Agenda - 10-22-1997 - a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

It appears to me, based on the comments I have heard over recent months, that the parties would still like to accomplish Point 1, and would like to accomplish Point 1 by December 1. At the same time, it appears to me that Point 1 cannot be accomplished unless Point 4 and Point 5 also are accomplishcd. I believe the County has indicated it will not agree to assume the leadership role unless its concerns about Greene Tract are resolved to its satisfaction, and there is much strong feeling that some resolution of the community benefits issues needs to be part of any agreement on these matters. This is why the AOG meeting has as its goal completing agreement on Point 4 and Point S. As to Point 4(b), we may readily find agreement on the approach to this issue contained in the current draft agreement, or something close to it especially because the current text retains the requirement that all parties eventually agree on the benefits to be provided. As for Point 4(a), we at least have an agreement to discuss this issue based on the 14 points memo, and in particular on the basis of whether public water and sewer should be provided to all or some of the affected community, and if so, how it should be paid for (I understand there are other items on the list which raise some concerns, but most comments seem to focus on water and sewer as the items of overriding concern). That is not to say that a final agreement is by any means assured. As for Point 5, we have an agreement that the Greene Tract is a major community resource.that needs to be approached in a thoughtful manner. There also seems to be some agreement that it makes sense at least now to begin the process of planning for the use or disposition of the Greene Tract, even if the best thinking now turns out to be to wait five years and then take another look. Finally, there also seems to be some agreement that the current owners should not take action on the Greene Tract outside the scope of this Agreement. What is not agreed is whether the County alone or all owners together should be the ones responsible for determining the Tract's ultimate fate. I am not even sure I completely understand the views of the several County Conunissioners on this point. If this planning is to be a cooperative process, it is also not agreed as to whether there should be a deadline for an agreement (which parties could extend by mutual action) after which the property would automatically be sold- Although no one seems to like the current Interlocal Agreement draft text, that text does set out one approach to a compromises of the various views. Another compromise approach would be to start a cooperative planning process now, without changing the form of the ownership, and to require each co-owner to take no action to sell its interest in the property or to sell or divide the property without 90 days notice to the others. From a legal perspective I still think this agreement would still need a time limitation, even if the limitation were 20 years.