My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1993 01 19
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1993 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1993 01 19
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:35 PM
Creation date
7/30/2004 9:17:49 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/19/1993
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1993 01 19
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Tanoue: <br /> <br />Howard: <br /> <br />without purchasing the land, <br />designating a parcel as open space, <br />similar to the Harney/Lastoka <br />agreement that we have with the <br />County and Lafayette. We didn't pay <br />the property owners anything for <br />that privilege of designating <br />property as open space. How is that <br />usually handled in Court? Either <br />the agreement that we have with <br />Lafayette and Boulder County is not <br />legally binding. By making it a <br />legally binding agreement, we're, <br />essentially, saying that that <br />property is open space and since the <br />City did not pay for it, it's <br />devaluing the land without the due <br />process. The other argument that <br />I've heard is that the agreement <br />itself constitutes a legal entity <br />and that the City cannot break such <br />an agreement. <br /> <br />In general, Courts try to give <br />meaning to agreements and don't <br />favor interpretations of agreements <br />that would make them meaningless. I <br />have not read this agreement in <br />great detail, but among other things <br />it does indicate cooperation on the <br />part of the City and the agreement. <br />It think there are provisions in <br />here for specific performance as the <br />remedy for any parties breach of the <br />agreement. That failure to <br />cooperate would give grounds to the <br />other parties to try and force <br />cooperation by the specific <br />performance provisions of the <br />agreement. The remedy under this <br />agreement was not damages, but it <br />was recognized that specific <br />performance would be the remedy for <br />an breaches of the agreement. <br /> <br />In other words, if Louisville <br />breached the agreement, then we <br />would have to do something else for <br />Lafayette and the County? Is that <br />what you're .... ? <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.