My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 2006 12 05
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
2006 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 2006 12 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:41:48 PM
Creation date
1/31/2007 1:57:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
12/5/2006
Original Hardcopy Storage
7B6
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 2006 12 05
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
21
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 /> City Council <br /> Meeting Minutes <br /> December 5, 2006 <br /> Page 12 of 21 <br /> City Attorney Light noted the current version of Resolution No. 50, Series 2006 <br /> was approved by the Boulder County Commissioners. He reviewed the final <br /> changes: Page 2- Termination and renegotiations. <br /> Mayor Sisk thanked Boulder County., Interim City Manager Balser, and City <br /> Attorney Light for their work on the agreement. <br /> MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Brown moved to approve Resolution No. 50, Series <br /> 2006, seconded by Council member Yarnell. Roll call vote was taken. The <br /> motion carried by a vote of 7-0. <br /> RESOLUTION NO. 59, SERIES 2006 - A RESOLUTION RELATING TO <br /> URBAN RENEWAL AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HIGHWAY 42 <br /> REVITALIZATION URBAN RENEWAL PLAN <br /> City Attorney Light made typographical corrections Resolution No. 59, Series <br /> 2006. Paragraph 4 - insertion of the word Sales Tax. <br /> Council member Marsella requested clarification of a resolution of a statement of <br /> intent. City Attorney Light explained the City Council is a continuing body, and <br /> until matters are vested, there are ri~~hts of third parties. This resolution sets the <br /> intention of this Council's, which remains in effect until revised or repealed. <br /> Council member Muckle felt the resolution addresses most of the citizen's <br /> expressed concerns. <br /> Council member Yarnell stated Resolution No. 59 enables her to support the <br /> urban renewal plan. <br /> Council member Marsella voiced her concern over the resolution's dates and <br /> requirements for priority of projects. She requested clarification on the <br /> consistency of the statements in other documents. City Attorney Light addressed <br /> the consistency of the statements in the resolutions and stated they comply with <br /> statutory and home rule charter requirements. <br /> Mayor Pro Tem Brown suggested the ordinance be continued as the consistency <br /> of concepts has been addressed in other documents. He voiced his concern <br /> over the unintended consequences. <br /> Council members Clabots and Muck:le concurred. <br /> Mayor Sisk stated the cooperation agreement addresses the issues, but noted <br /> there are some unintended consequences such as the cost of elections. He <br /> suggested continuing Resolution No. 59, Series 2006 to January 2,2007. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.