Loading...
01-11-67 JANUARY 11, 1967. A special meeting ~f the City Council of the City of Delray Beach, Florida, wes held in the Council Chambers at 8:00 P.M., Wednesday, January llth, 1967, with Mayor Al. C. Avery in the Chair, City Manager David M. Gatchel, City Attorney John Ross Adams, and Councilmen J. LeRoy Croft, James H. Jurney, LeRoy W. Merrttt and George Talbot, Jr., being present. Mayor Avery called the meeting to order and announced that same had been called for the purpose of discussion concerning the Water treat- ment facility and additional Sewer construction, as well as any other business which may come before the meeting. An opening prayer was delivered by City Clerk R. D. Worthing, and the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was given. Mayor Avery said that on the 16th of December, 1966, the City Manager had a conference with Mr. Frank T. Osteen, Jr., Executive Vice President and Mr. Walter D. Hays, Water Engineer of Russell & Axon, Consulting Engineers, Incorporated, als~ the Fiscal Agents Mr. Stanley E. Ross of R. W. Pressprich & Company Incorporated and Mr. C. T. McCreedy of Goodbody and Company, concerning the weter treatment plant and additional sewer construction, at which time they arrived at cer- tain conclusions, and letters were written to the City Manager based on those conclusions. City Manager Gatchel then read a three-page letter from Russell & Axon, Consulting Engineers, Inc., signed by Mr. Fra~ T. Osteen, Jr., and dated December 22, 1966, and a four-page letter from the Fiscal Agents signed by Mr. Stanley E. Ross and Mr. C. T. McCreedy, 'dated December 20, 1966. '(Copy of 'said two letters are attached to the official copy of these minutes.) See pages 12-A-D and 12-E-H. The City MaD~ger then read the following letter, dated January llth, 1967, that he had written 'to the Mayor and City Council. "~ollowing the recent meeting between representatives of Russell a Axon, Goodbody & Company, R. W. Pres~prich & Com- pany, Mr. ¥~orthing, Mr. Weber and myself, the C~ty received the aforementioned detaile~ communications from the engineers and fiscal agents outlining their thoughts and recommendations on the City's water and sewer needs. At the outset, may I say that the administration wholeheartedly ~anuu~s w~h ~he~e thoughts, 'calculations, projections and recommendations. In summary, Mr. Osteen points out the present weter supply is not a health hazard, but i~adequate sewerage facilities are a universally recognized health hazard, and also there are several choice areas in the City that cannot be developed be- cause of the lack of sewer facilities. By carefully reviewing the calculatlons of the engineers, the fiscal agents have determined that bonds totaling $1,835,000 can be issued after September 30, 1968, without an increase in water rates, providing the City continues at once i~s 'sewer pro- gram into highly developed areas with the $500,000 remaining in the sewer construction trust account. If the $500,000 is used for 'water treatment plant purposes, this would result in cessa- tion of the sewer construction program of from two to three years or longer. On the other hand, the computations of the fiscal agents show that weter treatment plant financing can be arranged im- mediately, necess&tat~ng water rate increases varying between 26.1% 'and 39.1%, depending on the size-of bond ~ssue. Also, it should be pointed out that on Page 12 of the audit report -1- Sp. 1-11-67 10. for the year ending September 30, 1966, it is reported that the average monthly water bill was $6.60, t~ls in an extremely wet year. In the year ending September 30, 1965, the average monthly water bill was $9.41. Therefore, the recommendations of the administration, in con- curren=e with the consulting engineers and fiscal agents, are as follows: 1. Authorize plans and submit to bid sewers for those areas where it is most economically feasible and where all costs will total no more ~han $500,000. 2. Institute a connection charge for property served by but not connected to the sewer system within a fixed period of time. 3. Hold construction of a water treatment plant in abey- ance until financing can be arranged without an increase in water rates." City Manager Gatchel presented Council with a comparison report of water rates with the communities to the north and south of Delray Beach. During ~ I.acussion regarding additional sewer construction, it was pointed out that the month £ollowing acceptance by the City of a ~lew sewer section, every improved property served by that sewer is immedi- ately charged for sewer service ~hether it is hooked to the sewer or not. It was also pointed out that the pro~ections of the Engineers and Fiscal Agents show that if the City spends the $500,000 on hand in the sewer construction account and those sewers are installed by the end of this flscal year ending September 30th, 1967, those sewer ex- tensions would pro~uce an additional $40,000 in revenue for the fiscal year be~ir~ning october 1,. 