My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1982 06 01
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1982 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1982 06 01
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:50 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 12:00:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
6/1/1982
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1982 06 01
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
133
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
NOW <br /> 5/18/82 Page -13- <br /> his understanding that 2/3rds of this <br /> goal had been reached. <br /> Tony DelPizzo Protested the scale of gallonage over the <br /> minimum of 10.000 - stating he felt this <br /> increase was equivalent to larger cities. <br /> Administrator Wurl Advised the first proposal submItted to <br /> the former Council the increase was $12.00 <br /> per month and this was discussed at a <br /> budget study session on how this could <br /> be accomplished. He further advised this <br /> proposal was not to show a profit for the <br /> City; but only to match revenues with ex- <br /> penditures. <br /> Mr. Henry Yekel Stated he would like bottom line figures. <br /> including all income from tap fees for <br /> water and sewer. He noted the bond issue <br /> on the agenda and commented this indebted- <br /> ness is to retire capital improvements to <br /> both systems - again requested all income <br /> and all expenditures total deparmenta. <br /> Tom Akins Commented he did not doubt the increase <br /> 283 Matchless St. was justified and did appreciate receiving <br /> the flier; however felt there was information <br /> lacking_ He commented he noted his water <br /> bill was computer printed therefore the <br /> City must have a record of everyone's usage. <br /> It was his opinion a buy and sell study could <br /> be taken and this rate increase should be <br /> applied to it for projected income.and <br /> expenditures. Both these types of informa- <br /> tion do not appear on the flier. He felt <br /> any new rate schedule should be applied <br /> against any new data base the City has in <br /> the computer and project what the income <br /> will be. <br /> Council Comments Commented to try to answer some of the <br /> Councilman Cummings concerns regarding Mr. Woodbury's inquiry <br /> of why we are paying for a plant that was <br /> built in 1934 is possibly the total answer <br /> to the increase. This problem has not been <br /> addressed - it was his feeling it would be <br /> foolish to think the old rates would suffice. <br /> Previously. when the increase was proposed to <br /> former councilmembers it was known this <br /> type input would be had - it was ignored. <br /> Finally if Council does not do something <br /> the service will dry up. so do we make the <br /> decision now or let our children do it. <br /> . {� <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.