My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC 04-23-1984
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
CC 04-23-1984
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/8/2007 1:12:36 PM
Creation date
11/10/2006 3:09:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General (2)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />, . <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: O.K., Mr. Deans is here tonight, our Bond <br />Counsel. Mr. Deans, would you like to explain some of the <br />financing possibilities. <br /> <br />MR. DEANS: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, first of <br />all this project would be, it is my understanding, built next <br />year. It would be built and assessed next year. The bond issue <br />would be sold next year, tonight is not the assessment hearing. <br />If bonds were sold, it has typically been the City's policy to <br />charge 1% above the rate on the bonds for the assessments to the <br />extent that that is within the usury law. <br /> <br />Under Alternate 1, which was the proposal with a single side <br />assessment footage would be approximately 3500' to be assessed; <br />if assessed at $35/ft. that would be $122,500. There is apparently <br />35 acres that would be available for an area assessment - that <br />would raise about $28,000; total assessment of $150,500. <br /> <br />Under Alternate 2, there is apparently 4300 feet that could <br />be assessed at $35/foot ($4300) and 35 acres that would raise <br />$28,000; total assessment of $178,500. <br /> <br />If all that property were able to be assessed, that would <br />be within the 20% of the total cost of either one of these projects. <br />Total cost of alternate 1 is estimated at this time at $548,040. <br />Alternate 2 is a little bit more expensive; is estimated at <br />$579,570. <br /> <br />It does not appear, unless you went to a much higher per foot <br />level of assessment. For instance, look back at the January 27th <br />memo, if still have that in your files, in alternate #1 you would <br />have to be assessing that 3500 feet at $124/foot to get it up to <br />actually pay for most of that project. For assessment of 100% for <br />Alternate #2 you'd have to be assessing 4300 feet at $108.22/ft. <br />to get you to the total of the project. There is money coming in <br />from the City in either one because of the park land in the area. <br />This was based on your 1971 policy of paying 80%. Obviously you <br />cannot assess the property more than it is benefitted. <br /> <br />As I understand it in Alternate #2, part of the sewer runs <br />through some swamp. I don't know how developable that swamp is. <br />That would be determined either by the Councilor ... <br /> <br />~lR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: Regarding that swamp, the drawings I <br />have illijstrated on the board, and in the computations, the <br />footage through the swamp was included. <br /> <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: And the potential park footage too? <br />MR. CHRISTOFFERSEN: That's right. <br />MAYOR WOODBURN: Mrs. McNiesh, were there any written comments? <br />MRS. MCNIESH: None, your honor. <br /> <br />. 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.