1967, which would be about an 8% return on the investment, There was lengthy discussion regarding a proposed sewer connection charge, such a charge being explained in paragraph six of the Engineers letter of December 22nd, and also mentioned on page three of the Decem- ber 20th letter from the Fiscal Agents. City Manager Gatchel informed Council that it costs the City ap- proximately $100 to provide a stub-out for a sewer connection. Mr. Merritt said it had been state~ that the value of property goes up with the installation of sewers, or other improvements, and asked if it would be possible to increase the assessed valuation of proper- ties a certain percentage and allocate that percentage to the sewer revenue fund, or-other improvement fund. The City Attorney said he did not believe that would be possible as it would not be a uniform tax. Following further discussion, the City Attorney said Mr. Marritt has a- good thought, and if everyone is auto- matically increased uniformly, whether it is improved or unimproved property, would be something the tax assessor ~ay consider in review- ing the assessments throughout the City. Finance Director Weber pointed out that if such a procedure is followed, owners of improved property would be paying on a higher assessed valuation and also be paying a monthly sewer service charge. Concerning Item I in the recommendations on page two of the January llth, 1967 letter from the City Manager, City Manager GatChel informed Council that the Engineers have done some preliminary work on this ject which co~tcerns Areas 12 and 13 (northwestern section Just north of Atlantic Avenue), some additional sewering in Area 20 (Carver High School Area), Area 21 (South Swinton Avenue--southwest), and Area 23 (Rainbow Homes ) o Mr. D. R. Neff of Russell & Axon and City Manager Gatchel displayed to Council a color coded map prepared by Mr. Neff showing the present- ly sewered areas and the areas proposed to be encompassed in the $500,000 sewer extension.project. Mr. Croft moved to authorize Russell a Axon to prepare plans and submit to bid sewers for those areas where it is most economically feasible and where all costs will total no more than $500',000, as re- commende~ by the City Manager. -2- Sp. 1-11-67 Mr. Talbot said he would second the motion for discussion, but would vote against the motion unless it included a net return on the investment, and explained that he would be against it personally un- less he was assured it would bring a return of 8~ or very close thereto. The City Manager explalned that only the most .lucrative areas of the sewer areas mentioned would be sewered with this $500,000, and that he feels the Engineers are correct in their estimates that it will. yield an 8% return. The City Manager continued= "May I suggest as an amendment or an addition to the motion as Mr. Croft presented it, whereby the $40,000 estimated annual income, as estimated by the Consulting Engineers, would be produced by the expenditures of these construction That would not be mentioning 8% but it would be mentioning the $40,000 which is referred to in their letter." Mr. Croft and Mr. Talbot accepted that addition to their motion and second. Mr. Jurney said that he would like to hear from the Fiscal Agents on this matter, and Mayor Avery asked the Fiscal Agents if they feel this is a proper course of action for the Council to take. Mr. Stanley E. Ross of R. W. Pressprich & Co. Incorporated, said that he feels it would be in order to spend those monies for sewer con- struction as that is what the money was authorized and borrowed for. Further, that he believes the feasibility projections by the Consulting Engineers will be worthwhile capital expenditure for the City, and that he reco~ds, as a Fiscal Agent, the passing of the motion as worded. Following a question by Mr. Merritt, -.the City Manager explained that as the plans are completed by areas the Council will be advised and will then authorize the a~vertisement for bids, and that Council will award the bids. Mr. Ross further explained= "These are