Agenda - Council - 01/25/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I PW CASE REVIEW OF HIGHWAY #10 STORMWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #99-67) By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer Background: On No-vember 9, 1999, a public hearing was held on the creation of the Mississippi.River Stormwater Subdrainage District No. 1, which was being established for the purpose of prepaffng a comprehensive plan for the drainage needs of the area bounded by the railroad track, Highwav ;','~ 0, Sunfish Lake Boulevard, and the Ramsey/Anoka borci~r. A feasibility study was ordereci b;, the Council to evaluate thc best drainage plan and its fim~cing. On December 20, I met wif.. £'ve property owners, four representing the properties on 2:e westernmost side of thc~ ' t..:.., developer whose site plan i~:.2i~.ted this project. Although distri-;t ap,~, one representing Zitco, ' ~ some tcci-~t-~'.cal suggestions were i~-:.eci,~, the consensus of the .~w~,ers of the western three prop:~-i,~ w~.s that they were unable or unwilling to pay anythini to,yard drainage, which they considar a future need. I did emphar!z,c that my direction from (_.c,':,nc:'.i was to establish a plai~ that add?:ssed the needs of the c.:-._t.!:'; .district. I advised thexx? ~ha~ I would complete the feasibu..v :tudy in January. In o:.& to have this project compi~.~d to meet the needs for aa early completion, I would anticii;'.~ '.'.~',~ following schedule: 1) ~?rr' ~.nt feasibility study and set d~.~e of public hearing ......................... ~.. January 25, 2000 2) tiotc~, public hearing .................................................................................. February 8, 2000 3) Orr! ;r nlans and specifications ................................................................ February 22, 2000 4) Pass ;ondenmation resolution .................................................................. February 22, 2000 5) Api~;ove plans and specifications and authorize bids ................................. March 28, 2000 6) Receive bids and award project ..................................................................... April 25, 2000 7) Final'~ze land acquisition ................................................................................. May 15, 2000 8) ' 'o" ,onstructmn ........................................................................................ May 15, 2000 9) Complete construction ............................................................... : .................... June 30, 2000 In researching potential solutions to providing drainage to this area, five separate alternatives were evaluated. Unfortunately, all five of the alternatives have some share of costs that should be appropriated to the western property owners. The only alternative that would have a no-cost to these owners would be to create a two-subdistrict district and construct a separate storm facility to serve the western district in the future. This alternative would cost more than a single pipeline to serve the entire area, both in construction costs and perpetual maintenance. Attached to this case are five alternatives that were considered at various stages of the feasibility study process. Initially, it was anticipated that a detention/water treatment pond located within the district would be a logical, Iow-cost solution. When compared to a similar non-pond alternative (Alternate #3 to Alternative #5 and Alternate #2 to Alternative #4), it was revealed that the pond alternative was only marginally less expensive (approximately 10%) than the non-