My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
09-22-25 WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Minutes
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
09-22-25 WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/14/2025 3:28:48 PM
Creation date
10/14/2025 3:28:37 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.
/
21
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 15 <br />Council reconvened the Work Session at 8:52 pm. Councilmember Rousseau and <br />Councilmember Holden were not in attendance for the reconvened Work Session. Both were <br />excused. <br />Mayor Grant said we don't know a lot about our Capital needs because if we are delaying <br />projects until 2027, we don't know what the cost share agreement will be with the county. That <br />will affect our PIR. He doesn't think we should bond when we may not need that. We can <br />reassess all of that a year from now. He thinks it makes sense to shift the projects. He doesn't <br />think they should have been combined in the first place. That shift will even out what we spend. <br />We need to choose an amount to increase the PIR by in 2026. We may end up increasing or <br />decreasing it in 2026 when we go through this process next year. By then we will know what the <br />County cost participation policy is. He said we're in a year that may have a school board levy. <br />There may be a reasonable increase in County taxes. The operating costs as a City are going up. <br />We need to increase the amount of money going into the PIR. <br />Councilmember Monson said we need to figure out our preliminary number that we want to set <br />next week. Then we may have some more information to be able to come down from that number. <br />Councilmember Weber said the other information we need to decide is whether or not we are <br />pushing those projects. We can decide to do that in December. He asked Staff at what point it <br />becomes detrimental to the programming of projects. <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen said the most basic way to break it down is <br />that the City has 30 miles of street. He has the system set up on a 20-year rehab cycle. <br />Councilmember Weber said he understands the program. He is asking how late, in this process, <br />will be too late to do it in 2026. <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen will begin doing site inspection for the next <br />PMP next year. It would be good to know which streets we're doing so he knows how to set up <br />the workload for next year. That information that we gather will set up how we scope the project <br />and design would be the following year. <br />Councilmember Weber asked when that process starts. <br />Public Works Director/City Engineer Swearingen said site inspections will start next year. It <br />would be in 2027 when we would do design. <br />Mayor Grant said the portion being pushed out is mostly commercial. They pay at a 70% rate. <br />We can handle the capital needs in 2026 and 2027. If we push the projects, we have a longer <br />runway to have meaningful contributions to the PIR fund, over time. <br />Councilmember Monson said when we look at all of these scenarios, we have a range of 15.9%- <br />20%. <br />Discussion ensued regarding how much a median value household would pay and how much <br />impact the different scenarios have on the PIR Fund. <br />Finance Director Yang pointed to the information in the packet. She said it is taking a look at the <br />15.0 plus any incremental. She said it is the third column is what we are looking to increase it by. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.