bond funds that you are spending here. The procedure has been established on the authoriza- tion. Plans and. specifications must be on file with ~he City Clerk. All expenditures out of these bond funds have to first be approved by your Consulting Engineers and submitted to the City Council for ap- prova 1." Upon call of roll, the motion carried unanimously. Regarding the City Manager's second recommendation which is= "Institute a connection charge for property served by but not con- nected to the sewer system within a fixed period of time.", Mayor Avery said he feels a 'motion should.be made directing the City Manager to bring to the next Council meeting his recommendation as to the a- mount of a tapping charge, together with the proper ordinance to in- stitute said charge. The City Attorney asked that it be at a Council meeting in the near future instead of at the. next meeting. Mr. Croft asked if said recommendation would be supported by the anticipated funds that such a charge would bring in. The City Manager said that building permits for the past year could be used as a basis and in that manner project what the City ~would now have if a connection charge had been established in the past. Further, that it may be broken down as so much for a single family dwelling, so much for multiple, etc., but that he would like to discuss this further with the Engineers. Mr. Croft moved to institute a study and recommendation of a con- nection charge for property served by but not connected to the sewer system, .a~d the necessary ordinance for putting same into effect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Talbot and carried unanimously. Regarding the City Manager's third recommendation which is: "Hold construction of a water treatment plant in abeyance until financing can be arranged without an increase in water rates.", Mr. Merritt moved that the matter of the water treatment plant be tabled for the present, until such-time as it can be economically feasible. The motion was seconded by Mr. Jurney and carried u~animously. -3- Sp. 1-11-67 12¸ Mr. Jurney moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare a legislative bill concerning the reserve area for Delray Beach, and present it back to Council for approval. The motion was seconded by Mr. Merritt and carried unanimously. The City Attorney said: h'e .wohld-%.i~e for Mayor Avery to present that bill to the Clinic as he had in the past and explain its purpose. The City Attorney informed Cot~lcil that Mr. J. Wm. Schmalz had mentioned at various times that he feels a tenant stock holder in a Co-op should be eligible to qualify for the position as a City Council- man. Pollowing discussion, the City Attorney said that before putting such a proposed bill in final form he would check With the surrounding area and let eaCh Councilman know of his findings. The City Manager suggested contacting Ft. Lauderdale concerning this item. Mayor Avery directed the City Attorney to prepare such proposed bills as he feels should co~e before the legislatu~e. The City Attorney referred to a previous proposal of the Mayor that anytime a candidate in a primary election receives over 51% of the votes, he is automatically elected without going to a general election. There 'was lengthy discussion regarding election procedure, but no directive was made for a proposed charter change. The City Manager informed Council that he will soon have some pro- posed charter changes to present for their approval. Mr. Jurney asked what progress has-been made regarding plans on the drainage problem in the southwest area of the City. City Manager Gatchel reported that he had just received a copy of the minutes of the Lake Worth Drainage District meeting held in December, that Mr. John Klinck of Russell & AXOn had been there and received approval of the Lake Worth Drainage District to put the City flood waters into the E-4 Canal if it proved engineeringl~ feasible to dispose of the waters in "that manner. Further, that Mr. Klinck had also met with the Central & South Florida Flo0d Control District and has in writing from the~ that we can also deposit those waters in the C-15 Canal. The City Manager said that it is in the papers today, and he had heard about l~c last Monday, .that the County Area Plar~ling Board has now been approved in its inltial stages by HUD in Atlanta, which will qualify fo~ some of the Federal Planning Funds., and, this is the ini- tial step in the qualification of this area. Mr. Jurney referred to the mound of dirt and scattered pipes'at