Laserfiche WebLink
Special Council Meting <br />September 5, 1984 <br />293 <br />A special meeting of the Lino Lakes City Council was called to order <br />by Mayor Benson at 6:30 P.M. on Wednesday, September 5. The purpose <br />of the meeting was to discuss the proposed sewer issue with the con - <br />tractors involved. <br />Also present councilmembers were Mr. Kulaszewicz, Mr. Bohjanen, and <br />Mr. Marier. Mr. Reinert entered the meeting at 6:50 P.M. Others <br />present were Mr. Schumacher, Mr. Wetzel (engineer), and Mr. Langness <br />(fiscal agent from Springstad), and Mrs. Anderson <br />Representative for contractors were present as follows: Harvey Gearman <br />. and Jim Shafer for Rice Lake Estates, Roy Stanley for Tilsen Properties, <br />Allan and Dennis Ulmer for Ulmer Construction, Harvey Karth for Rehbein <br />Excavating. Shilling Construction was not represented. <br />RESOLUTION 84 -25 <br />Mayor Benson referred to Resolution 84 -25 wherein it is noted that the <br />City and the contractors involved are required to enter into a developers <br />agreement in order to continue with the proposed sewer project. <br />Mr. Schumacher pointed out that there seems to be four basic points <br />that need to be discussed and hashed out, those being: <br />1. The developers have expressed a desire for a long repayment sched- <br />ule. The past policy of the City has been a five -year repayment <br />schedule. <br />2. Developers request a one year capitalized interest in bond issue <br />(one year to start paying). <br />3. Developers are supportive of a letter of credit for internal <br />systems only and feel it is unfair for the City to require them <br />to submit letter of credit for trunk line or anything other than <br />internal systems. <br />4. Developers feel the City should take into consideration their <br />past tax payment record of no delinquencies in making a decision <br />on this matter. <br />Mr. Langness outlined some letter of credit alternatives which the <br />Council proceeded to discuss. He stated that from the City's stand- <br />point capitalized interest should not present a problem. <br />Several items such as - -35% versus 100% letters of credit, temporary <br />improvement bonds, five year versus 15 year payment schedule, risks <br />and benefits of each- -were brought up and discussed at length. <br />Mr. Hawkins wanted to remind all involved that a sewer project of <br />this cost has significant impact upon a City the size of Lino Lakes <br />and the importance of making a mutually agreeable decision was great. <br />Mr. Marier moved to ajourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Kulaszewicz. <br />Mr. Marier and Mr. Kulaszewicz voted aye, others nay; thus motion <br />failed. <br />Ulmer Construction voiced that they were anxious to have the Council <br />make a decision on this issue. <br />