My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-13-25-R
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
10-13-25-R
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2025 8:31:51 AM
Creation date
10/9/2025 4:07:51 PM
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.
/
66
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 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION — SEPTEMBER 22, 2025 18 <br />bonding for 2026. It's too expensive. For today's purposes, we can assume it includes bonding or <br />not. We can make that decision next year. <br />Mayor Grant said for every $2 you bond, you pay pack $3. <br />Councilmember Monson understands. There are also advantages to keeping the levy lower. <br />Bonding is a normal financial tool. There are trade-offs. She would prefer to try to keep the levy <br />smooth. <br />Councilmember Weber said if not for today's visit, we may not have had a choice. To that point, <br />it was a good discussion with the County. Given the potential of getting that good news from the <br />County, may solve the problem we're facing. We have to add at least $100,000, maybe $150,000, <br />to the PIR this year. It needs to be on the higher end, if we don't bond. <br />Mayor Grant agreed with the earlier comment that we don't have to make the decision today, but <br />as we look at next year, it becomes easier to see what our options are. We'll know what the <br />County is doing. His view of bonding is it should be reserved for a large project. We should try to <br />levy, when possible, to avoid bonding. The interest will pay for a road project. <br />Discussion ensued regarding the trade off between bonding and completing projects on schedule <br />or increased project costs due to delaying projects. Council agreed the PIR Fund must be built up. <br />Finance Director Yang said she can bring back options showing $100,000, $120,000, $180,000, <br />$240,000 and $300,000. <br />Mayor Grant said $300,000 is out and $240,000 may also be off the table. <br />Councilmember Monson wants to see $100,000. We can do $100,000 this year and we can <br />always increase it next year. <br />Councilmember Weber wants to see the scenarios. He also believes $240,000 may be out of the <br />question. <br />Council directed Staff to provide scenarios showing $100,000, $120,000 and $180,000, to include <br />all of the other changes discussed earlier. <br />City Administrator Jagoe asked Council for direction on whether or not to shift the PMP <br />projects. She said the Old Highway 10 project will be moved to 2027, per Council's direction. <br />She was wondering if there is anything with the Street Projects that would be affected by the PMP <br />shift. <br />Finance Director Yang said shifting the PMP, starting in 2028, won't impact this year. <br />Finance Director Yang will not have different scenarios next time. She will have the rates and <br />what the levy increases would result in based on tonight's discussion. The focus will be on just <br />2026 and the levy impact. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.