Laserfiche WebLink
1k <br />EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE <br />CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUGO, MINNESOTA <br />HELD: April 19, 2004 <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular meeting of the City Council of the City <br />of Hugo, Minnesota, was duly held at the City Hall in Hugo, Minnesota on April 19, 2004, at <br />7:00 P.M. for the purpose, in part, of giving preliminary approval for the issuance of general <br />obligation capital improvement bonds and adopting the capital improvement plan therefor. <br />The following Members were present: <br />Mike Granger,.Chuck Haas, Frank Puleo, and Fran Miron <br />and the following were absent: Becky Petryk <br />Member Haas introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />RESOLUTION 2004-17 <br />RESOLUTION GIVING PRELI IINARY APPROVAL FOR THE ISSUANCE <br />OF GENERAL OBLIGATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BONDS IN AN <br />AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $2,560,000 AND ADOPTING THE CAPITAL <br />IMPROVEMENT PLAN THEREF09 <br />A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hugo, Minnesota (the "City") <br />proposes to issue its general obligation capital improvement bonds (the "Bonds") and adopt the <br />Capital Improvement Plan of 2004 therefor (the "Plan"); and <br />B. WHEREAS, the City has caused notice of the public hearing on the intention to <br />issue the Bonds and on the proposed adoption of the Plan to be published pursuant to and in <br />accordance. with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521; and <br />C. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the intention to issue the Bonds and on the <br />proposed Plan has been held on this date, following published notice of public hearing as <br />required by law; and <br />D. WHEREAS, in preparing the Capital Improvement Plan, the City Council <br />considered for each project and for the overall plan: <br />I&U265v2 <br />I . The condition of the City's existing infi astructure, including the <br />projected need for repair and replacement; <br />2. The likely demand for the improvement; <br />3. The estimated cost of the improvement; <br />4. The available public resources; <br />5. The level of overlapping debt in the City; <br />6. The relative benefits and costs of alternative uses of the fluids; <br />7. Operating costs of the proposed improvements; and <br />8. Alternatives for providing services more efficiently through shared <br />facilities with other local governmental units; and <br />