My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
11-28-16 Utilities
sbend
>
Public
>
Common Council
>
Minutes
>
Committee Meeting Minutes
>
2016
>
Utilities
>
11-28-16 Utilities
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/21/2017 3:42:00 PM
Creation date
2/9/2017 9:52:44 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council - City Clerk
City Council - Document Type
Committee Mtg Minutes
City Counci - Date
11/28/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
10
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
would go along with them. He stated, We're hoping that, early on in the process, there will be a <br />couple of no- brainers that everybody will agree that, yes, you're going to have to do these <br />projects. We don't have any rate stuff planned at all right now. <br />Committeemember Dr. Varner responded, But you're going to have to do something, because <br />your scheduled rate expires this year, is that correct? Or is there a rollover that falls in there? <br />Mr. Horvath responded, It carries as it is, but there will be no increase. <br />Committeemember Oliver Davis asked, The people working with us, will they still be the same <br />or are we going to get a new team in now? The EPA or— <br />Mr. Horvath responded, There's a good probability that there may be a new team. We can <br />speculate, but I don't think anybody knows yet. <br />Committeemember Dr. Varner stated, As of the last of the a -mails I received — because what <br />we're talking about is Sewer, now —has the City or has not the City been in contact with IBM or <br />the EPA about renegotiating or reconsidering or changing? <br />Mr. Horvath responded, We have had a number of conversations, specifically with the EPA- <br />Committeemember Dr. Varner interjected, Not IBM. <br />Mr. Horvath responded, Not necessarily IBM and not necessarily the DOJ either, and those have <br />all been generic in content. These are the things we're looking at. We haven't gotten into any <br />specifics because we have purposely not wanted to until we were certain we had all of our stacks <br />behind us so that when we renegotiate, we can negotiate through a position that's finalized. <br />Committeemember Dr. Varner stated, But we have that old famous part of the agreement in the <br />original full sub - decree. It's not something that can be denied. Or it can be denied. I thought both <br />parties had to agree, even though it was there? <br />Mr. Horvath responded, There are provisions that we can open, but regardless of that ... we won't <br />be able to use their specific reopeners because we're going to be asking for more than the <br />reopeners allow, but they are always willing to sit down. <br />Committeemember Davis asked, When the final agreements are made, is that the decision of just <br />the Mayor who makes the final decision regarding accepting the offer, or will that have to come <br />up before the Council? <br />Committeemember Dr. Varner stated, It's become so public knowledge that there's going to <br />have to be a public discussion of it, and it will be deemed at that point in time acceptable or <br />unacceptable, and we'll go from there. But this can't be conducted in the manner in which the <br />last one was, where the Mayor unilaterally decided to sign- <br />Committeemember Davis interjected, That was where my concern was. <br />2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.