Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Louisville City Council Meeting <br />May 22, 2001 <br />Page 7 <br />Sopkin replied, no. <br /> <br />Brown questioned the wording contained in paragraph "N", which states the gauss meters <br />would be available to customers, and suggested that the wording indicate that the meters <br />be available to Louisville residents. <br /> <br />Light replied that the intention of the Settlement Agreement is to substitute customers <br />with Louisville residents. <br /> <br />Brown offered the wording change as an amendment to the resolution. <br /> <br />Light explained that City Council has two items to consider: the Settlement Agreement <br />and Resolution No. 28, Series 2001. He suggested that the City Council first approve the <br />Settlement Agreement and authorize the City Attorney's office to sign the Agreement on <br />behalf of the City. He explained that the Settlement Agreement is written prospectively, <br />looking towards City Council approval of the changes to the Special Review Use <br />approval. If the Agreement were approved, then City Council would then consider <br />Resolution No. 28, Series 2001. <br /> <br />Sisk stated that the Settlement Agreement states that Council would approve Resolution <br />No. 28, Series 2001 (attachment 1) without change and asked Light for clarification that <br />this is what Council should do. <br /> <br />Light explained that he would ask Mr. Sopkin, Public Service Attorney, to go on the <br />record and approve the changes. He offered an amendment to the Settlement Agreement, <br />Exhibit 1, Condition "N", page 7, that Louisville residents be substituted for the word <br />customers. Light asked Sopkin if that change was acceptable to Public Service. <br /> <br />Sopkin replied, yes. <br /> <br />Light stated that the other change is that the new sentence to Condition "B" of Resolution <br />No. 28, Series 2001 should be underlined. <br /> <br />Sisk questioned how Council should address the location of pole number 39. <br /> <br />Light explained that, as written in the Settlement Agreement, Exhibit 1, the last sentence <br />of condition "B" states Additionally, new pole number 39 shall be located north of the <br />existing pole if applicant's engineering allows for such location. He stated that earlier <br />comments from Mike Diehl of Public Service might prompt an amendment to that <br />sentence, such as shall be located north of the existing pole and as close as physically <br />possible to the existing pole. Light asked Mr. Sopkin, Public Service Attorney, if that <br />change is acceptable. <br /> <br />Sopkin requested that Light read the sentence again. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br /> <br />