Laserfiche WebLink
Davidson agreed that wording could be added to the Agreement, on page 3, sub- <br />paragraph (e). <br /> <br />Lathrop suggested striking the word mutual from the sub-paragraph. <br /> <br />Davidson suggested adding a statement to the effect that mutual funding arrangements <br />could include selling the land for development. <br /> <br />Howard agreed with Davidson. <br /> <br />Sisk suggested also adding the option of open space. <br /> <br />Lathrop explained that his suggestions are using the assumption that the City does not <br />receive the money to meet these obligations. <br /> <br />Mayer asked Light for clarification of the City's obligation for cooperating on mutual <br />funding arrangements. <br /> <br />Light replied that every contract has an implied covenant to act in good faith, therefore, <br />the obligation would be to get together with Boulder County and, in good faith, attempt <br />to identify and cooperate on other funding mechanisms. He explained that there was <br />earlier discussion of identifying and locking down a maximum liability, but that isn't <br />included because the City doesn't want the Agreement to include any liability. He stated <br />that sub-paragraph (e) is not intended to create any fiscal obligation on the City but is <br />intended to create an obligation to discuss, in good faith, other mechanisms. <br /> <br />Mayer agreed that the City of Louisville has made it very clear in the Agreement that <br />there isn't any multi-year fiscal obligation, subject to monies from the open space fund <br />being obligated to go to this area first. <br /> <br />Light replied that that pledge only applies to Parcels 2 & 3, there is no pledge to go <br />beyond that to pick up the balance of the interest in the Boulder. County Land Venture <br />parcel. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that he feels that Boulder County is providing a tremendous favor to the <br />City of Louisville, as the County is not only providing half of the funds, but they are also <br />up-fronting the money and taking the majority of the risk. <br /> <br />Davidson explained that the City of Louisville isn't specifying how the County receives <br />their $5 million back but rather providing the County with another option by which to do <br />so. He stated that there are no reasons to believe that the Northwest Parkway will not be <br />in effect, therefore, this discussion centers around something that probably won't occur. <br /> <br />Mayer agreed that this would be a moot issue if the Northwest Parkway was still in <br />effect, and expressed appreciation for Boulder County's cooperation with this Agreement. <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br /> <br />