Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> -~,.. <br /> The deadline of March 31 is now set for the middle <br /> of April. The legislature, the last time you can <br /> put a bill through, is the 8th or 10th of May and <br /> then their session is over the end of May. Our <br /> meeting of last night was just finetuning the IGA, <br /> the decision was that we would go with what <br /> Boulder County felt comfortable with, this is what <br /> we were going to propose and if the legislature <br /> seems to feel like that we've done a good job and <br /> that we're representing what our constituents want <br /> and they think it's an ok play, they may include <br /> it in the plan. <br />Griffiths: In the latest draft of the IGA that did come <br /> around the language was included at our request to <br /> resolve the annexation issue that Councilmember <br /> Davidson had raised at an earlier meeting. <br /> Iincluded was language regarding the SID for the <br /> 96th Street interchange. We have proposed language <br /> change to make it very clear that the property <br /> owners, resident within Louisville, must make a <br /> request to the City Council of Louisville for <br /> inclusion of their property and consent to their <br /> inclusion, and the same with the Town of Superior. <br /> Broomfield has formally accepted that language, <br /> that should appear in the final version. I think <br /> as Councilmember Hornbostel says the IGA itself is <br /> being finetuned. We need to see those final <br /> words, we need to see Exhibit B. <br /> We had one other issue that came up at a meeting <br /> that both City Administrator and I attended <br /> without the assistance of Councilmembers and that <br /> was last week. One of the questions that came up <br /> at that meeting, and we were asked to report back <br /> tomorrow on is the issue on the inclusion on the <br /> open space that's north of the parkway and marked <br /> in the purple strips, is open space that is part I <br /> of an agreement between Boulder County, City of <br /> Lafayette and the City of Louisville. Previously <br /> the question had come up, should that be included <br /> within the parkway? This came up at earlier <br /> meetings of the elected officials and the <br /> attorneys and everyone was sent back to report to <br /> them. We had a discussion in one of the Council <br /> meetings, there were concerns expressed with <br /> respect to inclusion of that property, but from <br /> our perspective it wasn't really decided, <br /> Lafayette went back and discussed it with their <br /> City Council, they are very enthused about <br /> including that land within the parkway agreement. <br /> Of course, Boulder County would like to include it <br /> within the Parkway Agreement in order to provide <br /> some funding for.its acquisition. We need to <br /> respond back to both Lafayette and Boulder County <br /> 9 <br />