River Road PRD Agreements - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

DRAFT May 20, 1992 To: Bob Hammitt From: J.R. Medlin SUBJECT: RIVER ROAD PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT AGREENENTS After performing a review of these two agreements I find several areas of concern. The purpose of this memo is to identify and summarize these con- cerns. I will address the shorter four page "Agreement" first, then address the longer eight page "Intergovernmental Agreement ". In general, the four page "Agreement" documents and makes formal several items that each agency agrees to PRIOR to the district being absorbed into the City. This includes revenue sharing from the City to the District and the District committing to not oppose any annexations. CONCERNS 1st agreement: Page 2, Number 1. Effective Date: This references paragraph 6 of the agreement. My concern is that this agreement is a 10 year agreement with the District having the option for an additional 10 years. That makes this a twenty year agreement. That seems excessive to me. Page 2, Number 3. Obligations of City: The city is to pay $2.50/$ 1000 of assessed value of annexed property within the District boundaries to the District. My concern is that this is over 25% of the total amount we receive. This seems excessive to me. Page 3, Number 5. Arbitration: It is always a concern to me when we lock arbitration in as our final deter- mination method. We always seem to loose arbitrations. Page 3, Number 6. Term: 1. This is the item addressed above for a twenty year agreement. 2. Under paragraph B. It looks like the arbitrator will look at our agreeing to guarantee the funding to the District necessary to provide the current service. -level in the second ten years of the agreement. This seems a promise that mig — be difficult to keep if we cannot fund our own parks. I do not see an "out" for the City if we think the level of service is excessive in comparison to that provided at City facilities. Page 4, Number 9. Automatic Termination: