Common use of Disagree Clause in Contracts

Disagree. As stated in the City’s response to F-01, the Correct Agreement ratified by the City Council on January 6, 2004, is the same agreement whose provisions have been utilized by both the City and High Tide in the operation and management of River Ridge Golf Club. As stated in the City’s response to item C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The only bank accounts into which revenues from the operation of the golf course were deposited and expenses for operation of the golf course were paid were in Operator’s name alone.” The City disagrees with the characterization of the River Ridge Golf Club revenues collected by High Tide as “City revenues.” As stated in the City’s response to Items C-11 through C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The agreements provided that Operator did not act as the City’s agent, ‘except as City may specify in writing’ (Original Agreement section 57; Second Agreement section 52). By letter dated February 7, 1994, the City Treasurer notified the Ventura County National Bank, where Operator maintained a golf course bank account, that the City conveyed to Operator ‘the right to act as agent for the River Ridge Golf Club which is owned by the City’ and to accept checks in the name of the golf course; and that the title of the account should be the name of Operator ‘as agent for River Ridge Golf Club or River Ridge Golf Course.’ “Money derived from the operation of the golf course, collected by Operator and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts was not at that point money to which the City was entitled. Section 10 of the agreements required the City to pay Operator for Operator’s services. As the Grand Jury noted (e.g., F-46, F-47 and F-70), Operator deducted payments for Operator’s services from money that Operator collected from golf course operations and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts. Annually, Operator paid the City as called for in the agreements, by writing a check to the City on Operator’s golf course bank accounts. The City Treasurer deposited that check in City bank accounts, to which Operator was not a party. “Based on the foregoing background, the City disagrees with statements in C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, C-17 and C-18 that characterize money in Operator’s golf course bank accounts as ‘City money’ or ‘City funds’ and revenue from golf course operations as ‘City revenue.’” F-30. Apparently in response to the 2003 Jury’s report, the City staff informed the City council that “staff identified several portions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement]… that require update.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “ … staff identified several provisions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement] … that require … update.” [emphasis added] F-31. The council was then informed “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for the deposit of Golf Course revenues.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for receipt of Golf Course revenues.” [emphasis added] F-32. To “properly describe” the account for receipt of City golf course revenues, the Second Agreement was amended to read “City and Operator will establish such bank accounts, jointly…” rather than having High Tide establish such accounts “in the name of the City and Operator, jointly….” Concur F-33. Though the language discussed above was substituted in the Second Agreement, the character and operation of these accounts has not changed in any way from the prior operation of these accounts. The accounts remain sole commercial accounts in the name of High Tide. Concur

Disagree. As stated in the City’s response to F-01, the Correct Agreement ratified by the City Council on January 6, 2004, is the same agreement whose provisions have been utilized by both the City and High Tide in the operation and management of River Ridge Golf Club. As stated in the City’s response to item C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The only bank accounts into which revenues from the operation of the golf course were deposited and expenses for operation of the golf course were paid were in Operator’s name alone.” The City disagrees with the characterization of the River Ridge Golf Club revenues collected by High Tide as “public money,” and disagrees with the statement that High Tide collects such revenues as the agent of the City revenues.” Treasurer. As stated in the City’s response to Items C-11 through C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The agreements provided that Operator did not act as the City’s agent, ‘except as City may specify in writing’ (Original Agreement section 57; Second Agreement section 52). By letter dated February 7, 1994, the City Treasurer notified the Ventura County National Bank, where Operator maintained a golf course bank account, that the City conveyed to Operator ‘the right to act as agent for the River Ridge Golf Club which is owned by the City’ and to accept checks in the name of the golf course; and that the title of the account should be the name of Operator ‘as agent for River Ridge Golf Club or River Ridge Golf Course.’ “Money derived from the operation of the golf course, collected by Operator and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts was not at that point money to which the City was entitled. Section 10 of the agreements required the City to pay Operator for Operator’s services. As the Grand Jury noted (e.g., F-46, F-47 and F-70), Operator deducted payments for Operator’s services from money that Operator collected from golf course operations and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts. Annually, Operator paid the City as called for in the agreements, by writing a check to the City on Operator’s golf course bank accounts. The City Treasurer deposited that check in City bank accounts, to which Operator was not a party. “Based on the foregoing background, the City disagrees with statements in C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, C-17 and C-18 that characterize money in Operator’s golf course bank accounts as ‘City money’ or ‘City funds’ and revenue from golf course operations as ‘City revenue.’” F-30. Apparently in response to the 2003 JuryThe City Treasurer’s report, the City staff informed the City council that “staff identified several portions Care of the current agreement [the Second Agreement]… that require update.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “ … staff identified several provisions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement] … that require … update.” [emphasis added] F-31. The council was then informed “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for the deposit of Golf Course revenues.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for receipt of Golf Course revenues.” [emphasis added] F-32. To “properly describe” the account for receipt of City golf course revenues, the Second Agreement was amended to read “City and Operator will establish such bank accounts, jointly…” rather than having High Tide establish such accounts “in the name of the City and Operator, jointly….” Concur F-33. Though the language discussed above was substituted in the Second Agreement, the character and operation of these accounts has not changed in any way from the prior operation of these accounts. The accounts remain sole commercial accounts in the name of High Tide. ConcurPublic Monies

