My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1977 02 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1977 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1977 02 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:11 PM
Creation date
8/24/2009 12:38:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
2/1/1977
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1977 02 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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 />208 CONTINUED <br /> <br />of 208 and letters have been sent at the <br />Councils direction to DRCOG and Boulder <br />County that basically outlined the City's <br />concern. He felt that the City's po- <br />sition had not specific as related to <br />all functions; planning operation and <br />management. <br />He felt that the City needs to develop a <br />firm position at this time. <br /> <br />Mr. Wurl stated that the study has been <br />broken down into three basic areas; <br />planning, operation and management. <br />Staffs recommendation is that Council <br />take the following action: <br /> <br />1. The planning function should be accom- <br />plished by Boulder County in lieu of DRCOG. <br /> <br />2. The operations aspect should be done <br />by the individual communities in the basin. <br /> <br />3. The management activities should be <br />provided by the Coal Creek Association. <br /> <br />Mr. Wurl stated that due to the time ele- <br />ment, this had not been discussed by the <br />Coal Creek Association; however, Mr. Wurl <br />stated that he told Boulder County officials <br />that when the Coal Creek Assoc. was formed <br />there was much discussion about this and <br />he thought that the Association papers <br />read that they include sanitation. <br /> <br />Mr. Wurl stated that unless the Coal <br />Creek Assoc. agrees to do this, the County's <br />position is going to be that the management <br />functions should be taken care of by <br />Boulder County. <br />He stated that this is understandable be- <br />cause it would not be right to have one <br />city within the basin serving as the man- <br />agement entity for the entire basin, and <br />this is why he would like to see Coal <br />Creek Association handle management activities. <br />Mr. Wurl stated that DRCOG is trying to <br />get as much authority as they can get and <br />Boulder County feels there are some pro- <br />blems with this. Mr. Wurl stated that he <br />agreed with Boulder County as he felt it <br />much easier to work out our priorities <br />with the County then to try and compete <br />with many larger cities at DRCOG. <br />Two reasons he outlined were: Priorities <br />would be county wide and politically he <br />felt the staff could get the county to <br />understand the area problems as the com- <br />missioners deal with the Coal Creek problems <br /> <br />-8- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.