Agenda - Public Works Committee - 01/18/2000

Home

PW CASE REVIEW OF HIGHWAY #10 STORMWATER TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES (IMPROVEMENT PROJECT #99-67) By: Steve Jankowski, City Engineer Background: On November 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 preparing a comprehensive plan for the drainage needs of the area bounded by the railroad track, Highway #10, Sunfish Lake Boulevard, and the Ramsey/Anoka border. A feasibility study was ordered by the Council to evaluate the best drainage plan and its financing. On December 20, I met with five property owners, four representing the properties on the westernmost side of the district and one representing Zitco, the developer whose site plan initiated this project. Although some technical suggestions were made, the consensus of the owners of the western three properties was that they were unable or unwilling to pay anything toward drainage, which they consider a future need. I did emphasize that my direction from Council was to establish a plan that addressed the needs of the entire district. I advised them that I would complete the feasibility study in January. In order to have this project completed to meet the needs for an early completion, I would anticipate the following schedule: Present feasibility study and set date of public hearing ............................. January 25, 2000 Hold public hearing .................................................................................... February 8, 2000 1) 2) 3) Order plans and specifications ................................................................. February 22, 2000 4) Pass condemnation resolution .................................................................. February 22, 2000 5) Approve plans and specifications and authorize bids .................................. March 28, 2000 6) Receive bids and award project ..................................................................... April 25, 2000 7) Finalize land acquisition ................................................................................. May 15, 2000 8) Initiate construction ........................................................................................ 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, low-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-