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
• <br /> 5/18/82 Page -15- <br /> Councilman Leary Commented in terms of increment raises being <br /> linear, the 65c figure WAS lowered, it was - <br /> linear - felt that it would aid the average <br /> water user. <br /> Leary commented one of the problems been <br /> a in the <br /> past was that depreciation had <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 34% 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 be taken from •other -funds, <br /> this rate increase would be approximately <br /> 50% of what the projected budget was. <br /> Spoke to the comment made that by transferring <br /> funds. the City was running very well - ob- <br /> viously the revenues are no longer available. <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 /> • <br /> 4i1VIOW <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.