Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mayor Meier <br /> <br />RESOLUTION #41 TABLED <br /> <br />ACCEPTANCE OF CITY ATTORNEY'S <br />REPORT <br /> <br />CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT <br />LOUISVILLE ASSOCIATES - <br />WASTE WATER AGREEMENT <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Administrator Wurl <br /> <br />12/21/82 <br /> <br />Page -11- <br /> <br />Inquired of Leesman if this matter was con- <br />tinued until the next council meeting would <br />it drastically effect his operation. <br />Leesman replied - probably not, because it <br />would take that length of time before the <br />final determination. <br /> <br />Councilman Cussen moved, Councilman Fauson <br />seconded that Resolution #41 - Amend 1983 <br />Budget be tabled. Question called for. All <br />in favor. Motion carried unanimously. <br /> <br />Councilman Fauson moved, Councilwoman Morris <br />seconded that the City Attorney's report be <br />accepted and placed on file. Question called <br />for. All in favor. Motion carried. <br /> <br />On this and the following agenda item, re- <br />quested Council consider continuing this <br />meeting until tomorrow evening 12/22/82 <br />at 7:30 P.M. along with the Study Session. <br />The reason for his request was if the agree- <br />ment could be finalized this week, there <br />would conceivably be a savings to the City <br />of from $30,000 to $90,000 on the project. <br />If the contractor is able to get the con- <br />tract signed before the first of the year, <br />it will enable him to confirm prices in <br />terms of labor and material costs. <br /> <br />Remarked there were some bothersome things <br />going on - if we go back to the time of the <br />bond issues the money was to readily expand <br />the plant, now felt that the money was being <br />spent on the project and we were losing every- <br />thing that the bond was issued to achieve. <br />Stated it was his opinion that the concept <br />was that the developer was going to pay for it; <br />obviously he is only paying for approximately <br />65% of what was originally promised. Also <br />that the cost estimates were way off which <br />were to pay for this facility. <br /> <br />Stated the estimates were off, but the City <br />is still getting out of the project, our <br />money's worth and the City's share. When <br />the project originated the developer was <br />going to build the project; when our involve- <br />ment got as heavy as it was, the Attorney's <br />position was that it had to be reversed. That <br />the developer had to be contributing to our <br />project because of the amount of money in- <br />