the location of the Lift Station on South Swinton Avenue, and asked how long it will be before that is cleaned up, and also how long it will be before the lawns and shrubs are replaced on $. W. 9th Street. Mr. Dan Neff of Russell & Axon said they hoped to have that com- pleted by January 25th. The meeting adjourned at 10:08 P.M, City Clerk APPROVED: -4- Sp. 1-11-67 12-A It~cembcr 20, 1~66 Fro. i)a~id M. Cratchel City Mann§er City Hall Dclr~y Beach, Florida 33l~ ~ Mr. Oatchel: Pursuit to the instructions of your City ~cil, we have held discussions wf~ your Consultin~ Enginemrs and p~tictpatmd In a meeting in your office on ~cc~er 16 to determine the approximatm p6rc6nta~e of wa~er rate increases which would be required to p~rmit the City to tssu~ additional Water ~d S~wer Revenue Bonds on a p~t%y with outst~din9 ~nds. We ~d~rst~d that there are four ~ternative projects under consideration for i~rov~d treatment facilities dependtna upon whether softening ~uld be included and whether or no~ $5~,~0 of funds 6n h~d would be a~lied the water project or would be used for s~w=r i~rovemenDs. ~. ~t~rna~lwe bond issues ~uld b~ A) $1,135,000 - Plan% withou~ softenin~ utilizing th~ $500,000 B) $1,335,0~ - Pl~% wi~ softening util~in9 the $500,000 C) $1,635,000 - Pi~% without softenin9 D) $1,835',000 - Pl~t With softenina Bonds m~ be issued on a part~y wi~ the outstanding Water ~d ~wer Bonds provided average ~uM n~t revenues of th~ ~wo preceding fiscal ye~s ~e ~qu~ to at 16as~ i%0~ of m~imu~ debt s=~io~ on all bonds ~ b= ou~- st~dins; these r~nu~s m~ be adjusted ~ r~fl6c$ rat~ increases or estimat~d r~venues to be deriw~d from the projac~. W~ hawe bern advts=d ~at there wtll be no tncr~as~ in revenues f~m th~ proposed water t~rove- m=nts, ~wev~r, a rate increase could pro~tde a basis for issu~ce of addition~ ~nds. ~ followtn~ is a t~atton of actu~ n~% r~venues in the years 1~65 ~d 1~66 ~ estimated n~t rcvcnues (prcp~ed by ~ns~tAn~ ~Anee~s) fo~ the fAsc~ ye~s 1967 ~d (Sec Page 2) ~r. Da~d M. ~atchcl City Manager ?~e 2 December 20, 1966 Actuml Estimated ~Ycars Endin~ Scptem~ber 30:. 1965 1966 19..6.7 1968 Water: Gross Revenues $49~,703 $).~23,322 $518,380 $556,610 Opcratlon and ~Malntcn~¢e _.226~78~ -226,107 ~ 235~900 - 266,100 Net Revenues 269~919 197~21~ 282.~80 290,510 ~wer~ ~oss ~enues 142,865 188,551 259,900 312,7~* ~eration ~ Malnte~ce 41;76~ 38,16~ __47~2~ . 48~1~ Net Revenues' 101,101. 150~384 212~700 ~6~ Other Income 52~854 1~,585 50,000 . 50,~9 Net ~venues $423,874 $~48,184 ~545,180 $~5,110 * Includes $40,000 of' addttion~ revenues assum~n~ the $500,~0 on ~d ~s utilized for sewer improvements. We have made calculations of estimated debt se~ice on all Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds includin~ additional bonds on each of the ~ve ~ternative plus ~d have furnished to your Consultin addition which would be necess~y to qu~i~ the additional bonds. Your Consultin~ EnGineers have calculated approximate "across the ~ard" percentase increases in water rates which ~uld provide the increased revenues. O~ calculations are sho~ be~ow assumin~ (1) ~ssu~ce of ~nds as soon as possible, (2) issu~ce of ~nds afte~ Septe~er 30,.1967, ~d (3) Assu~ce of ~nds after SepteSer 30, 1968~ (1) Issu~ce of Bonds as soon as possible: Additional Bonds ~n Amo~t of ~ ~1~335~ooo $~63%~ $~83~ooo ~timated Rate Increaser ' Amo~t $120,000 $140,000 $I~,000 $180,~0 Per Cent of Gross 26.1% 30.~ 34.8% 39.1% Net ~wnues Reflecttn~ Rate.~creasc~ AveraGe Net Revenues · (1965-66) $436,029 $436,029 $43.6,029 $436,029 75% of Estimated ~creas~ . 90~000 _~0~.~ ~20~0 lj5~O $526,029 $5~, 02~ $556,029 $571,029 Proposed ~im~ D~ . ~ Se~lce $350,000 $3~000 $370,000 $380,~0 ~ra~e 15~ i50% 150% 150% ¥ ' ' · 12-C i~Ir. D:~d M. Gatchel City H~uaS~ PaSt 3 December 20, 1966 '(2) Issuance of Bonds s£ter September ~0~ 1967: Additional Bonds in Amount of $_1,135,000 ~.1,335,000 $1,635,000 $1,835,000 $~stf~atcd Rate ,~.~ount $~0~ 000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 Per Cent of C~oss · 8.5~J 12.7% · 17.0% 21.2% ? Net Rcvenue's Rcflecttn~ Rate Increascl Average Net Revenues (1966 actual & 1967 est.)$496,682 $496,682 $496,682 $496,682 .. 7~% of Estimated Rate Lucrease . .~ 30~000 . 4~000~ 60~0~..0. 75,000 · $526,682 $541,682 $556,682 ' $571,682 Proposcd Maximum D=bt Scrvicc $350,000 $360,000 $370,000 $380,000 Coverage 150~ 150% ' 1%0% . 1~0% (3) Issuance of Bonds after S~ptemhcr 30~. 