Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />~ <br />EN HILLS <br /> <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />DATE: <br /> <br />Agenda Item 4.A <br /> <br />October 14,2003 <br /> <br />TO: <br /> <br />Mayor and Council <br />Michelle Wolfe, City Administrator <br /> <br />FROM: <br /> <br />@ <br /> <br />Aaron Parrish, Director of Community Development / Asst. City Admin. <br /> <br />SUBJECT: <br /> <br />Karth Lake Pumping Project Financing Options <br /> <br />ENCLOSURES: <br /> <br />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 #3 Parcel Specific Estimates <br />6. Scenario #4 Parcel Specific Estimates <br />7. Surface Water Management Fund Retained Earnings <br /> <br />Overview <br /> <br />At the September 29, 2003 Couneil meeting, the City Council approved proeeeding with the <br />Karth Lake Pumping project. However, the ultimate approach to finaneing 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 diseussed. The intent was to share in all costs ine1uding <br />construction expenses, legal expenses associated with creating the Lake Improvement Distriet, <br />and engineering expenses. Since the project eame in significantly over the engineer's estimate, <br />the Council wanted to explore the possibility of changing the approaeh to finance the projeet. <br />Discussion at the Council meeting ranged from changing the percentage allocation between the <br />Lake Improvement District and the City to changing what eosts were ultimately ine1uded in the <br />total projeet cost. <br /> <br />As a follow up to this discussion, staff has prepared a series of four altematives eaeh with <br />different cost and policy implications. These altematives generally ine1ude the following: <br /> <br />1. Scenario #1: Previous Proposal. This scenario takes into account all direct expenses <br />associated with the projeet. The cost is split between the Lake Improvement Distriet and <br />the City equally. <br />