Laserfiche WebLink
Davidson commented that the cars for the Planning Department were sub-compacts like GEO's. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council comments or questions. <br /> <br />Mayer stated that he would be recommending to Council that there be an inflationary increase in the <br />CIP Fund. <br /> <br />Asti-Caranci stated that this Budget incorporates that at 3.92% each year. <br /> <br />Davidson called for further Council comments. <br /> <br />NONE <br /> <br />RESOLUTION NO. 49, SERIES 1994 - SETTING FORTH CERTAIN PROCEDURES <br />CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF A SPECIAL BOND ELECTION TO BE HELD <br />WITHIN THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE, COLORADO ON NOVEMBER 8, 1994 <br />(PUBLISHED LOUISVILLE TIMES 9/10/94) <br /> <br />Forest Cason, Kirkpatrick/Pettis, 1700 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado, introduced Maria Prevedel, <br />Sherman and Howard, Bond counsel for the City of Louisville. He stated that the city's Finance <br />Committee had a study session discussing whether the city wished to have a ballot issue this <br />November for the purpose of utilizing the tax passed last November to provide a revenue stream, <br />which could be bonded against. <br /> <br />Prevedel stated that the Supreme Court had ruled on some of the Amendment 1 issues, which were <br />fairly favorable for local governments. The Supreme Court held that cities can do consolidated <br />election questions with bond and revenue sources combined. Substantial compliance with the terms <br />of Amendment One is good enough to do bonds. The city can pledge the 3/8% sales tax passed for <br />open space last year. She reviewed the different alternatives for the ballot question. <br /> <br />Davidson called for Council questions. <br /> <br />Sisk wanted, concerning alternative #1, a suggestion as to the amount the city would be looking at, <br />if the bonds went on the market giving a revenue source. <br /> <br />Cason stated that at the present time, with interest rates where they are today, the total amount of <br />the bond issue would be approximately $4.2 million par amount. Subtracted from that would be the <br />cost of issuance, so approximately $3.9 million would be available for projects. <br /> <br />Sisk asked if the same amount of proceeds would be available with alternative #2. <br /> <br />Cason: Yes. The amount of proceeds, the best we can <br /> conjecture today, would be about the same. The <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br /> <br />