My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res 1985-024
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
03 Resolutions
>
1980 s
>
1985
>
Res 1985-024
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2007 4:28:37 PM
Creation date
8/28/2007 4:28:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Resolutions
City Clerk - Type
Approving
Number
1985-24
Date
3/11/1985
Volume Book
70
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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 /> conformance, etc.) which would sort out projects in order of those <br /> most ready to develop at the head of the line and others behind, <br /> those bumped at bottom would be compensated. Advantages - would <br /> address central problem of moving projects ready for development <br /> to the front of the line, would generate developer front end <br /> financing, everyone would know where they are at, those bumped <br /> would be compensated. Disadvantages - complicated, cumbersome, <br /> does not neccessarily guarantee anyone, anything, could intensify <br /> anxieties of proceeding with projects. <br /> OPTION VII: Provide Timetables. Allocate as in original proposal <br /> but provide timetable by which applicants would have to meet <br /> certain approvals or lose money and place in line. Advantages- <br /> cleaner than Option VI, would push development along, might <br /> address central problem. Disadvantages - Determining e~uitable <br /> timetable will be difficult, timetable does not address fact <br /> others are ready now but would have to wait for another year or so <br /> (depending on timetable) to get into process. <br /> OPTIon VIII: Combination of Option II white market for the 2ØØØ <br /> LUE's already allocated plus Option VI tier system for remaining <br /> capacity. See advantages and disadvantages in repective options. <br /> OPTION IX: Combination of Option II white market for the 2ØØØ <br /> LUE's already allocated plus Option IV City fronts plants, f:rst <br /> come first serve for remaining capacity. See advantages and <br /> disadvantages in respective options. <br /> I realize this is not an exhaustive description of the options as <br /> discussed, but the above summary will assist you in collecting your <br /> thoughts for the next meeting. Please visit with one another to <br /> discuss how some consensus might be reached at our next meeting. <br /> Thank you. <br /> Sincerely, <br /> A. C. Gonzalez <br /> City Hanager <br /> cc: Hayor Emmie Craddock and Hembers of the City Council <br /> Lar:lar Hankins, City Attorney <br /> Stephen Jenkins, Director of Environment & Engineering <br /> George Boeker, Director of Public Works <br /> Frank Robbins, Director of Planning & Zoning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.