Laserfiche WebLink
parties. If they have a concern <br />with respect to those regulations, <br />it's up to'them to take some action <br />with respect to those concerns. If <br />they had a serious concern that was <br />not resolved informally, then they <br />would have to initiate the dispute <br />resolution process, which is <br />referred to on Page 11. If they're <br />still dissatisfied at the end of <br />that, they would go to Court arguing <br />that somehow this amendment was a <br />breach of this contract. <br /> <br />4.) That Louisville retain the right, as an individual <br /> purchaser, to terminate its approval after various <br /> warranties of the seller are not found to be correct. <br /> Louisville's approval is contingent upon the approval of <br /> the agreements of Boulder County and Lafayette. <br />5.) Non-substantive revisions could be made, so long as the <br /> Mayor, City Administrator, and City Attorney unanimously <br /> agreed with the revisions as being non-substantive. <br /> <br />Mayer asked, concerning drainage, if it was possible in the wording <br />to say that if one of the parties does not exercise its option, <br />should that party still be able to affect drainage, if the drainage <br />really doesn't affect the property to which they're no longer <br />involved. <br /> <br />Griffiths felt that, in terms of the language, they could look at <br />that. <br /> <br />6.) <br /> <br />The Council considered several proposed revisions from <br />the purchasers. All of those revisions have been <br />acceptable to the other parties. The one principle issue <br />of concern was the argument that the $11,000.00/acre <br />price would not include the remaining minerals estate, <br />which is the coal reserves owned by the estate of Stephen <br />Harney. It was Griffiths understanding that the <br />Council's position was that the$11,000.00 should include <br />the entire amount. That has been agreed to now by the <br />estate and by the sellers. <br /> <br />Griffiths stated that action was needed on three (3) matters, if <br />Council wishes to continue to participate in the agreement. <br /> <br />1.) <br /> <br />3.) <br /> <br />Action on the drainage paragraph. <br />Some action in terms of redrawing the boundaries of the <br />various parcels. <br />Agreeing to pay proportionately more for Parcel 1 and <br />proportionately less for Parcel 4, because of the 24 <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br /> <br />