Laserfiche WebLink
Page 2 <br />February 27, 1989 <br />The questions that will have cu be addressed are as follows: <br />1. Since Mounds View has already contributed with cash for the development <br />of the outside facilities, should we be exempt from providing maintenance <br />for the said facility? <br />2. Can Mounds View realistically afford to maintain additional acreage when <br />the City Maintenance Budget has been reduced by approximately 6Z over <br />the last three years? <br />3. Should the City be responsible for maintaining school district facilities <br />for school sanctioned programs? <br />4. Should the City expect the school district to provide well groomed and <br />maintained facilities as part of the permit agreement when it is issued? <br />5. Can the City be asked to provide a higher level of maintenance on a school <br />district facility than they currently provide in the City park system? <br />6. In addition to the cash contribution the City has made for Edgewood, the <br />City also has expended a great deal of in -kind services as far as staff <br />time, equipment usage, and private consulting work. Should this issue <br />be raised as part of the City's contributions to date? <br />7. Since the City of Mounds View is currently the only community that has a <br />Joint Powers Agreement with the school district, should we insist that the <br />school district adhere to the policy already in existence? <br />The most important question that the municipalities and school district are <br />wrestling with is; which agency 1s ressponsibl fnr the t.,ric associati.on9? <br />-i s:" Lhat this question is of wu,jor impoL �u ._. i- cnut the athletic ass­s., <br />tions are the greatest users of the school facilities and the majority of the <br />athletic associations are organized on a school district basis. <br />Staff does not foresee the Commission being able to respond in deta:l to each of <br />the questions raised by staff, but policy direction and guidance is required. <br />