City Council Minutes 1993 04 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney, with drainage issue. respect to the Mayer thought it was important that the County be approached on this specifically. Lathrop agreed with Councilman Howard that Louisville's sovereignty has been infringed upon. He felt Louisville is being held hostage by Boulder County to the tune of $400,000.00 and that Louisville is losing. He commented that the IGA was intended 'to have that property remain open space, to preclude development. He felt that intention would be met, whether or not Louisville spent the $400,000.00. He stated that he would not support the agreement. Howard stated that what he is really buying with the $400,000.00 is the ability for Louisville to purchase a section of the land in the future for its future needs, which are unknown at this time. He did not want to impose upon the future councils and citizens of Louisville, the strict policies of only the County and only Lafayette. Hedding: Griffiths: If we didn't participate in this, what say would we have over any drainage issue vs., if we do participate, what advantage do we gain in terms of the drainage issue from participation? I cannot think of any advantage that you would receive from participating, with respect to the drainage issue, if the language proposed by Lafayette remains within the agreement. In my conversation with the Lafayette City Attorney this afternoon I asked, specifically, what is the essence of Lafayette's concern with respect to the drainage issue? Their concern was relayed to me as follows: Lafayette does not wish to be responsible as a property owner for any increased drainage on the Lastoka property, which would cause Lafayette to spend money to resolve the drainage problem. They are not satisfied with the current common law protections. I think the question is whether there can be some resolution to that concern, if it is considered a legitimate concern, in some fashion that would 17