Laserfiche WebLink
EXTRACT ~F MINUTES OF A MEETING ~F THE <br />CITY COUNCIL ~F THE CITY CF ELK RIVER, MINNESaTA <br />HELD: December 21, 2009 <br />Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, a regular or special meeting of the City Council of the City <br />of Elk River, Minnesota, was duly called and held at the City Hall in Elk River, Min.nesata on <br />December 21, 2009, at 6:30 p.m, for tlae purpose, in part, of giving preliminary approval to the <br />issuance of general obligation capital improvement plan bonds and adopting the capital <br />improvement plan. <br />T e of owing members were present: Mayor Stephanie ~~.linzing, Councilrnembers Nick 2erwas, <br />. Jerry Gum hrey, Batt Westgaard, and Paul Motin <br />and the following were absent: none , <br />Member M~ t 7 <br />introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: <br />A. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Elk River, Minnesota the "City"} <br />proposes to adopt the City of Elk River, Minnesota, Capital Improvement Plan the "Plan"} and to <br />issue its general obligation capital improvement plan bonds the "Bonds") described in the Plan; and <br />B, WHEREAS, the City has caused notice of the public hearing on the intention to issue <br />tlae Bonds and on the proposed adoption of the Plan to be published pursuant to and in accordance <br />with Minnesota Statutes, Section 475.521; and <br />C. WHEREAS, a public hearing on the intention to issue the Bonds and on the proposed <br />Plan has been held on this date, following published notice of the public hearing as required by law; <br />and <br />D. WHEREAS, in approving the Plan, the City Council considered for each project and <br />for the overall Plan: <br />1. The condition of the City's existing infrastructure, including the projected <br />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 funds; <br />7. operating costs of the proposed improvements; and <br />8, Alternatives far providing services more efficiently through shared facilities <br />with other local governmental units; and <br />