My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1993 03 02
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1993 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1993 03 02
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:35 PM
Creation date
7/30/2004 9:56:00 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/2/1993
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1993 03 02
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
District, with the thought being <br />that we would use that as a <br />guideline for whose responsibility <br />it was. <br /> <br />Phare stated that he had provided them (UFCD) with material to <br />review and will be providing comments. <br /> <br />Davidson stated that if the drainage is currently the <br />responsibility of the current land owners, then it passes on to the <br />new land owners. If it's currently the responsibility of <br />Louisville, then it remains with Louisville. If it's the <br />responsibility of Louisville, then the new land owner, Louisville, <br />Boulder County, and Lafayette are willing to grant easements or <br />whatever is necessary to construct a ditch. If it's the Lastoka's <br />responsibility, then it's the new property owner's responsibility <br />and all of the new property owners have to construct that ditch. <br />As to Drainage Way A, there was no problem granting whatever <br />easements are necessary. For joint usage of the currently <br />Lafayette owned ditch, as it runs to the creek, appears to be an <br />issue that can also be resolved. He stated that Lafayette is <br />willing to go with the original offer they made Louisville or <br />entertain any counter offer. Davidson gave his perspective on the <br />six (6) items: <br /> <br />LOUISVILLE'S PURCHASE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY <br />- Lafayette and Boulder County don't mind, as long as there is <br />a joint conservation easement that all three (3) parties own. <br />EXPANSION OF THE SEWER PLANT OR CITY SHOPS - Lafayette and <br />Boulder County have no problem with that. <br />SLUDGE - Lafayette is reluctant to allow, at this time. He <br />felt a community composting project might have to be worked <br />on. Lafayette would not put language in there that <br />specifically excluded that, in the conservation easement, but <br />it would be subject to the joint party approval. <br />PRICE OF THE PROPERTY - The County felt, since joint <br />conservation easements are being granted on all of the <br />property, one acre is as valuable as another. <br />ACQUISITION BY THE COUNTY OF OTHER PROPERTY THAT BENEFITED <br />LOUISVILLE - It's still in such a preliminary stage. It's too <br />early to report back on that. <br />HALL FIELDS - Lafayette is willing to go either way. <br />CITY SHOPS & WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT - They are willing <br />for Louisville to buy the land now or have an option to buy it <br />at some later time at their proportional share of the <br />$11,000.00. <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />On the ball fields, at the <br />presentation last time Tom Phare <br />showed the document relating to the <br />State Highway Department's plans for <br />Hwy. 42. I think it would be <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.