Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
Council Meeting Minutes for April 3, 2023 <br />Page 5 of 7 <br /> <br /> <br />Update on Solar Ordinance Workshop Held on March 23, 2023 <br /> <br />A joint workshop was held with the City Council and Planning Commission on March 23 to <br />discuss the existing solar ordinance as it related to solar energy systems and solar farm projects <br />in the City. City Administrator Bryan Bear explained that previously, the Council had declared a <br />moratorium on solar farm applications for six months to allow time to determine if revisions to <br />the ordinance were needed. He explained there was consensus to consider some changes and for <br />the ordinance to be forwarded to the Ordinance Review Committee. Council had also expressed <br />desire to see the changes proposed by the ORC before authorizing amendments to be considered <br />by the Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Miron made motion, Klein seconded, to refer the solar ordinance to the Ordinance Review <br />Committee for consideration and report back to Council. <br /> <br />All Ayes. Motion carried. <br /> <br />Discussion on Fable Hills and Forest Road Bridges <br /> <br />Staff put this on the agenda to discuss potential remedies and funding sources for two bridges <br />that have issues. City Engineer Mark Erichson began by providing background on the Fable <br />Hills bridge and the Forest Road bridge. Per State Statute, Hugo was responsible to do bridge <br />inspections. He explained different types of bridges required different inspection timelines, and <br />both these bridges required annual inspections. Public Works has had questions on on-going <br />maintenance with both bridges. <br /> <br />Fable Hills had timber decking that had been pulled off and exposed bolts that were bent or <br />sheard off. Erichson said it rated well at a 74, but Public Works had been replacing boards to <br />prolong the life of the deck. The bridge was only 20 years old and had creosote timbers and <br />erosion of the steel. Maintaining it by recoating and sandblasting would be an expensive fix. <br />Staff’s recommendation was to continue monitoring it, look at maintenance practices, and wait <br />for the structure to be at a rating where funding was available. The score needed to be a 60 or <br />less. <br /> <br />Petryk recalled that it was a used bridge when installed, and she questioned whether it was really <br />older than 20 years. Erichson replied he did not know the answer but remembered the decking as <br />being new. She also asked if the bolts were an issue with tires. Erichson replied there were no <br />issues. He added that he would not recommend a timber deck or truss bridge like this in the <br />future, but it was still in good condition. <br /> <br />Weidt asked how long before the rating dropped to a level to qualify for funding. Erichson <br />replied that their engineers were evaluating it, but he guessed it was probably not within the next <br />five years. <br /> <br />Erichson next provided an update on the Forest Road bridge, which was over 100 years old. The <br />bridge was now load posted. He explained it was a one lane bridge, and there were some areas <br />where old rebar was exposed. WSB staff had concerns about the bridge and had evaluated <br />bridge bonding that would pay for the replacement of the bridge structure, but it would need to <br />be shovel ready. He explained another option would be to put a cul-de-sac at each end and