Laserfiche WebLink
WMMI has J_~dicat~d~ that the issue of liability might be <br />approached under the ~o_low3.ng concept: <br /> <br />City ~L~ould assum( liability for exposure due to recreational <br />use of the <br /> <br />WMM~ v~ould hold %he City harmless on environmental exposure <br />issue~. <br /> <br />WMM]i would detail the ground rules for use, management and <br />maint~nance (~f the ski area required of the city. If the <br />City ~:oncur.~; and operates according to the operational <br />proced~ures, the bol.~] harmless provision would remain in <br />effect. If it was determined that the City had not <br />performed in accoud~nce with the requirements, the City may <br />be liable for 'tho~]e actions which contributed to the <br />speci~- ic problem. <br /> <br />As is appazent, there ~;~ a number of questions that arise which <br />can only be addressed [~hrough specific agreement. <br /> <br />Is the ski hill a~ proposed a recreational asset? Is there <br />a demand for a sk.[ area in Ramsey? Will this particular <br />type of ski area, with its restrictions, meet that demand? <br />To fully answer tills question, a review of regional and <br />state ~ecreation [~lans should be undertaken, and market <br />analysis or use s~eys should be conducted at least at the <br />city level. <br /> <br />Additionally, it w~'~ld be beneficial if WMMI could provide <br />examples an~ details o~i[ similar successful facilities constructed <br />on comparabl, e land~._~ll~ elsewhere in the country. <br /> <br />WMMI pointed out that ~ workable solution in the past provided an <br />active s].edding area for area residents. The City, however, must <br />note the changes that t~ave occurred not only with the facility <br />itself but also in the entire arena of liability exposure. <br /> <br />III COST OF PRO~OSED CCMMI.,TMENTS TO WMMI <br /> <br />At first glance, the d(~llar cost of this WMMI proPOSal for the <br />ski hill would seem to be 0 since all proposals~need to be <br />approved by the regula~_ory agencies, which may not approve the <br />same. Since development is questionable, due to the.required <br />approvals~ ~here may be no develoPment costs incurred.~..There is <br />no committment for operation or maintenance costs of the ski i~. <br />area. There is no comm~ittment as far as who will pay'the cost.~ <br />of environmental controls to protect the vegetation. And <br />finally, th~re is no cc~ittment to provide funds for supervision <br />or insuranc~. As stated in Section I above, the cost of the <br />clean-up day is mini.mai compared to WM~I's annual operating <br />budget. ~ <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br /> <br />