My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1993 03 09
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1993 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1993 03 09
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:36 PM
Creation date
7/30/2004 10:04:58 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/9/1993
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1993 03 09
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
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
Colorado Water Conservancy District to increase the pipeline from <br />3 c.f.s, to 4 c.f.s. Roll call was taken. Motion passed by a 6-1 <br />vote with Howard being absent. <br /> <br />Phare: <br /> <br />I want to make sure any roll we <br />should be taking in getting water <br />(INAUDIBLE). We have some <br />preliminary, discussion with Boulder, <br />if that needs to be pursued, and <br />some time tables established <br />consistent with our touching the <br />appropriate bases on the Northern <br />Project. I know that there is a <br />willingness on Boulder to sell some <br />of that water now, even under some <br />terms, commit to it under an option <br />bases for a limited time period. If <br />we need to do that, I'd like to see <br />that it's done. If you'd like to <br />wait until in the future, that's <br />fine, but there may be a change in <br />attitude, a different policy <br />decision made in the future. I <br />would also like some direction on <br />whether I should be gathering a <br />portfolio of Colorado Big Thompson <br />water or should I be telling people, <br />not yet, keeping in mind that there <br />is some dollars allotted there as <br />early as '93. What is your desire <br />regarding the discussions with <br />Boulder on a firm arrangements on <br />acquiring a few units of raw Windy <br />Gap? <br /> <br />Mayer wanted this looked into at some depth,, with some feedback as <br />to what Louisville's options are. What is Boulder offering? What <br />sort of lease possibilities does Louisville have for Windy Gap? <br />What is the Windy Gap situation in terms of, if Louisville procures <br />CBg?, how soon will Louisville get it and for how much? He would <br />like to look at the implications of a mill levy with CBT? Could <br />that be paid out of the water fund or does that have to be assessed <br />on each property owner? <br /> <br />Council wanted some Work Session on this. <br /> <br />Phare: This was direction on the Northern <br /> District water. I would assume that <br /> we are still actively in the market <br /> on South Boulder Creek, given we <br /> don't know we have a pipeline <br /> project. <br /> <br />14 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.