My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 01 17
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 01 17
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:22 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 2:40:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
1/17/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 01 17
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
1/1T/84 Page -20- <br />Administrator Wurl stated the total cost <br />ultimately would be ,gin excess of 3 million <br />dollars for the total acre feet; if in fact <br />that: amount of acre feet is the ultimate <br />split - every indication is that that is <br />what: it is going to be 874 acre feet per 1% <br />ownE~rship. <br />Councilman Luce also favored further information <br />before making any decision on the contract. <br />Councilwoman Johnson Commented that she was curious if the May <br />1, 1984 date that council spoke of earlier, <br />was that part of the agreement should we <br />withdraw from the agreement that Mission <br />Vie"~o would pick it up, then after that <br />datE: it would be anyone's. <br />Administrator Wurl stated that was an ar- <br />bitrary date that had been picked after <br />April 23rd, which is another target date of <br />Denver's proposal. That could be any other <br />datE:. The May lst date was picked so that <br />we could discuss this with council. <br />Mayor Meier Expz-essed concern that if the Mayor and <br />Cle1-k were authorized to sign the agreement <br />aftE~r the Attorney had reviewed it, would it <br />bind the City to selling the water to Mission <br />Viejo if we still wanted the water. <br />Wur7L advised that it did not. The contract <br />would provide that the decision could be <br />than council decided to proceed with all the <br />water offered. Basically the agreement with <br />Mission Viejo was the right to first refusal. <br />Thee have the first right to acquire if <br />council chooses to sell. That decision must <br />be rnade by May 1st so if they are not going <br />to get the water, they can shop around. <br />Councilman Leary Comrented it was his understanding that orig- <br />ina:Lly our participation would be an expansion <br />of -the Gross Reservoir, is the intent here <br />to }?articipate in a transfer ri lieu of <br />that project? <br />Administrator Wurl advised that it turned out <br />that the Gross Reservoir project was the <br />most expensive in terms of the estimate. <br />As .a result of the meetings of the Governor's <br />round table and other water people, the <br />effort concentrated on Two Forks, and once <br />that came about Denver conceived a way that <br />they call load shifting. That they could <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.