09-08-25-WS - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION— SEPTEMBER 8, 2025 5 Councilmember Monson asked if the City were to levy for the funds up front, what would the number have to be. She recommended 2028 be held and not be split. Councilmember Holden questioned how much of the residents' money the City wants to hold. She noted Option J would have the City holding up to $8 million. She reported Ramsey County was proposing a 9.7% increase. Councilmember Weber stated his previous statement was based on the assumption the City should not push the projects because it does not make sense for the City to bond. He supported the City holding enough funding to pay for all three projects. He indicated he wanted the City's ten year outlook to be good. He reiterated that he did not support splitting the projects. Mayor Grant commented if Director Swearingen had brought these projects forward as a 2026 and 2028 project, there would be no discussion about pushing the projects. He noted only a single project was brought forward for 2026. Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen clarified the 2026 project remains the same and the 2028 PMP was being proposed to split. Mayor Grant indicated if the project had been brought forward as a split, the Council would not be discussing this matter. Councilmember Holden asked what percentage of the budget is placeholders 10 years out. Public Works Director/City Engineering Swearingen commented the estimates get more refined as projects are five years out and beyond five years the today's rate was inflated until the year it is proposed. Mayor Grant stated another item that comes into play is the possibility of improvements to Lake Johanna Boulevard. He reported this project may require bonding and he did not want to see the City double bonding for this project and a future project. Councilmember Monson asked that staff provide the Council with another round of scenarios. She stated Option D was a 15% levy and Option J was a 15.9% levy. She indicated these were significant numbers. Councilmember Holden reported there was a time when the legislature had put a cap on what the City could levy. She explained this occurred for six or seven years and she feared the legislature may do this again. She stated it may be advantageous for the City to levy over 15% for the coming year should the legislature put a cap in place for future years. City Administrator Jagoe indicated staff would take another look at Option D, shifting the PMP projects with an increase annually beginning in 2026 with no bonding. She asked if the Council wanted to see what this looks like earmarking $180,000 annually. Councilmember Monson stated she was in favor of running scenarios of funding the levy now with no bonding for the next 10 years and funding the levy now, assuming bonding, but no split of the 2028 projects.