City Council Study Session Agenda and Packet 2004 04 13

Metadata

Thumbnails

Annotations

COUNCIL COMMUNICATION TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: WILLIAM A. SIMMONS CITY MANAGER DATE: April 13, 2004 SUBJECT: McCaslin Interchange Funding IGA — Discussion/Direction ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office SUMMARY: Please find attached the most recent draft of the McCaslin Interchange financing IGA showing the black lined changes received from Superior's Town Attorney on Friday afternoon April 2, in response to the last meeting with elected officials from both municipalities on March 24. Some highpoints and/or changes to the prior draft are as follows: 1. Superior's revisions to Sections 1(b) and 10 essentially make a firm commitment to the Second Phase Improvements. Read together, the result is that each party agrees to appropriate and deposit costs for the Second Phase, whether that Phase is the northeast loop, a widening of the bridge, or "other improvement necessary to accomplish the same improvements to traffic flow as anticipated by the currently planned northeast loop and related improvements." If this is not what Louisville intends, then these provisions will need to be revised. Louisville has not developed a finance plan for the second phase of improvements. 2. Under this draft, the dispute procedures should essentially work as follows (I'm using a change order as an example): Superior provides notice of a change order; Louisville then has three days from receipt to approve or provide its grounds for disapproval; if Louisville disapproves, it should within those three days send its statement of disapproval; it should also in the same statement say there is disagreement and refer the matter to the Committee; the Committee would then have five days to vote on the matter before either party could pursue formal proceedings. 3. Section 2 of Superior's draft includes a 4% factor for administrative staffing costs. 4. Section 6 proposes the two entities share equally in the cost of the operation, maintenance and repair of the improvements in the CDOT right -of -way. The language seeks a commitment that is uncertain in scope. 5. Section 9 of Superior's draft contains a new representation that each party has appropriated a $250,000 contingency. If the City agrees to this, then there really is no "appropriation defense" under the last sentence of Section 9 for Committee votes that implicate spending within this $250,000 contingency. There is no explanation provided by Superior as to their request for additional LE SUBJECT McCaslin Interchange Funding IGA — AGENDA ITEM Discussion/Direction Y