02/11/92 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Case #2: ' 1992 City of Ramsey Street Maintenance Program Finance OlYicer~Helling stated that if the 1992 Street Maintenance Program moves ahead as proposed, Ih~ C,i~ty's share of the cost, which is 50% of the cost for reconstruction/overlays on existing bit hgainbus streets, is estimated at $52,964. The City has previously funded these costs by inclusio [in a~ bond issue wherein an annual tax levy for the pro-rated principal and in, retest is made. Thi.~ debt, service levy is outside of the levy limit. Mrs. Helling stated that the City s recent bond issue. Seri'gs 1992B ($620,000 General Obligation) included the overlay/sealcoating projects completed ~R 19~0 and 1991. She added that as the City's share of the 1992 Street Maintenance Program Will b'b included in a future bond issue, the interest rate and term of the bond is undeterm' .m~. There is a seven-year cycle for the street program so after the seventh year, the City will incur debt service payments for seven years of street programs. Mrs. Helling stated that based on the abo~¢ inJ~ormation, the 1992 Street Program debt service payment will average $8,880 annually. ~k.S the City completes year seven of the program, all things being constant, it will have annual stre~l~ prCgram debt service payments (principal and interest) of $62,160. She added that although tlg.~ ~de~.t service levy is outside of the current general operations levy limit ($1,531,174), the $62,160 Would effectively raise the current levy to taxpayers by 4%. Motion by IC~uncilmember Hardin and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to recommend that Council approve the funding source for the City's share of the 1992 Street Maintenance Program and to dir~t~Stlfff as to be funded from a future bond issue wherein an annual tax levy for the pro- rated principal arid interest will be included. Motion ca~ed. Voting Yes: Councilmembers Hardin and Peterson. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilmqmber'Beyer. Case #3: Engineering Charges Finance OffieeriHelling stated that engineering rates have to be established for assessment projects prior to tl~* prbject being finished. She added that 10% of the total construction cost for engineering is il~cluded in the 1992 Street report that was just reviewed by the Budget Committee. Motion b3~ Cottmcilmember Peterson and seconded by Councilmember Hardin to recommend engineerir~g s6i'vices for the City's annual street program be charged at 10% of the total constructi~l co'~t and that all projects prepared by the City Engineering Department be charged a percent of!the construction cost of the project consistent with the ASCE Cost Curve. Motion ca~ed.I Voting Yes: Councilmembers Peterson and Hardin. Voting No: None. Absent: Councilm~mber Beyer. ADJOURNMENT Motion bF ;Cou.'ncilmember Hardin and seconded by Councilmember Peterson to adjourn the meeting. : Motion c~edi Voting Yes: Councilmember Hardin and Councilmember Peterson. Voting No: None. A~¢nt:/' Councilmember Beyer. The Budgl~t Committee meeting adjourned at 7:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ',~/Recordin~ Sec~tary Finance Officer Budget Committee/February 11, 1992 Page 2 of 2