CC_Minutes_2008_0609 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, June 9, 2008 Page 11 • Councilmember Roe requested, by the June 30, 2008 meeting, a breakdown of new spending and maintaining existing infrastructure. Councilmember Pust noted that there may be other policy decisions imbedded within the CIP document (i.e., whether to build a new fire station) that needed to identified and segregated for the public. City Manager Malinen noted that other items, such as the license center facility, was another level of the detail staff was trying to put together in order to include all the significant pieces of the CIP; advising that staff was attempting to develop a summary page for each of those major items to facilitate City Council discus- sion and decision-making, including potential types of funding mechanisms; tim- ing, amounts, and their magnitude. Councilmember Roe noted that the City Council had the ultimate approval author- ity for those items remaining on the list of possible expenditures, and those sub- ject to removal. Mr. Miller concurred, clarifying that the CIP was intended as a planning docu- ment, not a budget appropriate request. • 12. d. Geothermal Funding Plan Finance Director Chris Miller reviewed the requested City Council action for a resolution approving a funding plan, as recommended by staff, for the arena re- frigeration system. Mr. Miller noted that staff had originally recommended a temporary loan from the City's Street Infrastructure Replacement Fund; however, given the current estimated cost of the project between $1.5 and $2.4 million, staff was no longer making that recommendation. Staff currently recommends that the City borrow money through the issuance of equipment certificates, with a detailed description of their use provided in the staff report; for repayment over a 10 year period, and issued without voter approval, but otherwise similar to a bond issue. Discussion included impacts to a typical single-family home owner of $10.00 per year, or a total of $100 for the 10 year term of the issue, representing a 1.8% levy increase on top of any other levy increase for general operations or other pur- poses; timing of an issue; and the need to adopt a resolution within the next 60-90 days simply signaling the City's intent to issue equipment certificates. Councilmember Willmus sought clarification on the difference in debt service of a General Obligation (GO) bond issue or equipment certificates. Mr. Miller advised that there would be no difference, with either based on the full faith and credit of the City and within the same bidding environment. •