Laserfiche WebLink
1/23/84 Page -3- <br />to predict at this time: <br />Wur:L replied fairly difficult; but he would <br />ven-~ture to say it was a viable option for <br />us ito look at right now. His basis for that <br />is what is happening in the ability to get <br />Marshall water because it is becoming more <br />constricted. Further stated what we are <br />rea:Lly relying on is development taking place <br />outside of our basin. There is a lot of <br />Marshall water that is not in our basin, so <br />if development slows down in communities <br />where Marshall water is the ag water source, <br />then the ability to acquire it slows down. <br />Therefore, from that standpoint, felt that <br />council may find themselves wanting to pro- <br />ceed with this as rapidly as they are willing <br />to do it. In reply to Councilman Luce's <br />question - stated his recommendation was Council <br />to authorize both agreements be signed; but <br />especially the Denver Water Board Contract <br />as i:omorrow is the deadline. <br />Wur:L stated that he had run into some material <br />that= they had sent out that we would have <br />until April 23rd; but in the interim they <br />wens: back to January 24th. <br />Councilman Luce Addressed his question to Attorney Rauten- <br />straus - what series of events could allow <br />Mission Vijeo to back out of this provided <br />that: we kept the terms that we are agreeing <br />to in here. <br />Attorney Rautenstraus advised those were set <br />fori.h in term 5., 5A is Louisville not comply- <br />ing and 5C - the only way that they don't have <br />to go ahead would be if the Denver Water <br />Board didn't approve the transfer which he <br />feli'~ they had already approved through the <br />original agreement. Or for some reason there <br />was a court suit which held the contract to <br />be void. Other than that he did not see any <br />way out for them. <br />see <br />Councilman Leary Commented he was surprised to/the word minimum <br />of :?57,000 - what is the maximum? <br />Wur:L replied he didn't recollect exactly - <br />$57,000 some odd numbers is the maximum on <br />the first stage of EIS. He felt this wording <br />rel<~ted to other costs coming. In answer <br />to Mr. Leary's question if the City was <br />committing to more than $57,000 before <br />January 1, 1985, yes a lot beyond that amount. <br />But we don't expect further expenditures. <br />