HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-18-13 Council PacketSPECIAL WORK SESSION AGENDA
CITY OF LINO LAKES
Monday, November 18, 2013
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
City Council Chambers
5:30 P.M.
1. Public Improvement Financing Presentation,
Michael Grochala and Steve Bubul (Kennedy and Graven)
Adj ourn
WS — Item # 1
WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Work Session Item No. 1
Date: November 18, 2013
To: City Council
From: Michael Grochala
Re: Public Improvement Financing Presentation
Background
The City's Pavement Management Plan was updated by WSB and Associates and
presented to the City Council at the August 5, 2013 work session. The plan is used to
guide preparation of the City's annual Pavement Management Program and budgeting
decisions. Since 2004 the city has continued to increase efforts for preventative
maintenance (sealcoating) and preservation (overlays). Street reconstruction is the only
element of the program that has not advanced. In light of the failure of the 2012 Charter
Amendment the council has requested options available to the city to initiate a
reconstruction program.
As discussed at the August meeting the next step in the program evaluation is the public
improvement financing presentation. The purpose of the presentation is to provide an
opportunity for elected officials and community members to gain a thorough
understanding of the statutory authority and tools available to the City for making public
improvements. The scheduled presentation will consist of an informative review of the
procedural requirements for special assessments including both State Law and City
Charter provisions, the financing options available to the city and provisions specifically
related to street reconstruction.
The meeting will focus on state law and charter provisions that are in place today. The
meeting is not intended to be a debate on the merits of the Charter provisions, past
practices or whether changes are needed. Rather staff's goal is to identify financing
alternatives which will lead to a future policy discussion by the council to determine a
preferred method for financing street reconstruction projects.
Requested Council Direction
None requested. This meeting would be followed by a policy discussion to determine a
preferred method for financing street reconstruction projects.
Attachments
1. Summary of Financial Tools
SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL TOOLS FOR
FINANCING PUBIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE CITY OF LINO LAKES
Stephen J. Bubul
Kennedy & Graven
I. SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 429
A. Constitutional and Statutory Basis.
Article X, Section 1 of the Minnesota Constitution provides, in part:
"The legislature may authorize municipal
corporations to levy and collect assessments for
local improvements upon property benefited
thereby without regard to cash valuation."
Chapter 429 of Minnesota Statutes is the authorizing statute for cities.
Except where a city charter provides otherwise, this statute governs the
undertaking of all "improvements" as defined in the statute, if they are
financed in whole or in part with special assessments. The term
"improvements includes streets (whether new or reconstruction),
sidewalks, sewer, water, street lights, parks and certain other kinds of
public improvements.
B. General Principals for Levying Special Assessments.
1. Assessments must benefit the property. Benefit is measured by an
increase in market value.
2. Assessments must also be fairly allocated among properties, so that
the amount assessed approximates the benefit to each parcel, and
all parcels are treated equitably. In practice, assessments are
spread based on a formula such as front foot, parcel area,
residential unit, or similar criteria.
The allocations can be different for different type of property (e.g.,
commercial versus residential) as long as the distinctions have a
rational basis.)
3. The property owner may either pay the assessment all at once, or
may pay in installments over time —in effect, an assessment is a
loan to property owners. The number of years, amount of annual
payment and interest rates are all set by the City Council.
4. When payments are made in installments, they are paid along with
property taxes (in May and October). (However, unlike property
taxes, assessments are not deductible from the owner's federal
income taxes).
C. Initiation of Proceedings.
1. Petition by owners of 100% of the benefited property, who agree to
pay for 100% of the cost; or
2. Petition by owners of at least 35% of front footage of benefited
property; or
3. Initiated by council.
D. Feasibility Report.
Prepared by engineer to determine whether the improvement is necessary,
cost effective and feasible.
E. Public Hearing.
1. Not required if project is 100% petitioned. Council must adopt
resolution finding the petition has been signed by required
percentage. The resolution should be published, and no appeal
may later be taken unless filed within 30 days after publication.
