Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />Report. No. 80-12 t. <br />July 31, J(J80 <br />REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL <br />LONG LAKE PARK DI VL 1,()PMLNT <br /> <br />• <br />As of this elate the City has riot received a response to <br />its !resolution inquiring or the County's intention to <br />develop and maintain the bony Lako/Rush Lake regional <br />park. in the meantime, enclosed for your analysis is <br />a staff Critique; of alternatives available to the City <br />with the expected cost implications. <br />My opinion is that the City can not support mainterilence <br />and operation of the Long Lake/Rush Lake reyional park, <br />either separated or combined, without a new revenue source <br />which does not rely on the General Fund. 'The, only likely <br />new sourcu of funds which T see would be the 4% utility <br />gross earning tax which is available: to the City. '11eis <br />tax would generate approximatQly $160,000 per year and <br />would be basod on energy consLmiption. While I am not <br />reccxmne;ndiny the institution of this tax, it is a source <br />of funds available to you in the event you decide to <br />eveltttu:elly take on operation, and maintenance at the- <br />local level. <br />Reco?umendation <br />That Council receive the attached report regarding <br />Lony_ Lake Park, development, operation,and maintenance. <br />e:'nn.ts S. lla, City Manayer <br />Issued by City Manager <br /> <br />ki