Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />it would be a 15 year assessment with one-fifteenth of the <br />principal each year and interest as we have been charging, <br />at 8%. If it went 20 years, it would be that much more <br />(inaudible). If it goes to 10 years, it would be one-tenth <br />of the principal and interest on a 10 year basis, and the <br />length of time is normally one that should be dependent upon <br />- will the improvement outlast the collection of assessments, <br />because obviously you don't want to have an improvement in <br />where the improvement begins to disintegrate before you <br />have collected the assessments. We should hear again from <br />the petitioners probably on that point, but as you know, <br />normally on street improvement prog'rams they're 10 years, <br />unless it's an extraordinary street. I have seen them 15 <br />years as here. Seldom have we gone to 20, and never in <br />this city. Some of the other cities may, but that's rare, <br />and I think that's something' that we should hear from the <br />petitioners which goes to the feasibility of the program. <br />Whether you cut it to 10 years at 100% assessments or <br />whether 20 years at 100%. So far as the feasibility is <br />concerned, those costs remain the same except the interest <br />goes on, and that can be taken care of by the petitioners <br />any time by prepaying in any year during the course of the <br />assessment. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />I assume that no assessments could be spread this year <br />because the improvement isn't done. The projeet would be <br />completed next year. We would have an assessment hearing <br />in the fall, and first installments collected in 1979 <br />because they would be spread in 1978, with the right of <br />prepayment guring that 30 day period. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Whether we have to issue bonds to do this - at this <br />particular point of time, in view of our current bond issue <br />that's underway on October 11, we're assuming there's enough <br />flexibility that the matter could be taken care of internally <br />next year from the proceeds of other funds, or tlhether we <br />issue temporary or long' term bonds would depend on the <br />market, but from a bond issuance point of view, obviously <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />. <br />