Laserfiche WebLink
Mayor & City Council <br />January 21, 1994 <br />Page 4 <br />Our City Engineer put together a memo dealing with the <br />unwatered areas of the City which included estimated <br />construction costs. On a very rough basis, he estimated <br />between $70 and $80 per lineal foot for the projects <br />identified. They included Viking Drive east of Edgerton <br />Street, Keller Parkway, Twin Lake area, County Road D from <br />Desoto to Edgerton, Viking Drive east of McMenemy to <br />Edgerton, and Gilander Lane. While some of these projects <br />would involve the undeveloped lot criteria, I would still <br />like to use his total cost figures to indicate the impact <br />of these various policy options on the City coffers. That <br />impact is as follows: <br />Options City Cost Assessed Cost Total Cost <br />1) 100% Assessed Minimal 100% $946,000 <br />2) 50/50 $492,000 $454,000 $946,000 <br />3) 50/50 w/ Max $641,710 $304,290 $946,000 <br />4) Flat Rate $641,710 $304,290 $946,000 <br />5) '70 Carried $704,000 $242,000 $946,000 <br />Forward <br />Please keep in mind that these are based on some very rough <br />estimates and that actual costs would hopefully run less <br />than indicated. Also, a detailed analysis of assessable <br />properties has not been done. Given these qualifiers, the <br />figures should still provide a representative indication of <br />the relationship of the various options to each other. <br />Considering factors such as benefits received, equity to <br />property owners based on past project assessment rates, and <br />overall costs to the City, I feel Option #3 is the most <br />workable. I also believe that the City can, over time, <br />accommodate its share of the costs through our water and <br />sewer capital replacement account. <br />Obviously, this is a big commitment that needs to be <br />thoroughly studied. Your input is needed as to how we <br />should proceed. <br />JRH:kpv <br />Page 41 <br />