Laserfiche WebLink
COUNCIL MINUTES <br />May 892017 <br />" : I ILM <br />136 station would be expensive in the area of maintenance). She noted that with Options 1 and 2, there <br />137 would be less impervious surface and therefore perhaps more flexibility in stormwater management. <br />138 <br />139 Ms. Hankee explained how staff would propose to move forward, including specifics to each option. <br />140 - Staff will be working toward a cost estimate for action under the Street Reconstruction <br />141 Program and Option 3 will be the guide because the cost estimate cannot be more than what is <br />142 proposed for approval and public hearing; <br />143 - Project design will continue, permitting will be pursued; <br />144 - Cost for each of the projects was noted and elements explained; grant funding will be sought <br />]45 as possible; <br />146 - Proposed funding outlined in the report; <br />147 - Proposed project schedule reviewed; <br />148 - Future council actions proposed (Street Reconstruction Program process). <br />149 - <br />150 The roadway project for the LaMotte neighborhood was reviewed; <br />151 - Santitary sewer repair and road reconstruction is included; <br />152 - The water system extension somewhere to WSL project would be separate if it is done; <br />153 - Width of roadway noted; <br />154 - Drainage is currently overland flow and that would be cleaned up and curb and gutter added; <br />155 - The street has municipal sewer service but not water; the sanitary system doesn't require much <br />156 upgrade; there isn't much interest staff has heard in water service; <br />157 - Good feedback from neighborhood meeting has led staff to get more input on sump pumps on <br />158 the street; <br />159 - Proposed cost of project reviewed. <br />160 - Proposed funding outlined in the report as well as schedule; <br />161 <br />162 Council Member Rafferty asked about the information meetings, and confirmed with staff that there <br />163 was good turnout and interest. <br />164 <br />165 Council Member Manthey confirmed that all options are available for water/sewer. Ms. Hankee <br />166 noted some basic numbers identified for utility connection. <br />167 <br />168 Ms. Hankee explained process ahead and noted that staff is requesting approval of a resolution <br />169 accepting the feasibility study at this time. <br />170 <br />171 Mayor Reinert remarked that this is exciting; city government is about helping people. This road has <br />172 been in bad shape since the 1980's and many attempts have been made to get the road reconstructed. <br />173 He explained the history of getting a different road reconstruction project done two years ago by not <br />174 requiring water as part of the project. This road needs to be fixed and that should include giving the <br />175 road's residents the option of joining utilities or not. <br />176 <br />177 Council Member Rafferty asked why the projects would be connected for the process; couldn't that <br />178 prevent one from going forward. Director Grochala explained that the process is linked to a five year <br />179 plan for reconstruction of roads and everything in the plan is what is subject to petition/referendum. <br />180 <br />0 <br />