Disagree. As stated in the City’s response to F-01, the Correct Agreement ratified by the City Council on January 6, 2004, is the same agreement whose provisions have been utilized by both the City and High Tide in the operation and management of River Ridge Golf Club. As stated in the City’s response to item C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The only bank accounts into which revenues from the operation of the golf course were deposited and expenses for operation of the golf course were paid were in Operator’s name alone.” The City disagrees with the characterization of the River Ridge Golf Club revenues collected by High Tide as “City revenuesmoney.” As stated in the City’s response to Items C-11 through C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The agreements provided that Operator did not act as the City’s agent, ‘except as City may specify in writing’ (Original Agreement section 57; Second Agreement section 52). By letter dated February 7, 1994, the City Treasurer notified the Ventura County National Bank, where Operator maintained a golf course bank account, that the City conveyed to Operator ‘the right to act as agent for the River Ridge Golf Club which is owned by the City’ and to accept checks in the name of the golf course; and that the title of the account should be the name of Operator ‘as agent for River Ridge Golf Club or River Ridge Golf Course.’ “Money derived from the operation of the golf course, collected by Operator and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts was not at that point money to which the City was entitled. Section 10 of the agreements required the City to pay Operator for Operator’s services. As the Grand Jury noted (e.g., F-46, F-47 and F-70), Operator deducted payments for Operator’s services from money that Operator collected from golf course operations and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts. Annually, Operator paid the City as called for in the agreements, by writing a check to the City on Operator’s golf course bank accounts. The City Treasurer deposited that check in City bank accounts, to which Operator was not a party. “Based on the foregoing background, the City disagrees with statements in C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, C-17 and C-18 that characterize money in Operator’s golf course bank accounts as ‘City money’ or ‘City funds’ and revenue from golf course operations as ‘City revenue.’” F-30F-51. Apparently Interest accruing from the City money in response these accounts becomes part of the base revenue amount to be divided between the City and High Tide rather than being segregated as accruing to the 2003 Jury’s reportCity, i.e., the City staff informed the City council that “staff identified several portions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement]… that require update.” Concur shares with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “ … staff identified several provisions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement] … that require … update.” [emphasis added] F-31. The council was then informed “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for the deposit of Golf Course revenues.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for receipt of Golf Course revenues.” [emphasis added] F-32. To “properly describe” the account for receipt of City golf course revenues, the Second Agreement was amended to read “City and Operator will establish such bank accounts, jointly…” rather than having High Tide establish such accounts “in the name of the City and Operator, jointly…passive interest accruing on its money.” Concur F-33. Though the language discussed above was substituted in the Second Agreement, the character and operation of these accounts has not changed in any way from the prior operation of these accounts. The accounts remain sole commercial accounts in the name of High Tide. Concur

