My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1989/02/06
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1980-1989
>
1989
>
Agenda Packets - 1989/02/06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/15/2025 4:15:08 PM
Creation date
4/15/2025 4:15:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/6/1989
Description
Regular Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
f�"� j" �f �� Januay 23a <br />Council U .., ; . r Two <br />� g_______________ <br />KI <br />$� 9 <br />Mounds View City <br />,�� F-' � � �. !, <br />E--------- <br />Regular Meeting ________________________ <br />SYSCo/Continental stated <br />(� <br />v <br />Mr. Phil Seipp, President of <br />help of the City and Staff in <br />he appreciated the <br />this project moving along. He also thanked <br />after <br />getting <br />the citizens who showed up at the meetings and <br />their support behind it. <br />researching the project, put <br />Jim Kasterly, the attorney working with the developer, <br />complicated project and ne <br />explained this was a very <br />the City had provided. He <br />appreciated the help <br />were two issues to be resolved yetf one <br />stated there <br />being the use of the dedicated property. He stated <br />as specified in the <br />he felt by specifying those uses <br />and putting them <br />provi.sions of the existing code, <br />be sufficient. He stated <br />would <br />right in the deed#and <br />item deals with the bond <br />rsolely as <br />the second but <br />not a financial or legal impedimentear increment <br />a 14 y <br />language issue. He explained <br />ce in the loff- <br />end theearaof <br />means a 1.5 year term, <br />would cut on;yearo increment <br />of <br />.'the bond sale d l4 years <br />He explained they had alway all their <br />in doing <br />increment would be available <br />loss of ore year would <br />calculations#andthe <br />present a problem. <br />Mayor Hankner asked if a 14 year increment had <br />beginning of the project- <br />been calculated from the <br />been <br />thatule. is how they <br />Kasterlyreplied it <br />originally Put the,scnd <br />xp lained that to go <br />Clerk/Administrator Pedecision that would <br />p,lic <br />beyond 15 years is a Y <br />be made by the Council. He added the ears <br />15y <br />have to <br />Counc*1 has clearly indicated to -taffuthat <br />he <br />in the maximum they would 90 and <br />Council meant 15 ye the term of <br />whether the receipt of the bond <br />the bond issue or 15 years cf <br />10 months to the <br />add1 <br />issue increments, which would add <br />bond. <br />Mayor Hankner stated it would still assume 14 years <br />16 bond. <br />of increments with an almost year <br />Mr. Kasterly stated that as the available bond keep <br />have tried <br />proceeds have come down, they <br />$1.6 million. <br />the total capital at <br />Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained the 10 months <br />the developer <br />would ea•ial e504000 to $60,000, and <br />uo the difference. <br />is simply trying to make <br />improve— <br />Ms. PortwuO6 stated the cost of the public <br />and the developer <br />ments will not exceed $1.8 million, <br />amount, as costs will be taken <br />wi.11 not get the full <br />first. She stated the sum of the revenue note <br />not <br />out <br />and proceeds of bonds to the developer will <br />exceed $1.8 million. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.