Laserfiche WebLink
lower and the outstanding debt limit would be reduced to $9 million versus $20 million with the other options. <br />In addition, the City would have greater flexibility with loan payments and offered greater financial stability, <br />which aligned with the City's goals and visions. She reported this option would have the City paying interest <br />in the amount of $3.5 million versus $5 million. She explained option three would have the City closely <br />monitoring its levy limits. <br />Lotter further discussed how internal loans would impact the City with regard to levy limits. <br />Davitt requested the Council consider the City's future debt levy and which option should be pursued to assist <br />with financing the City's future road projects. <br />Mayor Jacobsen asked if Mr. Ruff had any comments or recommendations for the Council. <br />Mr. Ruff appreciated staffs presentation and stated it was not uncommon for cities to go through these <br />financing cycles. He stated typically cities absorb this debt through revenue sources, such as the storm water <br />fund, while also adjusting other funding streams such as LGA. He encouraged the Council to keep the term to <br />10 years. <br />Councilmember Burg asked how other communities were addressing large road reconstruction projects. Mr. <br />Ruff indicated some cities were funding street reconstruction with franchise fees. Some cities were assessing a <br />larger portion of the project costs. <br />Lotter reported staff discussed the assessment amounts last week but it was determined the City's current <br />policy was the most fair way to approach improvement projects. <br />Mayor Jacobsen questioned if staff had an understanding as to the cost of roadways in the next 30 years. <br />Davitt commented that staff had only completed projects for the next 10 years. <br />Councilmember Bauman did not find any of the options to be acceptable. She questioned why the City had not <br />addressed this concern five years ago. She was disappointed that the City did not have the foresight to address <br />this sooner and still provide a program to fix the City's streets. She encouraged the City to find a better <br />balance within the proposed street reconstruction projects to reduce the overall financial impact on the City. <br />Lotter requested that staff review the City's street plans for the next 30 years. Schlichting discussed the City's <br />street replacement plan for the next 30 years and commented on how the Pulte roads had been incorporated <br />into the City's plans over time. <br />Further discussion ensued regarding the City's current road conditions. <br />Mr. Ruff stated the legislature was considering a street utility concept, which would generate funding based on <br />street use. He commented that this legislation has not found favor to date. <br />Councilmember Strub was interested in learning more about this legislative concept. <br />Councilmember Jacobsen supported the reduced levy amounts in option three; however he feared how the <br />City's reserves would be impacted. He requested that staff push out the life of the City's streets 40 years and <br />see how this would impact the City's plans. <br />Councilmember Bauman asked what interest rate staff used in the models. Davitt commented that she built in <br />a 3% interest rate. <br />