CC 09-10-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. . . ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL- SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 9 contribution of Arden Hills in the amount of $644,774.02. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). C. Resolution #01-16, Clarifying Proposed Sums of Money to be Levied for Levy Year 2001, Payable in 2002 Mr. Post explained this item needs to be addressed this evening to get the preliminary levy in to the county by September 15,2001. He stated the levy could go down, but could not go up once this preliminary levy was approved. He noted that in looking at the material from the Department of Revenue, the implicit price deflator used in setting the limit was 3.36% rather than the 2.8% in previous levy discussions. He added the city received HAC A funds from two sources: primarily state aid certified HACA, and in the form of manufactured home HACA to a limited extent. He stated the city was trying to restore the lost HAC A funds from manufactured homes HACA and the certified HACA funds from the Department of Revenue. He noted the city never receives 100% of the levy so they use a delinquency factor. He added he recommended the city council consider an 8.69% increase over the certified 2001 amount. He stated the city would still be under the levy limitation. He noted this compared to earlier discussion of a levy increase of 7.5%. He added he did a quick telephone survey of the neighboring communities. He stated Arden Hills and Maplewood were relatively low. Councilmember Grant asked if those amounts had been approved. Mr. Post responded the amounts listed were what the finance directors were using in their latest submission to their council. He stated they were preliminary. Councilmember Aplikowski asked what the maximum amount of the levy could be. Mr. Post responded the maximum city levy increase could be 12.8 percent. Councilmember Aplikowski stated it would be nice to publicize that. MOTION: Councilmember Larson moved and Councilmember Aplikowski seconded a motion to approve Resolution 01-16. The motion carried unanimously (5-0). D. City Hall Construction Project, Rochon Corporation, Change Order #5 Mr. Lynch explained the items related to Change Order #5. He stated item 16 should not be included since waterproofing was not complete. He noted the roof drain amounts were also in dispute since the city believes this was an architectural design oversight. Mr. Post stated Change Order no. 5 items represent a change in contract price. He noted that, concerning Item 14, whenever the waterproofing problem was solved then the contractor would have a green light to go ahead with the retaining wall. Councilmember Grant asked if the work had been completed. Mr. Post responded everything was done except for Item 14. Councilmember Grant stated he would rather see the change order before they finish the work.