Laserfiche WebLink
<br />BOULDER COUNTY 1041 STAN- <br />DARDS <br /> <br />l'lEDICAL CENTER PLANNING <br />MEETING <br /> <br />DENVER WATER _BOARD PROPOSAL <br /> <br />9/7/82 <br /> <br />Page -11- <br /> <br />Mayor and Council agreed to this date for <br />the study session on these two items. <br /> <br />Administrator Wurl to obtain copies of <br />the standards for Mayor and Council. Wurl <br />commented staff's concern after review of <br />the standards was that perhaps this would <br />be just another layer of bureaucracy for the <br />City to deal with. The Statute already pro- <br />vides for a review process before the Boulder <br />County Long Range and Planning Commission, <br />at which time they have an opportunity to <br />comment on and make known their concerns <br />on the location of utility facilities out- <br />side the City limits. In Boulder County <br />there have been 92 such presentations made <br />with 91 of them there was no particular pro- <br />blem. There was a problem with one submittal <br />and this is what has prompted them to consider <br />this action. Should there be a problem the <br />next step would be for the muncipality to <br />go before the Boulder County Commissioners <br />and there is no provision in those standards <br />to override their decision. <br />Wurl <br />Administrator/advised the meeting is set <br />for September 14, 1982 at 7:30 P.M. at <br />Boulder Communi.ty Hospital. <br /> <br />Wurl advised that special permission had been <br />received from the general council of the <br />Denver Water Board that should the Council <br />consider and approve this, this evening they <br />will accept that as meeting their deadline. <br />It was his recommendation that the Council <br />enter into the agreement which would subject <br />them to just the cost related to the EIS $tudy, <br />estimated to be $30,000.00. Also suggested <br />they request a 1% share of the project which <br />would be in conjunction with the Williams <br />Fork/Gross Reservoir development and would <br />provide the City with sufficient water to <br />accomodate future needs. <br />Wurl further commented it was anticipated by <br />Noel Hobbs, our water engineer that 60% of <br />the municipalities would sign the agreement; <br />presently there are 103% who have signed. <br />The reason Louisville is still being con- <br />sidered is that none came from Boulder County. <br />