05-22-2017 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

COUNCIL MINUTES May 8, 2017 DRAFT 4 station would be expensive in the area of maintenance). She noted that with Options 1 and 2, there 136 would be less impervious surface and therefore perhaps more flexibility in stormwater management. 137 138 Ms. Hankee explained how staff would propose to move forward, including specifics to each option. 139 - Staff will be working toward a cost estimate for action under the Street Reconstruction 140 Program and Option 3 will be the guide because the cost estimate cannot be more than what is 141 proposed for approval and public hearing; 142 - Project design will continue, permitting will be pursued; 143 - Cost for each of the projects was noted and elements explained; grant funding will be sought 144 as possible; 145 - Proposed funding outlined in the report; 146 - Proposed project schedule reviewed; 147 - Future council actions proposed (Street Reconstruction Program process). 148 - 149 The roadway project for the LaMotte neighborhood was reviewed; 150 - Santitary sewer repair and road reconstruction is included; 151 - The water system extension somewhere to WSL project would be separate if it is done; 152 - Width of roadway noted; 153 - Drainage is currently overland flow and that would be cleaned up and curb and gutter added; 154 - The street has municipal sewer service but not water; the sanitary system doesn’t require much 155 upgrade; there isn’t much interest staff has heard in water service; 156 - Good feedback from neighborhood meeting has led staff to get more input on sump pumps on 157 the street; 158 - Proposed cost of project reviewed. 159 - Proposed funding outlined in the report as well as schedule; 160 161 Council Member Rafferty asked about the information meetings, and confirmed with staff that there 162 was good turnout and interest. 163 164 Council Member Manthey confirmed that all options are available for water/sewer. Ms. Hankee 165 noted some basic numbers identified for utility connection. 166 167 Ms. Hankee explained process ahead and noted that staff is requesting approval of a resolution 168 accepting the feasibility study at this time. 169 170 Mayor Reinert remarked that this is exciting; city government is about helping people. This road has 171 been in bad shape since the 1980’s and many attempts have been made to get the road reconstructed. 172 He explained the history of getting a different road reconstruction project done two years ago by not 173 requiring water as part of the project. This road needs to be fixed and that should include giving the 174 road’s residents the option of joining utilities or not. 175 176 Council Member Rafferty asked why the projects would be connected for the process; couldn’t that 177 prevent one from going forward. Director Grochala explained that the process is linked to a five year 178 plan for reconstruction of roads and everything in the plan is what is subject to petition/referendum. 179 180