2. Published notice: twice, at least a week apart, the second one at
least 3 days before the hearing.
3. Mailed notice to each property owner in proposed assessment area,
at least 10 days before the hearing. Notice must describe nature of
improvement, estimated costs, area to be assessed, and contain
statement that a reasonable estimate of the impact will be available
at the hearing.
F. Ordering the Improvement.
1. By council resolution; requires 4/5 vote if improvement was
initiated by council, or petitioned by less than 35% of the benefited
owners. Majority vote for all others.
2. Must order improvements at least 6 months after the hearing.
3. Plans and specifications ordered.
4. Separate projects may be consolidated and handled as a single
improvement.
G. Contracts.
1. Must let contracts for all or part of the work within one year after
ordering the improvement, unless otherwise provided in the
ordering resolution.
2. Contracts competitively bid.
H. Levy of Assessments.
1. Spread assessment against benefited properties (see Part I, above).
2. Assessment hearing: requires at least one published notice (2
weeks), plus mailed notice (2 weeks) to each property owner
describing the amount to be assessed against that particular parcel,
possible prepayment provisions, and the interest rate on unpaid
amounts. (Like the improvement hearing, not required for
petitioned projects; cities typically require petitioner to sign and
record a petition and waiver agreement, waiving rights to appeal or
challenge the assessment in any way.)
3. Council approves assessment rolls; clerk certifies with county
auditor by November 30 (for spreading the first installment in the
following year).
4. Any objection to an assessment must be filed with the city at or
before the assessment hearing.
II. SPECIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER CITY OF LINO LAKES CHARTER
A. Generally.
As noted above, Chapter 429 governs special assessments "unless the
council determines to proceed under charter provisions." Section
429.021, Subd. 3. Chapter 8 of the Lino Lakes City Charter establishes a
different process for special assessments, and provides that "local
improvements ... shall be carried out exclusively under the provisions of
this Charter." (Certain provisions of Chapter 429 control notwithstanding
a contrary charter provision, but most of those are technical in nature.)
The Charter defines the "local improvements" as any public improvement
financed partly or wholly from special assessments. That is, just as under
Chapter 429, the Charter applies only if at least some part of the cost of an
improvement is assessed.
The general principals for special assessments described above apply
under the Charter as well. The differences under the Charter are in the
process ordering the improvements. Following is a description of the
process under the Charter.
B. Initiation of Proceedings.
1. Petition by 100% of the "benefited owners," and council resolution
approved by majority vote.
2. Petition by at least 25% "in number of benefited owners" and
council resolution approved by majority vote.
3. Initiated by City Council, by resolution approved by 415th vote.
C. Cost Estimate.
The initial council resolution must state the nature and scope of
improvements, the number of benefitted owners, and provide a means to
obtain a cost estimate which sets for the cost of the improvement both in
unit price and in total. (This is roughly comparable to the feasibility report
under Chapter 429).
D. Public Hearing.
1. Required even if improvement is 100% petitioned.
2. Council must, by majority vote, approve a resolution setting the
public hearing; and must publish a notice twice, a week apart and
at least two weeks before the hearing.
3. Must send a copy of the initiating resolution, including estimated
unit prices and total price, to each benefitted owner at least two
weeks before the hearing.
E. Ordering the Improvement.
1. If improvement is initiated by at least 25% petition, owners have a
60 -day period after the hearing to file an objecting petition. The
objecting petition stops the improvement if signed by at least the
same number as those who signed in the initial petition, unless a
counter - petition in favor of the improvement is filed within the
same 60 -day period, signed by at least the same number who
signed by the objecting petition. If the improvement is not vetoed,
the Council may by resolution "proceed with the improvement" at
any time up to one year after the hearing.
2. If improvement is initiated by 100% of benefited owners, owners
have the same 60 -day objection period, except that 100% of the
owners may also file a second petition reducing the period to 10
days. If that second petition is filed, the Council can then proceed
with the improvement as soon as 10 days after the public hearing.
