Laserfiche WebLink
City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby replied it is actually so the roads don’t <br />completely fall apart. <br /> <br />Finance Director Lund replied it is spread out instead of bonding for everything in one year. She <br />explained the handout related to the roads outlining different scenarios. She asked for Council <br />discussion on where they are comfortable with for road funding and direction on putting it as <br />additional levy for this year to get the roads going. <br /> <br />Councilmember Riley commented there were a lot of numbers and Finance Director Lund did <br />everything right but he offered to put his spin on it. He referenced the handout and the number at <br />the top and stated they already have a ten-year CIP so there is already ten years of improvements <br />planned. He stated the very top line, Staff have figured out, that in addition to the ten years of <br />roads that need to be reconstructed, they are behind as is known. He stated there are additional <br />things, streets, that weren’t in the CIP but essentially need to be rebuilt now. He stated the top two <br />numbers are indicating that is what is known now needs to be rebuilt or reconstructed in the next <br />ten years. He stated they have already talked about the funding, which is the next line down. Last <br />year the City levied $1.6 million and Finance Director Lund has grown it for 5% every year but <br />that still leaves the City way behind to cover what needs to be done and they had talked to Public <br />Works about wanting to front-load some of this and get ahead of it. That is what the middle section <br />of the handout was doing. He explained either they put it all on the levy and take out bonds and <br />then the different periods of paying that back. He stated in discussions with Public Works the <br />question was brought forward what does it look like if the City takes out bonds or put it on the <br />levy to meet needs and get more done up front. <br /> <br />Councilmember Specht commented that hearing second-hand from the Public Works meeting, he <br />asked if there was discussion about borrowing ahead on State Aid and if that is a different plan. <br /> <br />Finance Director Lund replied these are non MSA roads. <br /> <br />Councilmember Musgrove thanked Finance Director Lund for getting Council the numbers and <br />bringing it to Council’s attention. She stated there is clearly a need and the public has been <br />demanding that the City take care of the roads. She stated she supported either option one or two. <br />She stated she wasn’t sure if option three or four is better. She thought option one or two takes <br />care of the need as close as necessary for that. She asked if these numbers are run with the 2.6 <br />ARPA funds. <br /> <br />Finance Director Lund replied yes, that is subtracted out at the top. She added a suggestion to <br />chose option one over option two because they would be paying more for option two for getting <br />the same thing. <br /> <br />Councilmember Woestehoff asked for clarification on options two, three and four if that includes <br />any extra increase on the levy or is it just the proposed 5%. <br /> <br />Finance Director Lund referenced the handout and stated at the bottom of the page is the total levy <br />debt. She explained for 2023 payable levy of $1,756,000 and adding the 1.238, that would be what <br />would fund the needs for the CIP and the additional roads. <br />City Council Work Session /July 26, 2022 <br />Page 12 of 19 <br /> <br />