Laserfiche WebLink
August 14, 1978 Page 9 <br />BOND SALE CONCEPT APPROVAL <br />Seegar Swenson explained that the bond interest rate has been raising the past year <br />until just the past few weeks and that the financial world is not sure if the interest <br />rates will continue to go up or come down. He added that he feels this is a good <br />time to set a bond sale. <br />Mr. Swanson explained that the bond issue is for $1,400,000, to include Projects <br />1975 -4, 1977 -2, 1978 -3 and 1978-4, with total construction costs amounting to <br />$972,372, land acquisition amounting to $125,000, engineering, legal and fiscal <br />fees $161,295, contingency $5,845, capital interest $125,541, and bond discount. <br />$24,947, totaling the $1,400,000. Mr. Swanson also presented the planned maturity <br />of the bond. <br />Administrator Achen reported that the bond sale in addition to financing Projects <br />1973-3 and 1978 -4 will provide permanent financing for Projects 1975 -4 and 1977 -2 <br />which have already been completed. <br />MSP (Baumgartner - Rowley) to adopt Resolution No. 921 authorizing the sale of <br />$1,410,000 improvement bonds and setting a bid opening date of 8:00 PM, <br />September 11, 1978. <br />3 ayes <br />Administrator Achen recommended that the City take the necessary steps to continue <br />their bond rating, and that Moody's provides a rating for all bonds that are sold <br />and that the rating is used by the bidders to rate how safe the bonds are. Mr. <br />Swanson added that the fee for the rating by Moody's would be approximately $1,000, <br />which would be assessed back to the project. <br />MSP (Baumgartner- Rowley) to authorize the Clerk /Administrator to sign a contract <br />with Moody's Investor Service to continue the bond rating for the community. 3 ayes <br />GALE ADDITION - APPEAL OF FAIRCHILD EXTENSION DENIAL <br />Mr. Gale, 8227 Groveland Road stated he was protesting the City's decision to <br />deny the extension of Fairchild and stated that he and his neighbor now have land <br />that is considered dead. <br />Councilmember Rowley pointed out that the extension was denied because the cost of <br />the improvements to the two lots made it prohibitive. Councilmember Baumgartner <br />stated that the matter had been discussed at the Planning Commission meeting and <br />that there was an existing easement running between LaPort and Ardan, of 30', and <br />that Ken Sjodin had suggested a 30' easement to the west of the property line but <br />that Bill Werner and others present had objected to having a read put through for <br />asthetic reasons and so forth. He added that the cost of a cul -de -sac and utilities <br />would probably be close to the cost of putting the road through, and that either <br />would be prohibitive to the two property owners. He added that Mr. Gale should <br />have been present at the public hearing to voice his opinion then. <br />Mr. Gale stated that he had never received notice of the hearing, nor had his neighbor. <br />Administrator Achen checked the records and reported that notices had been sent to <br />both Mr. Gale and his neighbor and that neither notice had been returned. <br />Mr. Gale stated that he would like to grant a 30' easement to put in a dead end <br />street for the two lots, coming in from LaPort. Administrator Achen recommended <br />that the property owners check into the cost and feasibility of putting in a dead <br />end street and then come up with a plan and present it to the Council. <br />