COMMISSION_MINUTES_1979-10-25 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMO T0: Mounds View Parks and Recreation Commission FROM: Staff — DATE: October 23, 1979 RE: Joint Powers Agreement with School District #621 Regarding Outside Facilitv Usage As you are aware, the City executed a Joint Powers Agreement with School District X621 in June, 1978 relating to the development of Edgewood Jr. High. We turrently have compteted the second phase of development and will be constructing four tennis courts in 1980 and a park shelter building in 1981 to camplete the development. There has been a great deal of change since the initial Joint Powers Agreement was developed in June, 1978. Among the changes are the following: 1. The City of Shoreview did not participate in the development of Chippewa Jr. High School as originally proposed. 2. There is serious consideration as to whether or not the City of New Brighton will be participating in the development of Highview Jr. High School. 3. The City of Arden Hills never has been willing to participate in the programmin9 at Johanna Jr. High. 4. It appears that the City of Mounds Uiaw is the only comnunity that has con- tributed actual cash in the development of the jr. hiqh school facilities. The City's casA contribution will total $31,000 as we have expended $6,000 in -� 1979 for players benches> backstops and fertilization and an additional $25,000 ._ as proposed for tennis courts in 1980. Because of the aforementioned issues and others, a new 3oint Powers Agreement has been drafted b,y the School Board regarding the City's contribution for maintenance of the outside facilities at Edgewood Jr. High School. The questions that are raised by this�proposal include: 7. Si�e Mounds View has aiready contributed with cash for the develoqnent of the outside facilities, should we be exempt from provSding maintenance for the said facility4 2. Can Mounds View realistically afford to maintain additional acreage erhen the City Maintenance Budget has been reduced by approximately 6% over the last three years. 3. Should the City be responsible for maintaining school distrTct facilitles for school sanctioned programs? 4. Should the City expect the school district to provide we11 groamed and main- tained facilities as part of the permit agreement when it is issuedl 5. Can tbe City be asked to provide a higher level of maintenance on a school district facility than they currently provide in the City park system4 6. In addition to the cash contribution the Cit,y has made for Edgewood, the C1ty also has expended a great deal of in-kind services as far as sYaff time, � equipment usage, and private cansulting work. Should this issue also be raised as part of the City's contributions to date7 � ;