Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />May 22, 2001 <br />Page 3 <br />with the changes to the SRU approval. I did put at your places a copy of that settlement <br />agreement that we've been working on today with Public Service Company's attorneys. <br />The settlement agreement is essentially ancillary to the requested changes to the <br />resolution of approval but it would have the affect of taking care of the pending litigation <br />over this special review use permit. The settlement agreement that you have in front of <br />you is very similar to the document that was e-mailed to you this afternoon, I'll just run <br />through it briefly. The agreement recites the various factual background of where we've <br />been with respect to the City hearings, Public Service Company hearings, the existing <br />conditions that are in place for the transmission line upgrade and some additional <br />background about the filing of the lawsuit in Boulder County District Court on April 5 of <br />this year. It recites that a settlement has been proposed whereby the City would make <br />certain amendments to the special review use approval and, in exchange, for a <br />commitment by Public Service Company that it would agree to all of the conditions of the <br />City's SRU approval including this evening's amendments. The timing of this is such that <br />the pending lawsuit has been put on hold until tomorrow, to allow for your consideration <br />of the amendments to the SRU approval and to allow your consideration of the settlement <br />agreement. Would note that in paragraph six of the settlement agreement, which is on <br />page three that you have in front of you, there is some language discussing the meter that <br />would be provided to the City, providing some more particulars on how that wouM be <br />handled. That states that upon completion of the project, Public Service Company would <br />loan to the City one hand-held gauss meter that Louisville residents could use to measure <br />EMF levels themselves for a period of up to two years after the meter is provided. That <br />meter would then be returned to Public Service Company. The additional language in the <br />settlement agreement deals essentially with dismissal of the lawsuit, release of claims <br />that have been brought in the lawsuit, and the issue of the Mayor's consideration and <br />approval of adjustments in location of poles. Public Service Company has requested that <br />ten poles be allowed to be moved a distance of up to eighty-five feet. As currently <br />structured, the way that would work is that the Mayor would again look at the proposed <br />adjustments with Public Service Company and tomorrow, if acceptable to both parties, <br />his written approval would be given to Public Service Company so that they would have <br />the authorization they need to make the adjustments of those ten poles. Couple other <br />minor changes to that agreement from the version that you saw this afternoon - because <br />there is one outstanding step that will be taken tomorrow, and that would be the Mayor's <br />final consideration of the pole locations and potential approval letter, we've added some <br />language recognizing that this entire settlement would not take effect and would be void <br />if that letter was not wrapped up tomorrow. We would essentially be back to square one <br />in the litigation. The agreement would be binding upon Xcel and Public Service <br />Company, the additional provisions there are mostly legal language, legal boiler plate, <br />about the binding effect of the agreement, modifications, and those sorts of things. There <br />are some other potential ways to deal with the condition on pole location adjustments, <br />but what we've done is tried to make the minimum amount of changes to the documents to <br />original approval. If Council desires, another way to do this is to look at all the requested <br />changes and locations this evening and pin that issue down in a resolution. If you want to <br />approach it that way, we do have some language for that option, but the option we've <br />been concentrating on would call for a letter by the Mayor tomorrow, dealing with the <br />ten poles that need to be adjusted some distance from their existing locations. I think that <br /> <br /> <br />