Disagree. As stated in the City’s response to F-01, the Correct Agreement ratified by the City Council on January 6, 2004, is the same agreement whose provisions have been utilized by both the City and High Tide in the operation and management of River Ridge Golf Club. As stated in the City’s response to item C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The only bank accounts into which revenues from the operation of the golf course were deposited and expenses for operation of the golf course were paid were in Operator’s name alone.” The City disagrees with the characterization of the River Ridge Golf Club Club’s revenues collected by High Tide as “City revenuesmoney.” As stated in the City’s response to Items C-11 through C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The agreements provided that Operator did not act as the City’s agent, ‘except as City may specify in writing’ (Original Agreement section 57; Second Agreement section 52). By letter dated February 7, 1994, the City Treasurer notified the Ventura County National Bank, where Operator maintained a golf course bank account, that the City conveyed to Operator ‘the right to act as agent for the River Ridge Golf Club which is owned by the City’ and to accept checks in the name of the golf course; and that the title of the account should be the name of Operator ‘as agent for River Ridge Golf Club or River Ridge Golf Course.’ “Money derived from the operation of the golf course, collected by Operator and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts was not at that point money to which the City was entitled. Section 10 of the agreements required the City to pay Operator for Operator’s services. As the Grand Jury noted (e.g., F-46, F-47 and F-70), Operator deducted payments for Operator’s services from money that Operator collected from golf course operations and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts. Annually, Operator paid the City as called for in the agreements, by writing a check to the City on Operator’s golf course bank accounts. The City Treasurer deposited that check in City bank accounts, to which Operator was not a party. “Based on the foregoing background, the City disagrees with statements in C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, C-17 and C-18 that characterize money in Operator’s golf course bank accounts as ‘City money’ or ‘City funds’ and revenue from golf course operations as ‘City revenue.’” F-30. Apparently in response to the 2003 Jury’s report, the City staff informed the City council that “staff identified several portions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement]… that require update.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “ … staff identified several provisions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement] … that require … update.” [emphasis added] F-31. The council was then informed “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for the deposit of Golf Course revenues.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for receipt of Golf Course revenues.” [emphasis added] F-32. To “properly describe” the account for receipt of City golf course revenues, the Second Agreement was amended to read “City and Operator will establish such bank accounts, jointly…” rather than having High Tide establish such accounts “in the name of the City and Operator, jointly….” Concur F-33. Though the language discussed above was substituted in the Second Agreement, the character and operation of these accounts has not changed in any way from the prior operation of these accounts. The accounts remain sole commercial accounts in the name of High Tide. Concur”

Disagree. As stated No interest accrues on money in the CityHigh Tide’s response to F-01, the Correct Agreement ratified by the City Council on January 6, 2004, is the same agreement whose provisions have been utilized by both the City and High Tide in the operation and management of River Ridge Golf Clubbank accounts. As stated in the City’s response to item C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The only bank accounts into which revenues from the operation of the golf course were deposited and expenses for operation of the golf course were paid were in Operator’s name alone.” The City disagrees with the characterization of the River Ridge Golf Club revenues collected by in High Tide Tide’s bank accounts as “City revenuesmoney.” As stated in the City’s response to Items C-11 through C-20 of the 2003 Grand Jury Report: “The agreements provided that Operator did not act as the City’s agent, ‘except as City may specify in writing’ (Original Agreement section 57; Second Agreement section 52). By letter dated February 7, 1994, the City Treasurer notified the Ventura County National Bank, where Operator maintained a golf course bank account, that the City conveyed to Operator ‘the right to act as agent for the River Ridge Golf Club which is owned by the City’ and to accept checks in the name of the golf course; and that the title of the account should be the name of Operator ‘as agent for River Ridge Golf Club or River Ridge Golf Course.’ “Money derived from the operation of the golf course, collected by Operator and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts was not at that point money to which the City was entitled. Section 10 of the agreements required the City to pay Operator for Operator’s services. As the Grand Jury noted (e.g., F-46, F-47 and F-70), Operator deducted payments for Operator’s services from money that Operator collected from golf course operations and deposited in Operator’s golf course bank accounts. Annually, Operator paid the City as called for in the agreements, by writing a check to the City on Operator’s golf course bank accounts. The City Treasurer deposited that check in City bank accounts, to which Operator was not a party. “Based on the foregoing background, the City disagrees with statements in C-11, C-12, C-15, C-16, C-17 and C-18 that characterize money in Operator’s golf course bank accounts as ‘City money’ or ‘City funds’ and revenue from golf course operations as ‘City revenue.’” F-30F-52. Apparently Payment of City money to High Tide for operating, maintaining, and managing River Ridge, as provided for in response to the 2003 Jury’s report, the City staff informed the City council that “staff identified several portions all iterations of the current agreement [the Second Agreement]… that require update.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9agreement, 2003, to the City Council states: “ … staff identified several provisions of the current agreement [the Second Agreement] … that require … update.” [emphasis added] F-31. The council was then informed “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for the deposit of Golf Course revenues.” Concur with Comment The agenda report of December 9, 2003, to the City Council states: “One amendment concerns properly describing the account with a financial institution for receipt of Golf Course revenues.” [emphasis added] F-32. To “properly describe” the account for receipt of City golf course revenues, the Second Agreement was amended to read “City and Operator will establish such bank accounts, jointly…” rather than having is from High Tide establish such accounts “in the name of the City and Operator, jointly….” Concur F-33. Though the language discussed above was substituted in the Second Agreement, the character and operation of these accounts has not changed in any way from the prior operation of these accounts. The accounts remain sole commercial accounts in the name of to High Tide. Concur.