06-02-2014 Council Work Session Minutes

Home Search

CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 2, 2014 APPROVED 45 The mayor said he is hearing the council express some apprehension but he isn't hearing 46 that the council won't continue discussing these plans. He recommends that staff 47 continue to work on breaking down the numbers. 48 49 1. Annual Audit Report — Rachel Flanders and Chris Knopik, CliftonLarsonAllen 50 representatives, presented their company's audit findings. Their PowerPoint presentation 51 is on file. Staff is recommending that the council approve the audit report at the next 52 regular council meeting. 53 54 2. Street Reconstruction Plan — Community Development Director Grochala 55 reviewed the update on the Plan included in his staff report. This plan is one option that 56 the council is considering that would allow the city to do a road project utilizing bonding; 57 as authorized through Minnesota Statutes. The improvements would be funded 58 completely without special assessments. With the assistance of the city's fmancial 59 advisor, Springsted, staff has looked at possible phasing of the Plan over 10, 15 or 20 60 years. The initial phase would include two projects over a five year period. The steps 61 involved in consideration of this Plan are: 1) a draft plan is brought forward to the 62 council; 2) a public hearing is held; 3) the plan can be approved by a vote of the council; 63 4) a waiting period ensues during which a petition can be submitted sending the plan to 64 ballot; 5) If no petition is received, implementation of the plan begins. Staff will be 65 asking the council to hold the public hearing and then consider approval, including 66 authorizing the issuance of bonds. He introduced Terri Heaton of Springsted to review 67 financing. 68 69 Terri Heaton, Springsted, explained that an action authorizing a bond program would 70 preserve the option of issuing bonds in a not to exceed amount. Sale of the bonds would 71 be authorized when the council makes the decision to do so. She reviewed the possible 72 bond schedule and implications such as cost to the average property owner. 73 74 Mayor Reinert noted that the council has a responsibility to fix roads in the city. He 75 supports moving forward with the Plan as indicated by the schedule presented. He noted 76 that, under this Plan, if a neighborhood wants to add water and sewer elements to a 77 reconstruction project, they could petition for such. This Plan would allow the city to get 78 the road work done only. 79 80 Council Member Kustelivan noted that he likes the phasing concept, allowing payments 81 to be stretched out. He asked for more information on the number of signatures required 82 on a petition and the process that residents would face in requesting additional 83 improvements. Mr. Grochala explained that statute dictates that the number of 84 signatures required on a petition is a percentage of voters at the last municipal election, 85 and that additional work (such as water and sewer) done with special assessments would 86 fall under the city charter provisions. 87 2