My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
1984-01-24
NewBrighton
>
Council
>
Minutes - City Council
>
Minutes 1984
>
1984-01-24
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/15/2005 4:58:53 AM
Creation date
8/11/2005 1:14:37 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
11
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Minutes <br />Janua ry 24. 1984 <br /> <br />City Manager briefed the Council on the $300.000 General <br />Obligation Bond for the Fire Station. He emphasized that <br />the Council need not make a decision tonight due to the <br />lack of time for the Council to read this additional item <br />on the agenda. <br /> <br />Community Development Director reviewed the available <br />financing for the bond at this time. <br /> <br />Harcus asked if it was necessary for the Council to make <br />a decision tonight. <br /> <br />Community Development Director. Winkels. stated that the <br />City has received a $20.000 bill for the water tower removal. <br /> <br />Harcus asked if there were resources available in other funds. <br /> <br />Winkels stated that the Finance Director would like to estab- <br />lish the true cost of the project and wouldn't get that when <br />funds are transferred. <br /> <br />Harcus would like to see an analysis of our current fund <br />balances and whether or not we need to issue bonds. <br /> <br />In discussing whether or not a three week delay would affect <br />the rate. Winkels indicated that there was no prepayment <br />penalty and that we could refinance it at more than 8~%. and <br />that in three weeks the bank will not say "no." <br /> <br />Schmidt indicated that he would favor deferring this item <br />for three weeks on the premise that it will not affect the <br />rate and that the Council will have the benefit of having <br />the information available. ' <br /> <br />Harcus directed staff to provide further information for the <br />next Council Meeting. <br /> <br />Schmidt reviewed the meeting that he had attended earlier <br />this evening and emphasized the changes from Group Wls <br />original proposal. In summary. they are offering less but <br />want to charge more. Tonight we analyzed what they were trying <br />to take away and what affect the effect of cost woul d be if they <br />gave us what they promised us in the first place. What we <br />realized was that as they went along and built the system. <br />according to their revised proposal. they were going to activate <br />the B channel for dual cable but wouldn't run the drops into the <br />houses for the B cable; they were going to have to come back two <br />or three years from now and run those drops into the houses for <br />the second cable. It was decided by the commission that we <br />wouldn't accept anything less than what was promised to be built <br />because in terms of the proposals they've given us it really <br />doesn't make economical sense. All of the options will be <br />explored by legal counsel before any action is taken at the next <br />meeting. <br /> <br />Page Ten <br /> <br />General Obligation <br />Fire Station Bond <br />of 1984 <br /> <br />Cable Television <br />Update <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.