My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1977 02 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1977 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1977 02 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:30:37 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 10:13:39 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
2/15/1977
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1977 02 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
62
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
. 410 410 <br /> • <br /> • <br /> 308 COITINUM of 208 and letters have been sent at the <br /> Councils direction to 1*000 and Boulder <br /> County that basically outlined the City's <br /> ooncern. He felt that the City's po- <br /> •ttics had not specific as related to <br /> all functions; planning operation and <br /> management. <br /> Be felt that the City needs to develop a <br /> firm position at this time. <br /> yr. 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 /> 1. The planning function should be accom- <br /> plished by Boulder County in lieu of DRCOG. <br /> 2. The operations aspect should be done <br /> by the individual coainunitiem in the basin. <br /> 3. The management activities seould be <br /> provided by the Coal Creek Association. <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 /> 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 wou' + 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 be 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. Hurl 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 start could get the county to <br /> understand the area problems as the com- <br /> missioners deal with the Coal Creek problems <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.