Laserfiche WebLink
Hornbostel: <br /> <br />Phare: <br /> <br />Hornbostel: <br /> <br />Mayer: <br /> <br />Phare: <br /> <br />serious about it and will do that. <br /> <br />If Superior should decide that they <br />don't want to make that increase up <br />to the 1.8 and we're in this <br />pipeline, then we would be expected <br />to absorb that 1.8, which puts us <br />back up to 4.8. I'm not willing to <br />go that high. If we went to 3 <br />C.F.S. without knowing what Superior <br />is going to do, does that commit us <br />to 4.8 if Superior doesn't do that? <br /> <br />In my opinion you're not really <br />committing. You're saying that if <br />Superior goes in for the critical <br />amount that they need to, then yes, <br />we will seriously consider the 3 <br />C.F.S. <br /> <br />I really didn't want to do 3 C.F.S. <br />and 2.5 is where I was comfortable. <br />If there was anything that said that <br />we had any kind of commitment to <br />absorb somebody else's increase, <br />which every time they come back it's <br />tacked on a little bit more cost. <br />With the Tabor Amendment, I would be <br />very skeptical of us going as far as <br />a 4.8. <br /> <br />I concerned about how the Council <br />could commit the City to something <br />that might require a vote a year <br />from now and the citizens turn it <br />down. What would be the legal and <br />financial exposer? <br /> <br />As far as the current letter of <br />commitment, I don't believe we have <br />any exposer other than the <br />$10,000.00 that we said was <br />available should they have to survey <br />two routes, because we were in a <br />decision mode. They understand that <br />if the rulings from the Supreme <br />Court or legislative action <br />clarifies that and it's going to <br />require an election in November, <br />that we are not the only one in that <br />position. Everyone is going to have <br />to deal with that. They are willing <br /> <br />13 <br /> <br /> <br />