Laserfiche WebLink
Further discussion: City Administrator Ulrich stated the study should include an analysis, <br />determining specific costs and looking at policy. <br />Motion amended by Councilmember Johns, seconded by Councilmember Shryock, to <br />recommend that the City Council consider ordering a feasibility study that will include an <br />analysis to determine specific costs and how this works with current policy for option 4 of the <br />Gibbon Street drainage concerns. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Riley, Councilmembers Johns and Shryock. Voting <br />No: None. <br />5.02: Consider Recommendation for Zeolite Street Storm Sewer Extension to Lake <br />Ramsey <br />City Engineer Westby reviewed the staff report and noted the construction costs are preliminarily <br />estimated at $175,000. Project costs would be paid from the Storm Water Utility Fund. He <br />stated this project is included in the City's 5 -year Street Maintenance Program. <br />Councilmember Shryock asked if there were intentions to develop this triangle at some point. <br />Chairperson Riley informed when the City functioned as a developer, it was under consideration <br />to develop this plot. However, the City stood to lose approximately $500,000. <br />City Administrator Ulrich explained the large cost was due to the land being very low and <br />needing a lot of fill. He said utilities would have been an issue as well. <br />Councilmember Kuzma asked if concrete was put in instead of plywood, and the land was <br />developed in the future, what would the cost be then to put in a better closure. <br />City Engineer Westby responded it could be $10,000 to $15,000 as a rough estimate. This is <br />assuming there would not be much work to do with Bunker Lake Boulevard. <br />Chairperson Riley noted it has been repaired once, and it didn't affect Bunker Lake Boulevard, so <br />it shouldn't a second time. He agreed with Councilmember Kuzma to use concrete or plywood <br />until a developer comes through. Then it would be the developer's cost to repair. He commented <br />he was unsure why it was being discussed now versus when it is necessary. <br />City Engineer Westby stated staff sees this as more of a safety improvement, and it is already in <br />the CIP. If there is no intention to develop that triangular parcel then staff can come back with <br />more specific costs at a later date. <br />Councilmember Shryock inquired if there is any potential issue with the triangular section <br />needing to hold more water. If there is no intention to develop in the near future, she said she <br />approves of the idea of plugging the northern portion of the pipe. <br />Public Works Committee / June 16, 2015 <br />Page 4 of 8 <br />