Laserfiche WebLink
• Maintenance of an aesthetically pleasing water level in the pond. (In discussing this <br />with the City Engineer, he feels that three feet is appropriate given the discharge point <br />will allow for a five -foot pond depth. This will require us to flush our hydrants in this <br />area during extended dry areas to maintain this elevation. I would recommend <br />acceptance of this provision.) <br />• They are also concerned about odors and unsightly appearance caused by stagnant <br />water. If conditions warrant, they would like us to install a fountain to provide for <br />some type of water movement. I have asked the City Engineer for estimated costs to <br />do so. It is my opinion that we may be better off to install it at this time to minimize <br />construction costs as it could also be a nice feature for this area, subject to reasonable <br />cost to do so and their willingness to pay for ongoing electrical costs. I should have <br />this information by Wednesday's meeting. <br />• They have asked us to re -sod the are around the pond instead of re- seeding. (I am <br />checking with the Engineer on the planned vegetation for this area to see if this is <br />feasible. I would concur with re- sodding at obvious yard areas versus pond <br />embankments.) <br />By copy of this memo, I am forwarding this information on to their attorney. Due to the <br />needs of the contractor, I would like to have this matter finalized by Wednesday evening. <br />If you have any comments or questions regarding this matter, please let me know. <br />NSP Agreement for Burying Powerlines: <br />Also attached is a memo from Lee Elfering and a Statement of Work Requested for <br />burying of the powerlines. You will note our cost is $225,245 that is less than the <br />$250,000 initially estimated. I would recommend approval as presented. I also want to <br />commend Lee Elfering for his work in minimizing our cost for this component. <br />Aspen Path: <br />Another issue arose this past week. We had designed this path at eight feet in width <br />based on our current standards to facilitate ease of maintenance. The existing path was <br />five feet in width. Jim Morelan said this was a concession to the neighborhood at the <br />time of original installation. We have surveyed the neighborhood and the vast majority <br />of responses was in favor of the eight foot path (Jim is compiling the results). We will <br />likely proceed with the eight foot path unless you have other concerns. (We did <br />apologize to the neighborhood for the short notice.) <br />cc: Timothy Welch <br />Page 120 <br />