My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1982 05 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1982 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1982 05 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:19 PM
Creation date
7/8/2009 4:54:21 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
5/18/1982
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1982 05 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
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 />5/18/82 <br /> <br />Page -15- <br /> <br />Councilman Leary <br /> <br />Conunented in terms of increment raises being <br />linear, the 65~ figure was lowered, it was <br />linear - felt that it would aid the average <br />water user. <br />Leary conunented one of the problems in the <br />past was that depreciation had not been <br />budgeted, and should there be serious pro- <br />blems, i.e. water pressure, there would be <br />no funds because the depreciation fund had <br />not been maintained to care for these repairs. <br />As a result the equipment to correct the <br />water pressure problem on the hill had to <br />be leased, which was more expensive. <br />Referring to Mr. Yekel's statement of bottom <br />line, he felt it was important to reaffirm <br />that tap fees are not intended to go for the <br />operation of the water plant and shouldn't. <br />These fees were placed in the budget <br />specifically to purchase water shares and <br />expand the plant. It was his opinion some <br />transfers had been made in the past with <br />which he disagreed. <br />Leary felt that the increase was not 43%, <br />if taken over a 12 year period this would <br />be a 3~% a year, which is much lower than <br />the inflation rate in the 12 year period. <br />He reaffirmed Councilman Ferrera's statement <br />that the proposal was a compromise - the <br />revenues projected would totally match the <br />City's last year costs. If depreciation <br />and some consultant fees were deducted, <br />which would have to betaken from'otherfunds, <br />this rate increase would be approximately <br />50% of what the projected budget was. <br />Spoke to the conunent made that by transferring <br />funds, the City was running very well - ob- <br />viously the revenues are no longeravai1:able. <br />Made reference to the traffic light on South <br />Boulder Road which is badly needed, but no <br />funds are available; therefore without this <br />increase the City would continually have to <br />supplement the operation of the water plant <br />from the General Fund and these type trade- <br />offs jeopardize the safety of our citizens. <br />Being in this financial condition requires <br />leasing capital equipment which is much <br />more expensisve than purchasing it. Until <br />this situation is corrected, he felt it was <br />a disservice to the people to put them further <br />in debt technically. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.