19_6.8: Additional Bonds ~n Amount of $1,635,000 '. $1,835,000 Rate Increase None None Average Net Revenues (1967 and 1968 estimated) $575,145 $575,145 Maximum Debt Service $370,000 $380'~000 Covera§e , You will note that the. latter tabulation assumes that the $500,000 of cash on hand would be utilized for sewer improvements this year.., which revenues would be reflected in your fiscal year ended September 30, 1968. Also, the possibility was' introduced at our meetin9 of makin9 a connection charge on future b~okups to the sewer system. If such a charge were made, the additional revenues reflected in the respective base period would increase borrowin9 capacity accordingly. 12-E ~eU*~ P&rk, Florlde' ~0 N* E. FOU~H AVENUE [ndustrill ~l~y 8,ech. Flodde P.O. BOX 9~7 30S/~76~586 December:22,'!966' Mr. David M. Gatchel City Manager City of Delray Beach Delray.Beach; Florida Subject: Construction of Sewage Works Vs. Water'Filtration Plant Dear Mr. Gatchet: 1. This letter is written in response to your request for advice on en~ineerin~ considerations which should govern the course of future construc- tion in Delray Beach. The' facts and conclusions.in this letter'have.been de- veloped from discussions between'the undersigned, Mr. Hays, Mr. Neff, the fiscal .a~ents, and key personnel in the'City'Administration. 2. At the'present time the City of. Delray Beach needs a new water treatment plant;'and additional sewers. However; it appears quite evident that, if the City'-~to continue the conservative fiscal policieswhich have been followed in the past, it is not economically feasible to proceed w~th both water and sewerage projects'at this time. In view of this hard fact, we will discuss all engineering aspects' of the' problem~ and develop sound recommendations tO ~Uide the'Council in selecti~z an orderly plan for future construction. 5, ~nere is no question but that water quality'in Delray Beach should be improved. The existin~ interim facilities provide water of undesirable ' color, and iron content.' Nevertheless, the Present water'supply is not a health hazard. On the other hand, continuedCity ~rowth Without adequate ~ sewe~a~e~facilities is a universally rec.o~nizedhealth hazard Althqu§h the' Florida State Board of Health'would certainly encour- .age the' City to' proceed'with improvements to~,the water treatment facilities, no coercive action has so far been suggested~ nor is any anticipated~ On the other hand, it is well known thg~ all public health' a~encies'have'Placed zreat emphasis in recent years upon eliminationofsepti'c tanks,'with'their 'resultan: pollution hazard. David M. Gatchel, City Manager December'.22, 1966 City of De!ray Beachi' Florida P. age 2 Regulations of these agencies are becoming so restrictive, that the lack Of sewerage facilities presents a major obstacle to further'development of sev~ eral choice areas around the City. In our opinion, City growth over the next two years will be encouraged more byadditional sewer construction, than by water works improvements'. 4. Your Engineers are prepared to submit preliminary data showing revenues to be derived from sewerage facilities in.those'areas which are not presently sewered, as well as the construction cost of such facilities. The major portion of the proposed sewerage facilities can be financed from accum- ulated surplus, and funds presently on hand from the most recent sewer bond issue. It is evident, that if additional ?evenues can be developed in this manner, without issuance of additional bonds, the fiscal position of the City's water and sewer system will be substantially improved~ In contrast, we have previously pointed out, that although the new water treatment facility is definitely needed; it will produce no additional revenue, except indirectly by encouraging City growth and greater water use. 5. From the above discussion it seems.reasonable to conclude that the most desirable,course of action at this time, is for the City to authorize survey and design of additional sewerage facilities. This appears to be an opportune time to proceed, as due to tight money, municipal construction work is slowing down and contractors are bidding very competitivelyfor new work. The water treatment facilities would be held in abeyance Until such time as the fiscal climate and projections warrant authorization of construction. 