City Council Agenda and Packet 1981 11 17

Home Browse Search

MEMO Page -2- which have been a problem around the City. This is scheduled for first reading, copy of the ordinance is enclosed. E. Ordinance #749 - Alcoholic Beverage Permit For Parks 1st Reading. This ordinance was discussed with Council and they approved the drafting of the ordinance. It is now before you for approval on 1st reading. A copy of August's memo and a copy of the ordinance is enclosed. F. Resolution #27 - Storage Technology Corp. P.U.D. Amendment This relates to a radio communication tower that STC wants to place on their site. The Planning Commission has reviewed this and recommends approval by the Council. A copy of their recommendation is enclosed. Jim Graham or someone from their company will be in attendance to answer any questions. G. Resolution #28 - Teton Energy Co. , Inc. Special Review Use Enclosed is the information relating to this request on 3 sites in the westerly part of the City, on agricuturally zoned land, City owned open space area where they are proposing these drill sites. We are hoping to have available, a copy of the agreement. If that should not be quite finished by packet time, we will dis- tribute it on Monday for your review. H. Resolution #29 - Final Plat & P.U.D. - Heritage Subdivision. Enclosed is the information relating to request; also the Plan- ning Commission recommendation and a copy of the proposed agree- ment between the subdivider and the City. Item 7. City Administrator's Report. A. Boulder County Request - Tri-City Annex We have had a request from Boulder County to budget $4,000.00 as our share of the cost for the operation of the Tri-City Annex. You may recall that in the year 1981 council allocated $2,600.00 as our share of a 7 month's operation. At that time, the County indicated that they would pick up the budget for the ensuing years. Apparently the County has come up short of revenues and they are going to be unable to fund •the office totally and are asking for our help. The papers have indicated that Lafayette turned down the request and so has Broomfield; but I understand that Lafayette is reconsidering and will be doing so at their next meeting. The staff recommendation is that we support the County's request. We found funds available in the 1982 budget that we could allocate to that, and I think the service provided is a real benefit to our people. It saves a long drive to Boulder and many times a long wait to transact business with the County Clerk's office.