Laserfiche WebLink
<br />-2- <br />As an alternative, the City should consider alternative provisions <br />that give the City a greater, if not equal, voice in determining <br />its role in long term maintenance and operation of the park. A <br />suggested revision has been: <br />7. This agtceemev~t may be ~enmina~ed and/an nenega~,i.a~ed u~an mutu.a.2 <br />cavvsev~t a~ xhe C.c~y and Cauv~ty. <br />This version is unacceptable to County staff who feel that it is <br />vo;~ restrictive on the County. It also restricts the City in that <br />if .:.he City finds the operation a 3 maintenance cost becoming a <br />burden it must have County concurrence to renegotiate the agreement.. <br />The positive side is the City has the assurance that the County <br />cannot unilaterally terminate the agreement and refuse to renegotiate <br />another. <br />The City may consider some additions/alternatives to the previous <br />options, for example: <br />-Extending the term of the initial agreement beyond the <br />1984 date. <br />-Involving a neutral third party in determining whether <br />or not the City should remain active in the operation <br />and maintenance of the park. <br />-Specifying that a portion of regional operation and <br />maintenance funds, if they become available, be allocated <br />to the City to help offset its operation and maintenance <br />costs at Long Lake Park. <br />-Designate a set of standards, criteria or conditions that <br />must exist before the agreement can be renegotiated. <br />My recommendation is that the City does now what is necessary to <br />protect its interests and forward that to the County and Metro <br />Council for their consideration. , <br />4 <br />