City Council Minutes 1999 05 18 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Davidson asked to clarify that if the Northwest Parkway doesn't provide the $5 million by June 1, 2002, then the Agreement is still in place. There is no provision in the Agreement that has a specific date by which the road will be built. He stated that this could result in a scenario by which construction on the Parkway would not begin until 2007. He agreed that, should this happen, Boulder County would begin looking for a way to recover their $5 million. The Northwest Parkway Agreement would only allow them to recover that money with these residential units. He stated that the Northwest Parkway Agreement only states that the road will be built sometime within thirty years, therefore, the Agreement wouldn't become null and void until afterwards unless all four parties to the Agreement decide to dissolve it. Mayer asked Light for clarification that there are no time limits in the Northwest Parkway Agreement. Light replied that the Agreement is ultimately good for thirty years. However, as far as setting up the Highway Authority and financing it, the obligation is that any authority, as part of the funding of the highway, has to include $10 million for open space. They do not have to do so within a certain period of time. Mayer asked Light whether the City of Louisville is obligated, at all, to provide any of the $5 million. Light replied that if the $5 million is not provided by the highway finance entity pursuant to the Agreement, the City's obligation is only that Louisville and the County agree to cooperate on mutual funding arrangements to substitute for the $5 million. Mayer agreed with Lathrop regarding including an option other than residential. He suggested consulting with Boulder County on this issue, as they are providing the $5 million up-front. Davidson replied that he did not believe the County would object to the addition of some broader wording. Lathrop stated that sometimes, agreements are not read carefully until they unravel. He cited the statement mutually agree to fund as an example of wording that is not clearly defined. He stated that the Agreement is ambiguous in its default positions, therefore, he would like them clarified. Howard stated that since Boulder County owns the property, they are the ones that need to provide the money. He stated that he would like to provide additional options for Boulder County to recover their money. He agreed with Lathrop regarding clarification of the Agreement, as the only mechanism that will be available to future City Councils and Boulder County Commissioners is what is written in the Agreement. He suggested adding the statement: or other land uses that the City and the County agree to, subject to the Northwest Parkway Agreement. 10