6. In connection with-the financial aspects'of the City's sewerage program, the attention of the Council is invited to Section XX of our Sewer Report of March, 196S. As expressed therein, it is our opinion that some policy should be established whereby a portion of the costsof sewer construction will be borne by the vacant property which i~ served~ This is a practical necessity, if sewers are to be projected into more Sparsely populated areas, where they are needed so that the areas may develop, but where initial revenues are insuf- ficient to amortize the construction cost. Such a sar~-~-of the cost is jus- tified by the obvious fact that the. value of the properiy is increased by the availability of sewerage facilities. The Council would be Well advised to con~ sider a connection charge to be levied when connection is delayed more than six months after sewerage facilities become available. The levy could be applied to presently Sewered areas after a set deadline, approximately six months hence. The connection charge established should approximate the average cost, per resi- dential lot, of the sewerage facilities which serve that lot. It is our opinion that this action will tend--to place the sewerage System on a more nearly self- sustain%ng financial basis. 7. Discussions with your fiscal agents reveal that, although financing o~ the'water treatment facilities may dot be practicable at present,'the situ- ation will quite' probably improve over the next two years. 12-G David M. Gatchel, City ~anager December 22, 1966 CiZy of Delray BeaChi'Flo~ida ~age S It appears that the fiscal feasibility will be ~nhaneed by longer experience records of sewer revenues,'resuiting from both recent and preposed sewer'con- struction. It seems probable tha~ the'water'treatment plant'can be'construe-" ' ted'by 1969 with no more than a 10% increase'in water rates~ Of course, if a sewer connection charge 'is established, the'~ntire fiscal picture Will be ' b~ightened'considerably. 8.. The Council should be advised that the'plans and specifications' which we have prepared for the'Water treatment plant should'require no sub- stantial revision because of the' delay. Water treatment equipment and pro- cesses generally evolveslowly, and it is not anticipated that any startlingly'. .new'devel°pments will occur which ~ould affect the' Validity' of the' presen{ design. We Would anticipate'that only minor revisions would berequired'in orderto'up-da~e'cost estimates.~ show interim changes'to existing'facilities' and to~ography~ and make minor revisions to the'bid documents; 9. In view of the above facts'we recommend that the' City.tCouncil take the'foilowi~g action: a. Authorize' surveys and design of the'.remain~ng sewerage. Systems coveredby, our March, 1965',.report. b.' Hold construction of the water treatment plant in abeyance until the fiscal situation improves. .- C. Institute'a connection charge for property'.serVed"by~.bu~.~o~ connected to, the'.seweKage system. Very truly yours, RUSSHLL ~ AXON, CONSULTING ' ~NGINBBRS, INCORPORATBD Frank T. Osteen, Jr. ' BXeCutive Vice President FRO': em' 12-H Scl ~cted' pa~sgr~phs, dealing with', b.efle fits t. to ~. Vacant 'propertY'. - Se~er~ Report, March,'!965. 'Section'XiX;"pa§e'26'~'par;~2:'.. "b%der'.the present.revenue.system;'onlyexistinghoUseS'contribute tothe'ini:ial revenUeestima:es;' Onthe'.otherl, hand~'vacant'property,is increased'in valueb¥[a minimumof the'~o~t'iof aseptic:tank and til~" field; andbya much'.l.arger'maxlmumwhe?multiple'unitstcould.be'projecte4," :Section XX;:page'.27?~'Par; 2:. "The'revenues in.~his.report are.estimated on the"basis of the'present sewer'ordinance~' However~ as.we proceedlto:study more.remote'areas, we are faced'on ~he one hand with'need for sewers so'the"~rea'may develop, and on the' 0~her'hand with'lack Of initial revenue Sufficient ro amortize, the con- s~ruc~ion cost~' This.all'leads :o~the COnclusion that,'poli~ically unpalat- able as it may first appear, the Council woul&belwell advised'to take another long hard look ar ...?**,.. a reasonable.service Connection charge, ~o:be levied'.againstbenefited'property. Only'.by'thislaction does the'gacant prop- erty:assist with the capital investment, in direct rario.to'the'actual benefit. As the sewer' would enhance the' Value Of'vacant property; it.seems 19gical to assume ~hat seriou~ objections cOUld not.be'sustained!by ~he"facts." '.'~*~Deletion Mr. Do.v id M. 6mtchci , City M~aScr Pa~¢ ~ Decembe= 20, 1966 We believe the above calculations consider all of the alternatives which were ,introduced at your council meeting and take into account additional m~tters brought up at ou~ subsequent workshop meeting, If s~ly addition=l dat~ would be helpful in projectin~ your capital improvement program, please advise. Respectfully submitted, R. W. PP~PRICH & CO. I~%V~ORPORAT"aD C'. T. ScCre~ /