Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />1980 Project Schedule <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Manager referred council to a memorandum dated April 21, 1980, from <br />Bert Teitzel, City Engineer, to Don Gilman, Acting Director of Public <br />Works, with an attached list of 1980 projects that the Engineering <br />Division recommends proceeding with. <br /> <br />tit <br /> <br />Mr. Teitzel told the council they would like to go ahead with the bid <br />nos. 1 and 2 groupi ngs. The groupi ng call ed "Unschedul ed 1980" 1 i sts ' <br />projects that they would like to complete this year. Some preliminary <br />design projects have been delayed until 1981. Manager explained the <br />table and recommended that Bid No. 1 be awarded before the June 10 Ban- <br />croft bond sale date. Bid No.2 would be awarded after June 10. The <br />fund 491, District Improvement column, shows the additional liability <br />that would be added with those two groupings, $500,000. <br /> <br />Mr. Teitzel explained that they would like to proceed with those projects <br />shown in the tabulation as unscheduled subdivisions. The developer-owner <br />would pay the front-end engineering costs. The City would not have any <br />liability until it was let to bid. The subdivider-owner would be respon- <br />sible for any added costs to the City. This would cover any high interest <br />rate that the City pays on warrant sales. These would be awarded after <br />July if the bond market is still favorable. A favorable bond market would <br />be a continuation of the present downward trend. There may be additional <br />conditions that would apply to the subdivider after negotiating with the <br />bankers who would potentially buy the warrants. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay asked Mr. Teitzel about the engineering cost to be collected. <br />Mr. Teitzel explained the City had accounts outstanding for $90.000 in <br />engineering fees for these projects on the schedule. They would like to <br />collect that money from the developers and put the projects out to bid if <br />there was a favorable bond market in July. <br /> <br />Ms. Smith asked if this issue would be brought back to council in July. <br />Mr. Teitzel said the checkpoint would be at the time of the bid award of <br />individual projects. <br /> <br />Ms. Miller felt there was a potential in the bond market to look favorable <br />at the time the warrants are sold but not when the bid is let. The lag <br />time could create a deficit situation. Mr. Teitzel replied that Ms. <br />Miller was correct; the lag time could be one or two years for subdivi- <br />sions. Ms. Miller asked, if they approved the projects, would the risk be <br />shifted to the developer. Ms. Miller asked what would happen if the bond <br />market keeps climbing. Mr. Teitzel replied they are anticipating that the <br />State legislature would increase the ceiling on the interest charge <br />allowed for Bancroft bonds. <br /> <br />Mr. Delay asked what the worst-case situation would be. Mr. Long replied <br />there are two risks, even though one collects front-end costs. One case <br />would be that the interest rates would be so high that it would be necessary <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />4/30/79--5 <br />