My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1984 08 07
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1984 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1984 08 07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:23 PM
Creation date
10/16/2008 4:00:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
8/7/1984
Original Hardcopy Storage
2E2
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1984 08 07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
8/7/84 <br />Page -8- <br />analysis. He wanted to know first if Council <br />would subscribe to that approach. Then if <br />so they would look at someone that hopefully <br />would meet the Council's credibility. <br />Mayor Meier Noted that John Alshuler had signed up to <br />speak on this item. Asked if they wished <br />to speak at this time. The reply was no. <br />In rE~ply to Councilman Luce's inquiry regard- <br />ing t:he data being sought, Mr. Rupp stated <br />in looking at scenario #7 at the end of the <br />period, it shows a significant surplus in <br />the amount of 28 million dollars. #7 scenario <br />was one that was looked at as being a favorable <br />analysis, which certainly shows the long term <br />effect of the revenue picture at the end of <br />20 yE~ars. But the initial way to get there <br />by adding a very high tap fee increase at <br />this time maybe reviewed in terms of long <br />term as not a reasonable approach to the <br />tap :Eee. If the surplus is such that the <br />revenue and expenditure picture cannot be <br />rationalized therefore he felt this needed <br />to be reviewed.. Also, the expenditure figures <br />need to verified. <br />Councilman Luce Commented that he noted in all the scenarios <br />that the expenditures were not extended for <br />1987 as related to pipes and main replacement <br />and he wasn't certain how that could be cal- <br />culated by the financial analyst. Mr. Luce <br />also inquired about the timing of the analysis, <br />since the fast-track approval had been given <br />for the Howard Berry Plant. <br />Mr. Rupp stated that they had met with the <br />Homart representatives and asked what the <br />absolute date was as to when they need to pro- <br />ceed. They stated there was still sometime <br />in the month of August. Mr. Rupp stated that <br />he felt uncomfortable with some of the figures <br />provided by HICBNA - one of the expenditure figures <br />was totally left out of the plan. KKBNA was <br />proceeding from an engineering point on the <br />project at this time so we are not losing time <br />in order to complete this by June 1, 1985. <br />He further stated in regard to the time frame, <br />all agreements with the developers need to <br />reviewed as to what the decision that is <br />made this evening. Homart's agreement is <br />somewhat different than other developers <br />as t:o pay-back provisions, etc. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.