CC WS PACKET 07082025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

June 24, 2025 Saint Anthony Council Work Session - 2 The Street and Utility Improvement Process includes regular street improvements, which are a main driver of the debt levy. Detailed Engineering & Financial planning begin approximately one year in advance of the construction start date. The process involves: The City Manager, City Engineer, Public Works Director, and Finance Director review the street reconstruction schedule and revise it as needed. City Engineer presents an updated street reconstruction schedule to City Council and seeks approval for a feasibility report on upcoming years' projects. Next steps are Council acceptance of the feasibility report, hold public informational meetings, approve plans, and authorize bids. Upon the opening of the bids, the expected construction costs are used to update the impact on the existing debt levy. The sources for Street Improvement and Debt Service Funds include Street Improvement debt levy, bond proceeds, assessments, Municipal State Aid (MSA) allocation, One-time revenues, and project savings. The uses for Street Improvement and Debt Service Funds include Street improvement debt service, street reconstruction, utility reconstruction, streetlights, sidewalks, mill & overlays, and alleys. The Street Improvement Schedule was a two-year-on, one-year-off schedule. It was revised to pause street projects in 2026 and 2027 and transition to an every-other-year project cycle beginning in 2028. This accommodates the Kenzie Terrace reconstruction by Hennepin County, which increases project costs. The revised schedule creates a declining debt levy. Ms. Maloney provided two charts showing Debt Levy Planning and Less Frequent Debt Issues. She noted that if project scope and costs remain stable, the street infrastructure fund balance will increase enough to support smaller future projects without borrowing. Ms. Maloney recommends that the City Council discuss the revised street improvement schedule and its alignment with projected debt capacity. Key points for consideration include: Confirming the updated timing of upcoming street reconstruction phases, including proposed off-years. Reviewing the City’s existing debt service schedule and capacity for future bonding. Also provided for City Council consideration were the PowerPoint presentation, 2026 Revised CIP – Street Projects, 2026 Debt Levy model, and 2026 Levy Transition model. Councilmember Doolan asked about 2030 on Rankin Road from County Road 88 to 31st, there is no assessment. Ms. Maloney stated that it is correct because that is maintenance mill and overlay. Mayor Webster thanked Ms. Maloney for outlining the thinking for this plan. She appreciates the estimates from the Staff on when the streets will need repair. Mr. Yunker stated that the prior process was pushing streets out too far for repairs from an engineering perspective. Mayor Pro Tem Jenson referred to the chart included in the packet and noted $2.487M+ is the debt cap and the debt levy that will be executed, savings that can be banked for future expensive projects. Councilmember Doolan asked about the colored columns, with the left-hand column stating the infrastructure levy that would be used, and the right-hand column stating the Amount levied less prior bond eliminations. The future projects are not included. B.Infrastructure Planning Discussion