My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_7309
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
07xxx
>
7300
>
res_7309
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:15:25 AM
Creation date
4/25/2005 12:10:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
7309
Resolution Title
Ordering the Construction of Improvement No. SS-W-81-21 Under and Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429
Resolution Date Passed
2/8/1982
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
9
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />bond attorney is recommending, due to the bond rates and the <br />climate of selling bonds, that they not be spread longer than <br />15 years. If that happened and the assessment hearing was next <br />summer - not 1982 but 1983 - it would first show up on your <br />1984 taxes and they would be collecting 1/15 of that for 15 <br />years, plus interest on whatever is unpaid. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: Is there any way you can extend this <br />for a special case? From 15 years to 20 years? <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: You could go up to thirty if you wanted, <br />but then your assessments would be corning in after your bonds <br />mature. Usually the assessments tie into your bond maturities. <br />Nobody is selling bonds longer than . . . <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN CURLEY: You don't want to extend it past the <br />payment of our bonds. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: That's right. The City would be doing <br />the financing. If we had the bonds over a ten year period and <br />these over 15, you'd pay it off in ten years and be getting <br />money over the last five years or twenty years. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: I think what Tom was saying is that the <br />cost is so prohibitive, it almost appears that the City should <br />allow them something. <br /> <br />COUNCILMAN-CURLEY: So we end up financing this, so to <br />speak. <br /> <br />MR. POPOVICH: You can do it. <br /> <br />MR. HAVEL: Does the City have to do it, or could the <br />City (inaudible) homeowner contract his own contractor? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: We can only assess costs that we incur. <br /> <br />MAYOR DEMOS: You could do it, but you would have to pay <br />100% of the cost and pay for it yourself. <br /> <br />MR. HAVEL: This $21,000 that you project - has this been <br />figured out by you or have you actually gotten bids on the <br />job? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: This is an engineer's estimate. We have <br />not received any actual bids. We wouldn't do that until we <br />had the project approved. <br /> <br />MR. HAVEL: Does that normally run about true to the <br />figures? <br /> <br />MR. HONCHELL: If I was speaking three years ago - I <br />don't remember ever missing an estimate by more than 5% or <br />6%. You remember what happened in the general industry three <br />or four years ago - everything started shooting up twice even <br /> <br />5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.