3. If improvement is initiated by the City Council (with no initial
petition), owners have a 60 -day period after the hearing to file an
objecting option. The objecting petition stops the project if signed
by a majority of the owners proposed to be assessed, unless a
counter petition is signed at least the same number who signed by
objecting petition. If not vetoed the Council may proceed any time
through one year after the hearing.
F. Referendum.
However the improvement was initiated, an election is required if less than
100% of the cost is paid from special assessments "or any outside finding
sources other than the City general fund." City Charter, Section 8.04.
The ballot question must include the assessment formula, and the election
must be held within 120 days after the public hearing.
[There is no comparable provision in Chapter 429.]
G. Reconsideration.
If an improvement is disallowed (either because it was vetoed by benefited
owners, or because voted down in a referendum), the Council may not
vote on the same improvement within one year the public hearing on that
improvements.
[There is no comparable provision in Chapter 429.]
H. Contracts.
1. Contracts must be let within one year after ordering the
improvement. (The Charter does not include this rule, but Chapter
429 provides that all charters are deemed to include this provision.)
2. But the Charter imposes an additional rule not found in Chapter
429: if bids exceed the cost estimates by more than 10 %, the
Council may not award the contract, and may re -bid the
improvement only once.
I. Levy of Assessments.
Once an improvement is ordered by the City Council (and not
vetoed by property owners or disapprove by voters), the
assessment process follows Chapter 429 (as described above).
III. BONDS
A. Generally.
The City Charter and Chapter 429 do not directly deal with issuance of
bonds. Rather, bond issuance is mostly governed by Minnesota Statues,
Chapter 475. Most cities finance infrastructure by issuing "general
obligation bonds," which are secured by the city's full faith and credit.
(These bonds carry lower interest rates than bonds secured solely by a
particular revenue stream).
Under Chapter 475, there are four basic ways that the City may issue
general obligation bonds to finance infrastructure:
1. Voter - approved bonds (election).
2. Improvement Bonds (without election).
3. Street Reconstruction Bonds (reverse referendum)
4. Utility Revenue General Obligation Bonds (without election)
Each of these bond types is discussed in turn below.
B. Voter Approved Bonds
1. The City may choose to hold an election regarding issuance of
bonds for any public improvement, including street reconstruction.
The bonds may be issued if approved a majority of those voting on
the question.
2. The City used this option to finance improvements to the
intersection of Main Street and Lake Drive and the intersection of
Birch Street and Ware Road. (The bonds were approved in the
2010 general election, and were issued in November, 2012.)
C. Improvement Bonds
1. Improvement bonds are paid at least in part with special
assessments. They may be issued without election if at least 20%
of City's cost for the improvement is paid with assessments. The
balance is secured by a general property tax levy.
2. Improvement bonds are exempt from debt limits under Chapter
475 (which is 3% of the taxable market value in the City).
3. Under the City Charter, even if at least 20% of the project cost is
specially assessed, but some portion is paid from a tax levy or
other city general funds, the project itself must first be approved at
an election —only then may bonds be issued.
4. In most cases, the City of Lino Lakes may issue improvement
bonds without election only in cases where the entire cost is
specially assessed).
D. Street Reconstruction Bonds
1. Street Reconstruction bonds are paid from a general tax levy,
though a city may use special assessments or some other revenue
source to reduce the levy each year.
2. The bonds must be used only to finance "street reconstruction,"
which is defined to include:
• utility replacement and relocation and other work incidental
to street reconstruction
• turn lanes and other improvements having a substantial
public safety function
• realignments
• other modifications to intersect with state and county roads
• local share of state and county road projects.
However, the term excludes costs allocable to widening a street or
adding curbs and gutters where none previously existed (unless
those activities fall within one of the bullet points listed above).
3. Before issuing street reconstruction bonds, a city must hold a
public hearing (with 10 days' published notice) regarding a five -
year street reconstruction plan and issuance of the bonds. After the
hearing, the City Council must approve issuance of the bonds by
unanimous vote of all council members present at the meeting.
