <br />Santa Clara Transition Options – <br /> As there are currently no “resident’ recreation services for <br />non-City property in Santa Clara, there are no services to transition and thus no transition options <br />to delineate. Options for recreation services to this neighborhood are discussed under Santa <br />Clara Heritage Options below. <br /> <br />Heritage Options <br /> <br />Heritage options are those that will sustain the River Road Parks and Recreation District as a viable <br />neighborhood service provider for the foreseeable future or create other viable entities for providing <br />neighborhood governed recreation services. <br /> <br />? <br />River Road Heritage Option No. 1: Maintain Current Service Arrangements – <br /> Continue to <br />provide River Road Parks and Recreation District services as at present with the current out-of- <br />District fees and City payment structure. A major impediment to the long-term viability of this <br />option is the continued pace of annexation combined with factors as increases in operating costs <br />30 <br />River Road/Santa Clara Transition/Heritage White Paper <br />DRAFT <br />11-24-05 <br /> <br />Service provider Review <br /> <br />