My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-14-24-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2024
>
10-14-24-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/13/2024 8:59:49 AM
Creation date
11/13/2024 8:54:25 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
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
ARDEN HILLS SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — SEPTEMBER 23, 2024 4 <br />Councilmember Fabel asked what the City's share of the fire station is. <br />Councilmember Monson said it was approximately'/4 of the amount. <br />Councilmember Fabel asked if any portion of the annual payments made will cover capital <br />expenditures. <br />Councilmember Monson said no. <br />Councilmember Holden said the portion each city paid was supposed to be adjusted as the <br />population changes. She wondered if it will be a flat 25%. <br />Councilmember Monson said previous discussion was regarding one bond or three bonds. North <br />Oaks and Shoreview both prefer a single bond. That would provide them with some <br />administrative cost savings. Arden Hills looked at that and the savings wasn't substantial. They <br />have a three-year rolling average to decide what proportion of the share the City pays. There is <br />concern that today it's 2 5 % but in 5 to 10 years Arden Hills may owe a higher percentage, but the <br />bond would reflect just the 25%. The discussion is whether or not the cities need to come up with <br />a separate agreement that outlines if one of the cities' share swings X% above or below, would we <br />have a payment plan to true up our portion. It's more complicated by going to three bonds. <br />Councilmember Holden said the building is going to cost $25 million. It will be done. She wants <br />to understand how the rolling average works. Why would our cost go up, when it was already <br />built. <br />Councilmember Monson said these are preliminary discussions. There are not agreements yet <br />and negotiations are forthcoming. The argument for having three separate bonds so there are no <br />issues with hitting the qualifying cap. We want to have a positive relationship with the fire board <br />and with the partnering cities. <br />Mayor Grant agrees with Councilmember Holden that the cost is $20-$25 million and we <br />finance it, however it makes sense. We build it. It doesn't take that long to build. The proportional <br />share to build the building is whatever the cost is that particular year. What if Shoreview puts up a <br />bunch of apartments, or if North Oaks built up or if TCAAP moves forward? You have the <br />financing in the year the building is built. He would not want to be subject to how the partnering <br />cities want to run their bond. The longer you run it, the more expensive it will be. <br />Councilmember Monson said that's why they want to go to one bond. A single bond outlines <br />who has what share, there are no questions about timelines. A single bond is simpler, and it <br />retains a positive relationship with our partners at the fire board. That is not to say that having <br />three separate bonds will not retain those partnerships. <br />Mayor Grant said if we finance the $4.5 million, we have the bonding and the building gets <br />built; he doesn't understand why we're looking forward 10 years where our percentage will be <br />more. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.