4. Citizens have 30 days after the hearing to file a petition with the
City Clerk requiring an election on issuance of the bonds. (This
process is referred to a "reverse referendum "). The petition must
be signed by voters equal to 5% of the votes cast in the last City
general election. If no such petition is filed within 30 days after
the hearing, the City may issue the bonds without election. If a
petition is timely filed, the City is not required to hold an election,
but it may not issue the bonds unless it does so and the question is
approved by a majority of those voting on the question.
5. Street reconstruction bonds are subject to the statutory debt limit.
(However, that limit is very high, and most bonds are exempt from
the limit, so it is not likely to be a limiting factor in the City of
Lino Lakes.)
6. In cities that operate under Chapter 429, it is possible to combine
special assessments with street reconstruction bonds. For example
a city might specially assess 10% of the cost of a street
reconstruction project, which is not enough to allow issuance of
improvement bonds without election. But the City could hold a
hearing on street reconstruction bonds, and if no petition is filed,
issue the bonds without election and use the special assessments to
pay 10% of the debt service (with a tax levy covering the rest.)
6. Lino Lakes does not have this combined - financing option, because
if any portion of the street reconstruction cost is specially assessed
(even 1%), the project itself must go to the voters under the
Charter. The result is that Lino Lakes has only these options to
issue bonds for street reconstruction without election:
• If 100% of the cost is paid from special assessments (or
other revenues) —in which case the bonds are
"improvement bonds;" or
• If the city does not specially assess at all, but instead issues
street reconstruction bonds paid entirely with a tax levy
(assuming no petition is received that triggers an election).
• See below for other options that involve combinations with
utility bonds.
E. Utility Bonds
1. Utility revenue general obligation bonds (or "utility bonds ") are
issued in part under either Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 444 (in the
case of water, sewer and storm sewer improvements), or Section
115.46 (in the case of wastewater treatment improvements). The
bond proceeds may be used only to finance one of those utilities —
so these bonds are not an option for general street reconstruction,
though they can be used to finance just the utility portion of a
street reconstruction project.
2. The bonds must be payable primarily from net revenues of the
water, sewer, and /or storm sewer utility. That is, the city must
expect that net utility revenues will be sufficient to pay the bonds,
but if revenues ever fall short, the City still promises to levy an ad
valorem tax to cover any shortfalls.
3. One exception to the above rule is for wastewater treatment
facilities (which include all types of sewer improvements). For
these bonds, the City may include a tax levy to pay part of the
bond debt service.
4. The City may also assess a portion of the cost of an improvement,
and use those revenues in addition to utility revenues. The special
assessments are still subject to the petition and veto process under
the Charter, but the Charter would not require an election on the
project itself because costs would not be paid with a tax levy or
general city funds.
5. The City could combine utility bonds with improvement bonds or
street reconstruction bonds to finance various portions of a street
reconstruction project. For example, the City could finance just
the street work by issuing street reconstruction bonds paid entirely
with a tax levy (subject to reverse referendum), and finance the
utility work with utility bonds secured by net utility revenues. No
election is required under the Charter because no part of the project
is specially assessed —the Charter does not apply at all.
Or, the City could specially assess 100% of the cost of the street
work, and use utility revenues to pay 100% of the cost of the utility
work. In that case, the City might issue improvement bonds for the
street portion and utility bonds for the utility portion. No election
is required under the Charter because, even though the street
project is assessed (so the Charter does apply to that work), no part
of the project is paid from tax levy or general City funds.
