My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1991 01 15
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1991 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1991 01 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:32 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 11:09:02 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/15/1991
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1991 01 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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 /> .., . <br /> committee and report back. <br /> Sackett: Felt the agreement should last through the <br /> completion of the parkway and the purchase of <br /> the land and no further. Also if further <br /> governments wish to add more grade separated <br /> interchanges, this agreement would not <br /> inhibit them from doing that. Also was <br /> concerned that the connection between 96th <br /> and 42 is included in the funding in the MTDC <br /> plan, would like to have that verified. 96th <br /> Street Interchange, would have been funded in <br /> large by Interlocken and the City of <br /> Broomfield. I want to make sure that they <br /> are still going to provide those funds <br /> outside the MTDC plan, because if that <br /> project is folded into this there wouldn't be <br /> enough money to fund our projects. <br /> Mayor Fauson: I believe the discussion that we had with Ron <br /> Stewart, I did ask the question if there <br /> would be any refunding or some of the work <br /> and he stated yes there would be. <br /> Hornbostel: That was not my understanding, but I will ask <br /> at the next meeting. <br /> Carnival: If I understand this memo we are to set a <br /> public hearing for February 5th. After the <br /> concerns that have been expressed by Council <br /> is February 5th the deadline to have this <br /> put together? <br /> Brand: No, the deadline for having all the entities <br /> in agreement is March 31st. Boulder County <br /> is pushing for the public hearings as soon as <br /> possible. There are some legal concerns that <br /> Susan Griffiths found. All of the Attorneys <br /> for each city will be getting together next <br /> week. There are a lot of unanswered <br /> questions. <br /> carnival: My concern is that we have collectively <br /> agreed to this compromise, but what I see now <br /> is a lot of new information that our attorney <br /> is not comfortable with and yet we are going <br /> to set this out for a public hearing. I <br /> would like to make it clear that just because <br /> we are putting this out for public hearing <br /> does not mean that we support what is here. <br /> I feel that we are sending something out that <br /> if the public said yes, I couldn't vote for <br /> based on what is in front of me. <br /> Hornbostel: Was uncomfortable with parts of the agreement <br /> 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.