Laserfiche WebLink
c,. <br /> <br />~~ t~. _ ;; <br />Operation 'and Maintenance Sutrsection 4.2 3 <br /> • ., ,:. <br />Tris County Representation appears to limit..thsir actions to <br />• our approval (s. s. 3,3). 'It is apparent, however, that this <br />`~'-~:-~-'` clause is without :effect at the.- County's discretion aftsr <br />- ~ 12-31-84. <br />.. <br />"~H. ~ f <br />Operation and MaintenanceSubsections 4.3, 4.4, ~~nd 4:5 <br /> ~'h.e County's' eomttmenta are .well reserved, (to a base l~;vel <br /> 'of services, Art. 4.3) and emphasize New Arir;Y~ton committments~ <br /> as +~ell 'as opportunities to provide more services. '~1e reque,;t <br /> quantification of he Courty's:obligations. Youx recent <br />- .documents speak to.the issue of maintenace personnel .and .cost ' <br /> a.s"well a$ lifeguards, etc. This should be updated and sub- ' <br />-. witted to a comparison test with. other regional parks. Such ~ <br />" data would provide current ~:osts and a quantification of what I <br />~' -a-;base level of services actually comprises. Without such dot, <br /> your forecasted costa are.questionable. Obviosly provision <br /> of less that adequate mainte~a~ice~and operation services would; <br />' be~ an unre~,sonab.le position. <br />II. point Powers. Agreements <br />A. Recital Saction, Articles 1 and 2 <br />' _ ~,=,- °Again we state that the .implication that the regional park is <br /> the ox~ly positive option is not necessarily representative <br />~' ; of the New Brighton public.' s view. Further, the problems <br />- - referred to with dual County, City ownership are not. stated, <br />.~~ quantifisd, or argued and we submit are not necessarily the <br />. conclusion ,of the body public. We point out that uncertainty <br />' ~;;°~ of funding..~or main~tenace and operation costs is now clearly <br /> :present in the document. As stated before, the costs need to <br />.`- be further quantified, updated, compared to other regional <br />' parks.aetual costs along with a clear delineation of which_ <br />~~.! <br />1 'costs are covered in the County's base level of services. <br />B. }` ,Arty~cle 7 <br />~. ~~;, Hew Brighton involvement as setforth in this agreement <br />' terminates at tine earliest to occur of the Metropolitan <br />~~. `COuncil's 1984 Policy Plan-Review or 1?_-31-84. Unless mutual' <br /> agreement is reached,. the Agreement f.s not revisable or extend- <br /> , <br />able. If Title to the property is in the County, if ,is :clear <br />:. the County is totaln,~ in control. This, position,. in that 'the <br />- <br />.~=~~~ and assessment.ofalter- <br />whole project lacks quantification <br />` '`- <br />' natives, emphasizes the need for New Brighton resident <br />~ ~!' approval. We submit votes approval is advisable. _' <br />~; . ,. <br />i <br />discussion has focused on the t~ta documents <br />The ~.bove <br />'~;, .- '~ • . <br />-pre•sently before the 'Park Board and City Council. We ;have.. <br />. raised our. concerns and commented on some considerations. By <br />~' ~ ' u ~ - ' , sepesate letter we will offer our .ideas. toy -,~o1ve.;"~,~ome-; of, these <br /> {! - < j <br />