-� A Typical Municipal Street and What Lies Beneath
iii
•
CITYs' w.V,f :OF
1 RNOLKES 'i : �` _ o • •
19 (((
Project A. Street Reconstruction with Utilities ; PraN<<r�L "�"" .. •
1 — - ® 13 ��' 77 "'r O May or may not include the following: ' - - --
,-
• Sanitary Sewer ' `" 14 i V.:,1s ,.. " z3
1 q
• Watermain 1 i16 I '..s. '21
• Storm Sewer ; l` �''' 1 1 1 1 '�,r:~ zz
•Concrete Curb &Gutter 1 . ,0 ,D 0
• Streets 1 ® �,/
• Sidewalk /Trails 1 ,/
1
1
0
O To Residence
Project B: Street Reconstruction - No Utilities
May or may not include the following: '__ -
1
• Storm Sewer 1 From Residence
• Concrete Curb & Gutter ;
• Streets '
• Sidewalk /Trails 1 i_EGEioD
1
Project C: Full Depth Reclamation 1 WATER STORM SEWER BOULEVARD
1
Watermain (typically 7 1/2 ft. depth) Storm Sewer Manhole 17 Boulevard
May or may not include the following: 1 Water Service • Storm Sewer (4-10 ft depth) 18 Sidewalk (width depends an site conditions)
1
• Streets 1 Water Service Shut -Off Valve Storm Sewer Catch Basin 19 Boulevard Trees
• Spot Curb & Gutter Replacement 1 Curb Stop and Valve Box 20 Rain Garden
1
1 Gate Valve and Box STREET
1 Concrete Curb and Gutter PRIVATE UTILITIES
Funding Mechanisms p
SANITARY SEWER Bituminous Pavement (asphalt/ Natural Gas Main (Private)
1 t, Sanitary Sewer Main (depth varies) Gravel Base .- Natural Gas Service (Private)
I .Voter Approved Bonds 1
1 Sanitary Sewer Service Granular Material Electrical Cable
2. Improvement Bonds ,
Sanitary Sewer Manhole Geotextile Fabric lin certain cases) Fiber Optic Cable
3. Street Reconstruction Bonds 1
4. Utility Bonds ; Cable Television
5. General Levy 1
( c)
C
17c5)
LIJ
Ld
1-
Cli
-a
0
a 0)
a) N,
L
(I) w
W Cl
N Ca
f/! t
a0
CO
Om
CO
•
• Further authorized by Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429.
- Except where City Charter process governs instead
"• tcz
Q
w L
0. a) 0 )
N
■- }'
^L,
A
U cz■ . c
Om Li=
cU
Ei -c'fi ca
L
C 0) u)
L
(.9 V>
L A A
E co co
. _ co co
›N A a)
• CO CO
CO CO
O ca ca
•
• Assessments must benefit the property.
Benefit = increase in market value.
•
0)
c
O
E
ca
W ca
U
0 L
ca
111
• Assessments may be prepaid, or installments.
If installments, council sets term and interest rate.
co
N
X
CU
1
N
Q
O
Q
1
cm N—
c L
O -Q
C/3 O
� U
Q 0
co 2
c fa
N
E
Ao CU
CO
c S
• •
owners of benefited property
0
0
0
0
ID
0
1
1
W
f1
Petition by owners of at least 35% of front footage
Initiated by city council
• • •
W
raco
ow
-a
'Li (IS
O a)
0- >
a U
ce i
>% 4_, O a)' -c7;
2 U O '-;
• — •
E2 a)2 cz
. —
r �, � U o to
CO O N
0 Q
U. 92 !.
2
. >% HL
H u a)
IL 0
• •
v
=1:3
MP
I
Not needed if 100%
Published notice twice (second at least 3 days before).
Mailed notice to property owners at least 10 days before.
• • •
mprovement
(
J
4
1
.L7
P.
0
1
O
L
4-
9-
O
0
LC)
M
v.'
co
N
co
1
9-
N
1
O
1
.L
•O co
E
ID O
O (1)
= en
•U 0)
c cu
O O
U
•
U
Q
45
ca
1
0
E
(.0
c
IE
W
co
co
Q
VI
E
O
o .L cu
W W
•
Contracts
Council orders plans and specs.
Project is competitively bid.
cm c
c O
. L ._J
W =
_
E O
O N
L L
9 cm
cu .=L-
L— W
(13 —0
W
>.. O
W c
c . _
O -0
. § O
L
L
L
C13 O
4 E
0 0
O
U a
• • •
Public hearing regarding assessments.
