My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
01-12-26-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2026
>
01-12-26-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/4/2026 1:54:36 PM
Creation date
2/4/2026 1:51:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
90
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
E <br />Attachment D <br />�iiR�EN HILLS <br />MEMORANDUM <br />DATE: October 14, 2003 Agenda Item 4.A <br />TO: Mayor and Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator <br />FROM: Aaron Parrish, Director of Community Development / Asst. City Admin. <br />SUBJECT: Karth Lake Pumping Project Financing Options <br />ENCLOSURES: 1. Karth Lake Pumping Project Costs: Direct Expenses <br />2. Karth Lake Pumping Project Financing Scenarios <br />3. Scenario #1 Parcel Specific Estimates <br />4. Scenario #2 Parcel Specific Estimates <br />5. Scenario 43 Parcel Specific Estimates <br />6. Scenario 44 Parcel Specific Estimates <br />7. Surface Water Management Fund Retained Earnings <br />Overview <br />At the September 29, 2003 Council meeting, the City Council approved proceeding with the <br />Karth Lake Pumping project. However, the ultimate approach to financing the project was <br />deferred to the October Work Session. Previously, the notion of a 50/50 split between the City <br />and Lake Improvement District was discussed. The intent was to share in all costs including <br />construction expenses, legal expenses associated with creating the Lake Improvement District, <br />and engineering expenses. Since the project came in significantly over the engineer's estimate, <br />the Council wanted to explore the possibility of changing the approach to finance the project. <br />Discussion at the Council meeting ranged from changing the percentage allocation between the <br />Lake Improvement District and the City to changing what costs were ultimately included in the <br />total project cost. <br />As a follow up to this discussion, staff has prepared a series of four alternatives each with <br />different cost and policy implications. These alternatives generally include the following: <br />1. Scenario #1: Previous Proposal. This scenario takes into account all direct expenses <br />associated with the project. The cost is split between the Lake Improvement District and <br />the City equally. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.