Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR BUSINESS <br />ORDINANCE #1028, SERIES 1990 - AMENDMENT OF WASTE WATER OPERATION <br />BY USE OF THE SYSTEM - 2ND READING - PUBLIC HEARING <br />Read by title only "Ordinance #1028, Series 1990 - <br />Amendment to the Ordinance relating to the <br />operation of the Wastewater system of the City of <br />Louisville by regulating use of the Wastewater <br />system and regulating the types of water that may <br />be disposed of therein." <br />Phare: Gave a brief overview of the changes that have <br /> been made to the ordinance. <br />Mayor Fauson <br />#1028 <br />S <br />i moved and Hornbostel seconded to accept Ordinance <br />, <br />er <br />es 1990. By Roll-Call Vote Motion Passed 5-0. <br />DISCUSSION/DIRECTION - STATE HIGHWAY PROJECT RECOMMENDATION <br />Phare: Boulder County Public Works Department solicits <br /> input from local governments regarding state <br /> highway projects within their jurisdiction. The <br /> project recommendations from the local governments <br /> are reviewed by the county and then a county <br /> recommendation is forwarded to the State Highway <br /> Commission. Louisville has supported the US 36 <br /> interchange project and reclassification of South <br /> 96th Street. to a state highway from US 36 to State <br /> Highway 42. <br />Davidson: Wondered if we should support the interchange at <br /> 96th Street. <br />Phare: If the highway department supports items one and <br /> two it would take around 10 years to complete the <br /> project. We need to look somewhat into the future <br /> and see when this would occur and see if our <br /> interests would be served by this interchange. <br />Davidson: Can the recommendation be moved from item 3 to <br /> item 5 as far as the City of Louisville is <br /> concerned? <br />Phare: Yes, we can state that to the county. <br />Sackett: It would be helpful to make it clear to the State <br />Highway Department that what we would like to do <br />is extend Highway 42 to 96th Street so we can take <br />advantage of that interchange. I am not sure what <br />the best way would be. <br />Phare: Item 3 could be separated into two different <br />recommendations if Council desired. It would make <br />more sense to keep it as one recommendation. <br />2 <br />