• •
Published and mailed at least 2 weeks before.
Mailed notice includes detailed information on assessments
• •
for that property.
c
(a
LO
♦^ N-
�a VJ
C
.� ca
a)
E Li=
0)
C 2
o
(/) 12 (a O
O d O N
C M _C
0 E -0
co E
a
Q
O co o ca
coCn z n
>11
a - =
2 > > 8
A
a) ._� E • •
J caQ o ��
. U .- c a)
O O Q L U
U U O ii O
• • •
If
i.
,
L
-a
i
N
ar
i
m
E
u)
u)
m
u)
u)
a
as
•_
o_
to
Lino Lakes Charter
co
co
a)
0
L
Q
1
W
E
co
co
co
co
1
W
L
fi
co
fa
VI
W
fa
L
L
ca
U
U
Q
•
1
.E
W
E
O
co
c
IE
co
W
E
a)
0
L
Q
E
a
0
O
co
CU
CO
L
CU
0
CO
W
(aa
J
o
•J
45
co
^L,,
45
ca
0
•
co
W
E
cow
cow
Q
rn
W
W
2
c
L.=
co
N
^E
W
O
L
Q
E
0
•
a)
0
45
co
Q
0
ID
ti
L
0)
N
ca
L,
W
O
ca
5
L
L
0
W
co
1
W_
.2
Q
o
L
O
0
C
0
co
^L,,
CI
45
CD
0
•
-t'S'
a)
0
C '= O N
O 'Fs' w (a
■ . E i
vim. vim. c co
•
■
ylm. . L O _c
C La a)
•
?� c Z
o E o c
W - = a-== =
O
L W a) c v
W e Li=
a) >, o
vim. C
L L -C) '� o 0
C 9- N = .. >
= Om fa 0 2
Vso a)oo-0
>11 N—
a) O c
> ›N O >
4m. L
• C _ c >N -0 a)
V °'� °o (c
a) o 11 E c o
• • •
m
co
E
E +71
N
W
tn.
O
U
^L,
a)
c
O co N
o
o L +-+
c ca c
o
- o ti
C13
ca E. E-
2 � � �
a c
co rn
c O O
ca .
co O ca
= Q
E O E
c co O
O
N
O E O)
a) c O
D ca D
• •
cu
a)
cfis
co
o
01) a-) 0
. L7 ii
T.)
W
I c-
o
W N =
}, O
• ■ co
N
L
-CI O 0)
O
' c L
. O
O a)
Q Q co
Q
Q U a)
IN
• • •
Required even
icatior
mprovement
o L
^ ^
W ,
A
c
.u)— -8 c
O c 0
O •U IE
}, L -ca3 . -
E`er co
t O O_
N E }' -
�� 03 a) '�
O co 0- .O
ca ca w E
N = U
a) f� N fu Li=
_a 0
Vi j (a
}o j, = . 2 E ti
LS �C0'3
O -'
CO 'cn c -c 0
.- c `_ O L 0 w : O 0_1-D, N .6
N O
71.3 a) Q O co
Sim
0 O O 0 L
C\I ' O _ N
L w#1
• • •
r
a)
^L,
W
>
a)
0
c
IE
IC
O
L
O
cur
E
U
fa
co
E
O
0
O
c
+61
w
E
w
o �
am
E '
m .47.
o
cn e
c
'L
L
0
co
^o
W
7
0
V0
0
0
N
0
(0
(a
>
co
c-
o
a)
0
0
°0
N-
4-
•
u
0
N-
0
.0
0
0)
fa
0
N
O
O
1
0
L
15
W
0
cs
0
r
I
O
0
1
0
0
Lo
N
CU
•
CO
CO
N
L
O
0
0
-o
W
1
(a
•c
4-
•
45
— L
0 -
� c L-
E 2
c
9—
0
1
0
co
O
1
1
N
. O
L
0
-o
.0
0
0
1
a)
i▪ s
0
•
r
a)
Referendum
c
(a ciN
0
U O
o
O
•
• •
r
-17
co
E .
