Laserfiche WebLink
<br />2 <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: The original published cost of this improve- <br />ment was $70,421.31. It actually worked out to $70,986.86, <br />a little over run of about $500.00. None of the improvement <br />will be spread over general taxes, and it's recommended that the <br />entire amount be spread by special assessments which will work <br />out to $49 a front foot. <br /> <br />In this connection, the improvement was part of the bond <br />issue that we just had and the Notices stated that we would charge <br />the maximum interest rate provided by law. The law permits us to <br />charge 8% under the Local Improvement Code, or one percent over <br />the bond issue, and we had our bond issue a week or so ago <br />and the net interest was 7.63% which means you can charge 8.63% <br />as the carrying charge. I discussed this with Mr. Andre. Both <br />of us are recommending, in view of the higher interest rates <br />on the bond issue, that obviously we need to have that 1% <br />over ride the legislature provided and in all of the improvements <br />included in the bond issue that figure of 8.63% would be the <br />carrying charge. <br /> <br />As to those who are assessed, it would be spread over 20 <br />years with one-twentieth due each year and the interest on the <br />remaining amount. <br /> <br />It can be prepaid during the first 30 day period after <br />adoption of the assessment roll, or each year during the period <br />of the assessment collections. <br /> <br />There were no writben communications. <br /> <br />Mayor Demos announced that the meeting was open for the <br />consideration of objections, if any, to said proposed assessment. <br />All persons present were given the opportunity to present oral <br />objections. <br /> <br />No one appeared to be heard. <br /> <br />Mayor Demos declared the hearing closed, and Councilman <br />Curley moved that the adoption of the proposed assessment be <br />continued to September 8, 1980 at 7:30 o'clock p. m. The <br />motion was seconded by Councilman Anderson and the following voted <br />in favor thereof: AlIi and the following voted against: None. <br />The motion carried. <br />