My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 03 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 03 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:21 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 4:34:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
3/1/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 03 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 />3/1/83 <br /> <br />Page -5- <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen <br /> <br />Stated that he had contacted some of the <br />local representatives of the LDS Church <br />and they seemed to be very willing to <br />discuss the agreement. He was not certain <br />that they had the authority to make those <br />decisions. Cussen had also visited with <br />Don Shallock; felt council needed to con- <br />firm if Shallock represented the Church <br />locally as well as the Salt Lake City office. <br />Shallock felt that Public Service had not <br />made a long term commitment in terms of <br />the access. Cussen stressed Salt Lake <br />officials of the Church, Public Service <br />Co. and council have a discussion per- <br />tinent to the agreement and resolve the <br />Church authority problem, as well as the <br />shared access relative to the Public Ser- <br />vice easement. Requested staff to contact <br />Salt Lake to definitely determine who has <br />the authority to make decisions. <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Mr. LaTorra corrrnented that he did not re- <br />call anything in the Public Service letter re- <br />garding a short term lease; felt that <br />they would agree to cooperate with the <br />Church and Neodata as long as it did not <br />interfere with their utility lines or poles. <br />he <br />Commented/didn't want council to lose focus <br />of why the shared access requirement was <br />placed in the agreement. Stated there <br />would be additional problems in the future <br />if there is no control on shared access. <br />Felt that if a month's delay on the Neodata <br />project would be inconsequential to the <br />proper function of South Boulder Road over <br />the next 20 years. Felt that Neodata was <br />doing their part but did not solve the <br />problem of access control. Suggested that <br />council contact Neodata within 2 or three <br />weeks and if the problem is not solved by <br />April 1st, an extension be given of 30-60 <br />days to proceed. <br /> <br />Commented he did not feel Neodata should <br />be penalized by delaying their project. <br />Was his opinion that the LDS Church should <br />be present either before the Planning Com- <br />mission or City Council and enforce their <br />subdivision agreement. <br /> <br />Councilman Ferrera <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.