Laserfiche WebLink
<br />--. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Parkway is concerned, I see where that has no <br />bearing in the Parkway, whatsoever. I agree with <br />John, the only one that will benefit from that is <br />City of Lafayette. Once they made their land grab <br />and they expect us to give up the buffering, <br />because they've done their land grab, and I don't <br />see where this has any bearing on this agreement <br />tonight. <br /> <br />Hornbostel: I hate to disagree, but I really think that it is <br />already a part of that agreement. All we are <br />talking about is not making it open space, because <br />if you violate that agreement the other party gets <br />to annex. It is a three way agreement, if Lafay- <br />ette should annex, we would have a chance to <br />annex, visa versa, if we should annex then Lafay- <br />ette would have a chance to annex. That is the <br />penalty for the agreement. Boulder County is the <br />third party in that. I think it is pretty well <br />designated as open space and all they are asking <br />for is funding. My guess is that it will be <br />pretty low on the totem pole for funding, because <br />they have 20 million for acquisition of open space <br />and so they are going to acquire all the other <br />stuff before they even look at that. <br /> <br />Fauson: It is a separate agreement. It isn't an IGA with <br />the three entities, Boulder County, Lafayette and <br />Lou+1Xisville. wWy complicate the Parkway Agreement <br />by adding more to it all the time. This is a <br />separate agreement and we are willing to abide by <br />our agreement as it is. <br /> <br />Hornbostel: They are looking for a way to fund it. You can't <br />say something is open space unless you buy it. <br /> <br />Sackett: Exactly, it is a funding issue. <br /> <br />Hornbostel: It is more of funding issue, it is already open <br />space and it is just a matter of do you want to <br />put this on the funding list or not. I see it <br />being pretty far down on the list. On the other <br />hand I see no detriment for putting it on the <br />funding list, because if it should be acquired <br />that is ok. The annexation has already been done <br />on the north and this was done before they went on <br />the north, this was done in 1983-1984. <br /> <br />Sackett: I think there is some debate to the validity of <br />the agreement because of the lack of funding and <br />we have never challenged that, because we never <br />needed to. We close some options when we give <br />validity to agreement before we have had a chance <br />to study it. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />11 <br />