PRECA 11-12-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~> -2- ~~;~ The County has made some modifications to the original submittal which deserve attention: l) They have inserted phraseology which we requested including that approvals and development will move ahead expeditiously. See 3:1 "begin immediately" ,also 3.4, ~j In 3.2 the County has amended the original agreement to state that they will request the release of "all. programmed" funds. 3) The County has modified 3.3 to include that Council approval would occur for not only the phase development but also improvements or expansion of facilities. 4a The County staff has agreed to the insertion of 4.2 which was our staff condition not addressed in their original agreement. 5~ In 4.3 the County has indicated that they will provide operation and maintenance "consistent with the approved tester plan" which was not in the oxi.ginal agreement. In summary, it appears to me that most of our concerns have. been addressed in their staff recommendation. Agreement on ~' the action glare would still require negotiation, particularly regarding the purchase agreement, to insure that title does not transfer without development guaranteed, The other major issue is to insure that maintenance would be acceptable. The County argues that they do have an internal maintenance policy and that appeals to maintenance would occur through their staff, the County Board and even remotely to the Metropolitan Council,' We also are aware that we have the option of suggesting that the County contract with us by the terms of the agreement, which appears to be something that the Board would l.i.kdly support. My opinion is that we are at a crossroads of major proportion and that we definitely require some very specific direction from the Council. I would hope that we can accomplish this objective during the Council meeting.