CC 10-20-1959 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

1:'. <-,: -.:~~~- "-!'" ,"':'_"",~,'. .,.,~:;t",.~~r:"-~<,;:";-_~:"'~.'- . .'. . ", "''-. ;'-.'-~:, - ". - , 10 . that we feel are conservative in the 8ense that.. shol.ti not exceed them. For example, on Improvement No. 1 the total cost estimated was $130,000. The final bonds to be issued whe1 all contracts heve been let - and the Council has already done that - totaled $120,000. So the improvement is $10,000 less than we thought. Whether qr not the same thing can be accomplished here is another factor . In Improvement No. 2 under Projected Costs No. 1 shows the estimated improvement costs which are the actual construction costs as est~ted by the engineer. YThisincludes the acquisition of easements and things of that nature, which has been rounded off as shown in No. 2 to $350,000.00, the difference being.made up by what we call capitali~ed interest which we must pay during . the time that the construction is going on before we are able to receive our assessments back frem the people. In other words, the total cost would be $350,000 for the whole improvement and bonds would be issued in this amount. You will notice in No.3 that it isantic1pated that none of that bond issue will be spread on general taxes. In other words, there would be no mill rate increase for purposes of this .ewer and it follows the same pattern as has been indicated to the people in connection with Improvement No. I, the .east portion of Lake Johanna. In other words, those areas that will be getting ..wer, assuming the Council goes ahead, will be paying for th1& by full assessments without any portion of it spread on a mill rate . increase which means that anybody living north of the railroad tracks will not contribute in any way andth~s 1& a policy question and a policy determination that this Council made in connection