Laserfiche WebLink
<br />- 4 - <br /> <br />CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT: <br />Some changes have to be made on the annexation policy. Therefore, I -am <br />asking Council to authorizl;; the attorney to prepare aTE'amendme~t to the <br />present ordinance for consideration next meeting. Motion by Deborski <br />to authorize the attorney to make these changes to our present Ordinance, <br />seconded by Domenico. Motion carried. <br />STREET LIGHTS: All the lights and locations seem to be pretty well in shape <br />with the exception of 2 or 3 and these will be corrected. Requested the <br />State to install a high intensity light on Hiway 42 and 287, and suggesting <br />larger lights on South. Boulder Road & Hiway 42. <br />LAND - FILTER PLANT: Last Council meeting it was brought up that we should acquire <br />more land at the filter plant. Asked Bruns to prepare map of what the City <br />has acquired. What we arE~ going to need in the back-wash plan is approxi- <br />mately 6/10ths of an acre right along side of the present plant site as well <br />as 3/10ths of an acre for the easement of the back-wash water line in order <br />to get rid of the cow corral. We need to acquire 7/10th acre just west of <br />the filter or a total of l~ acres. If you concur with our plan give us <br />authorization to proceed 'to acquire the land. <br />Motion by King to acquire the land as outlined on the drawing; seconded by <br />Deborski. Motion carried. <br />HOWARD WATER: We have had someone approach us with additional water for sale. <br />The City of- lLafayette indicated that the price for Howard water was too high. <br />How could it be lowered? They admit they were the first to pay the high price. <br />The basis of their concern is by the time you change point of diversion and <br />transfer water, you actuallly wind up with a yield per acre foot that amounts <br />to about one-third of the share. They suggest we review the situation and <br />set our price at the level of what we actually get at approximately one-third <br />of the cost. Probably the City of Lafayette and Louisville are not the only <br />people interested in Howard water. If there are other potential users that <br />price may get them into 1:.he market. <br />DEBORSKI: If you go to anyone and propose a two-thirds price cut we are not going to <br />get any water under that formula - be realistic about the price cut. Think we <br />should go back to the seller and get a price - negotiate with him. <br />MR. WURL: That pretty well answers my question - if it is under ten thousand, you <br />want to work on that. <br />JUSTIFICATION FOR ENGINEER: The money that has been paid for Engineering fees 1971 <br />and 1972 that could have been accomplished by a City Engineer 1971 - $13,005.00, <br />1972 - $24,000.00. In w'ay of financial support we have in our developers <br />fund $9,900 and that only reflects $2500.00 of Sproul's total committment. <br />The most important justification of a City Engineer lies in the future needs <br />of the City and not in ~he past. <br />DEBORSKI: I would like to complement the City Administrator on his justification for <br />the City Engineer. <br />Cost of the Engineer $1,200.00 .per month - Budget $15,246.00;half of salary <br />or $1,200.00 out of Planning. Motion by Deborski to authorize City Adminis~ <br />trator to acquire a City Engineer as outlined and follow-up after Engineer <br />is on board; seconded by King. Roll Call vote - Deborski yes, King yes, Jen- <br />sen yes, Scholl yes, Domenico yes. Motion carried. <br />LIQUOR LICENSE FEES: <br />MR. WURL: What is outlined here is the fees from four different cities. Tabled <br />