My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 12 12
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
PLANNING COMMISSION
>
2000-2019 Planning Commission
>
2000 Planning Commission Minutes
>
Planning Commission Minutes 2000 12 12
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 9:55:13 AM
Creation date
9/5/2014 2:16:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
PCMIN 2000 12 12
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
17
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish – Explain why it has to go through Louisville. <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl – The line already exists and most appropriate <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish – Why is line to the west not identified as an alternative? <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl – it is – N and M. <br /> <br />Discussion followed regarding the layout of the possible re-routing. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish – Is PSCo willing to work with us and study the Schlott and Backus <br />recommendations? <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl – We have already used the Schlott suggestions (parts of it) and map in several of the <br />routes. He also spent considerable time considering cost. Also Mr. Backus has considered cost. <br />Cost is a factor to consider but is not the only factor. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish: Back to my question – Are you willing to work with us regarding an <br />alternative. You were very clear in your statement that you were not proposing any alternatives. <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl: Based on the facts we feel that rebuilding in the line in the current location is the most <br />appropriate alternative. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish – In other meetings we said that we did not have a problem with you <br />rebuilding the line just exactly as it is. If there is a problem with that line exacting as it is, we did <br />not have a problem with that. What we had a problem with is the putting in of taller poles. So, <br />what really is the issue? <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl – this line is to primarily serve Louisville. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish – Do you have power numbers and not just percentages of how much the <br />demand for Louisville is. <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl – Yes, but not with me tonight. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kalish – We want to work with you. We want straight answers. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lipton – Load growth has increased 35%. They are putting in more then just to <br />feed Louisville. <br /> <br />Mr. Diehl – 60% of the load is to feed Louisville. <br /> <br /> <br /> 12 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.