Laserfiche WebLink
anywhere in the CIP Plan. One possible source of funding for <br />this city subsidy is a city wide tax levy as this type of bond may <br />be outside of the levy limit restrictions (but this is unknown at <br />this time). If a smaller trunk sewer and water project which is <br />developer driven is authorized, then this project may be closer to <br />cash flowing, the city may be able to assess these benefited <br />property owners slightly more than $6,000 per acre, and the city <br />may have a smaller amount to subsidize. Again, the above <br />comments are just based on previous discussions and everyone <br />will know much more about the cost of this trunk sewer and <br />water project when the feasibility report is presented in July. <br />Nonetheless, we all need to start thinking about funding options <br />if a city subsidy, large or small, is needed for this project. <br /> <br />Once again, please note that the CIP proposal is just a draft and that staff <br />needs the City Council to think about a number of issues and give direction <br />to us on how to proceed. These issues are noted above and relate to the <br />timing of some major MSA funded projects, the funding of streets, the use of <br />the Capital Projects and MSA Reserve Funds, the use of the Development <br />Fund, and how the city should fund an east Elk River trunk sewer and water <br />shortfall. <br /> <br />XXelkriver\syskshrdoc\document\cipmm.doc <br /> <br /> <br />