a)
o
❑
cc
u
1-
cc
1
u
Contracts
9-
rn ' 2
= w° 45
Ea) 7,:*:)-
U N U)�
2
"'' 2 73
O 0- _c
L
_. tea)
cn
N� � O
U
L - 'oocn
A
N-a N
c O Qt_
L
< % U (1)
co
O
O
cn
cn U
U N
O
L
Q c
c cu
W W
cow E
fa 2
7 a)
a) 2
O g Ea
O U N
-0 L U)
I
• OUN
w›N .
CD E QU
• • •
-17
co
E .
a)
N
C
N
N
-a d
C >
0 O
m
Q
O E
u) a)
N V
O. C
>11 c4J
I— C
LL
0
Voter - approved bonds.
•
Improvement bonds (no election).
•
E
L
W
L
L
^>
W
L
co
-o
c
o
0
U
L
rn
c
^O
L
W
W
L
V 115
•
Utility revenue general obligation bonds (without election).
•
r
-17
co
E .
a)
o
❑
cc
u
1-
cc
1
u
City may choose to hold election regarding bonds.
a) o
o ti
N
> ca a)
OL
Q O fa
ca co a)
4 co 0)
cn O .0)
C/9 O CU
tn
>,°
.- =Cat
a) CO
Cr .0 -0 fa
N a) _c
> o U
E002 2
_ 6 n g Tv . 2 La 5
0 O CD
CO > 0 I =
• • •
a)
t.■ L
A
co U
Q -o N
• w = �O 0_
ca - ,
O N L
m c �, o co W
CU L co _c
o
W o X fa
E t = — CO U 0
to ▪ •=
_+ = CT > 0
\ N }' _N
O E > L � .0 N -rn
> C\I -15 -(7') 0 7 6 0
O
cu
• N _�
Om ca c w o U
0
E ,
(- a • O O
O cn O x N 00
x
o � �a0(2_a
Z• wCr) D'
• • •
a)
0
N
7.3 o N
co
C co co
0
c o
Ca > U
L L o
C a) n El
O
=
co
o n c -0
.-
ca O
0 v
O
Sim Z
rn _ .
- , ,
(I) L co
U 6 O N
O = U O
z v c3 L
ti
L E co
a
0
) > O •--
r ^'1 \1J �+
(0
IX L N +-+ c c
\1J co co 0
�� = j, N (73 N . E O
N � �
a) f) (13 O c
a) co cu .(1) 70 L U (�
L c w o_c 3= c N 8
. 1— = fl (
4—• cs ›N ›N ' °
Cn O N 2 • • • •
• •
i-t'S
4�
• Local share of state and county road projects
u)
-a
i
0
CO
O
N+71 =ciff
V G)
m m
L =
u) ▪ •+7.
c a
0 0
V
w
cu
Q
c
0
U
L
rn
0
0
W
L
W
L
rn
0
0)
.L
a)
U
Q
O
1
2
•
• Unanimous vote of council.
No election needed.
•
}i � O U
O rim ( - ° __
�o s=ue
CV O U .0
Ca co U ,N c •
�s -- ��=
. § U O L � O
La-) 4)
co 0
U co
-a X = :(T) E
(/) () E 5 .E
O N O m E
C 0 U L `~ c
•
O L..
a) o_ Ca >ti
CO 0) O O N
L 73 1 L 0 }' -a
0 C 'a w
co73 cu zt'a
5 co O cu c
0-
1- co -0
.+7. t o
U O �\ A
co
Om W O
0 a) c*Dcs .2 E cow cn F2
O O — o O >
N E O _a N
• •
=6
i
. +7.
0
v
0
O
. +71
o_
0
Street reconstruction bonds for just the street reconstruction
•
work; and finance utilities with:
Utility revenue bonds; or
cn
' p C .u) c
� U � � O
O N
E
N
O
il ; p o I
- O O
■ ■ ■