1997 SPE MIN MAR 26 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Li - Pro ater Bond and Rate In sludly, susI!Q 2osedW� e as Tom Clarke, Utilities Director, asked -for direction from Council on the fionnat of the presentation. Lep-al Counsel Sabo advised that questions regarding the basis and reas€ n. for the public hearing and procedural issues could be discussed at this time but no action would be taken as a public hearing had -been set for April I". Discussion followed with direction to staff that clarification regarding thefollowing items be included as part of the Public fearing presentation scheduled for April 1, 1997- 1. . Describe input the Utilities Corn.n.ussion. has had in the whole proposal. 2. Provide inforryiation that the proposal is based on the Water Master Plan.. 3. Requested that Krieger & Stewart, consullarits, be available at the meeting and be prepared to answer questions. 4. Direct Krieger &I Stewart to explain. theIr -use of ani inflationary factors in increasing any of the original 1991 -figures to meet today's construct -ion. cost and explain how the factors were integrated in the formula. 5. Report on the current conditions of our facilities and what the reliability rates are now as they are projected out and -what the real need is based upon failures that have occurred and prcjected to occur, and the anticipated cost, -es an 6. List costs of system f -es which have been paid out over the years d the cost analysis. 7. Proved the law- which. requires that a Five -Year Master Plan be updated every five years for Public Water Districts and Agency Districts. & On the bond being issued by FARECAL describe what Happens to the monies not applied to the actual construction, Tom. Clarke offered clarification in the following areas: A, The 1997 Master Plan is not complete, Staff s recommendations are a. result of tti.e 1.991 Master Plan that was presented but never acted upon in full scale. Some of the projects were started, some were deferred. All prqjects have been reviewed by Krieger and Stewart to evaluate (1) the reasonableness of our cost estimates and the S 10 million. program. that staff put together (2) and to make sure those projects conform. with the recommendations that will come out. of the 1997 Master Plan. Staff wanted to make sure that the old data was still valid and the new data was still going to be applied to projects they were going to recommend and that they Concur with our program. in concept and in dollar amount. B. Staff took the 1991 data, updated it to current construction costs, based upon staffs knowledge. to come up with the new cost estimates: then staff took those cost estimates and ran thern by Krieger and Stewart. The consultants agreed with the estimated costs of those projects and z::) indicated the, reservoirs niay be a little high but staff indicated the intangibles the City may run into on the construction. site. The consultants stated that contingencies were built in. Krieger and -nely low on pipeline extension that went under a railroad Stewart believed the City was extrei crossing and further, that the City was a couple of hundred thousand dollars low should it runinto any problems. We believe as a -total program we are balanced. 2