Laserfiche WebLink
August 13, 1981 <br />47 <br />The special meeting of the Lino Lakes City council was called to order at <br />7:30 P.M., August 13, 1981, by Mayor Gourley with all Council members <br />present. Mr. Steve Mattson, Juran 6 Moody, Mr. Wayne Long and Mr. Bob <br />IIFrigaard, OSM, Mr. Ken Meister, Carley, Mr. Locher, Attorney and Mr. <br />Schumacher were also present. <br />1 <br />i <br />MINUTES <br />Mr. Kulaszewicz moved to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 10, <br />1981. Seconded by Mr. McLea. Motion carried with Mr. Jaworski abtaining. <br />ALTERNATIVES CONCERNING PROJECT 81 -01 <br />Mr. Steve Mattson presented his analysis of the two figures provided by <br />OSM. He reported that, as of this date, the bonds are selling at 12%, <br />He alo pointed out that with the elimination of the area assessment, there <br />would need to be additional funding by 1985/86. Mr. Mattson then went <br />through his analysis and explained the figures to the Council. He presented <br />the anticipated disbursements and income, noting there would be a deficit <br />figure in 1985.85, and explained this would have to be obtained from other <br />sources. This could be either the use of the system or from a mil levy <br />or both. <br />Mr. Mattson wanted the Council to understand that this proposal is in the <br />worst possible manner. He also pointed out that short term bonds, for a <br />period of three years, can be sold at 10% at the present time and there is <br />provision by State Law that allows a three year roll over on these bonds. <br />Mayor Gourley noted the connection porjections and Mr. Mattson explained <br />that figure representes only those persons abutting the trunk line and does <br />not take into account any extension of laterals. <br />Mayor Gourley asked, if short term bonds were sold, when is an assessment <br />hearing held? Mr. Mattson said this is a very tough question to answer - <br />there is a possibility of the interest changing - he suggested that it would <br />be easier to asses at the maximum and if the bonds are sold at less, then <br />the interest could be lowered. Mr. Mattson pointed out that there are a <br />lot of variables in this proposal. <br />Mr. Wayne Long pointed out that the figures presented by Mr. Mattson re- <br />presented a shortened version of the project that was presented at the Public <br />Hearing. This represented construction of the pump station, the lateral <br />down Hodgson Road, the trunk line up #8 to Elm, over Elm to 4th Avenue, up <br />4th Avenue to Lilac, with a leteral from Elm to I35 W along #8. The larger <br />project represented is the same project as described with the addition of <br />a lateral along Lilac to #8 and North on #8 for approximately 500 feet. <br />This would then serve all lands that were included in the original petition. <br />Mr. McLean said a third alternative was being discussed - this would end the <br />trunk at the North side of the freeway with an extension up #8 to the free- <br />way. Mr. McLean felt this cost had been represented at approximately 1.9 <br />million. Mr. Long pointed out that was the project cost - the figures <br />presented by Mr. Mattson represented all costs. <br />Mr. Long pointed out that all wet lands and unbuildable lands had been <br />eliminated from the acres that would be assessed. <br />It was pointed out that the 1.9 million dollar project included a shortened <br />lateral along #8 - approximately 1000 feet only. <br />