Laserfiche WebLink
does like the suggestion of the resident but would also be interested in the cost difference to go to <br /> the other sound wall. <br /> Chairperson Riley agreed to obtain input from the new City Attorney. He noted that it appears the <br /> City did not get what it wanted, but it did get what was on the paper. He hoped that the engineer <br /> would donate their time to redo the work. He stated that at minimum, moving the fence to where <br /> it should have been should be done at a cost of$50,000. He agreed that the $50,000 should be the <br /> City responsibility and the fence should be reclaimed and reused. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove asked if the developer is going to let the City use the fence to move to <br /> the other location. <br /> City Engineer Westby stated that from the feedback provided in the letter, it sounded like the <br /> developer was opposed to spending additional money, but he was unsure they would be opposed <br /> to the City relocating the fence. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove commented that it would look silly to have two fences. She stated that <br /> MnDOT has a program for noise walls, noting that projects are currently listed through 2026. She <br /> asked if there is potential for the City to construct the noise wall and recoup costs later. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied that is the program he discussed earlier which is meant for older <br /> developments and noted that this would not be eligible. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff asked if the fence would be owned by a Home Owner's Association <br /> or individual property owners. <br /> City Engineer Westby replied that the property the fence lies on would fall to individual property <br /> owners. He stated that he can check with the developer to see where the properties lie within the <br /> development and homeownership process. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff commented that his concern is that if this does not move forward <br /> quickly, additional hurdles can be added by working with three property owners. <br /> Chairperson Riley asked for clarification on where the end of the wall was marked, and which <br /> properties would be covered. <br /> City Engineer Westby commented that the development agreement is silent on this topic. He noted <br /> that the plans showed the wall ending at that point. <br /> Chairperson Riley commented that it would seem to make sense that the wall would cover the third <br /> property. <br /> City Engineer Westby commented that would seem to make sense, but he could not find any <br /> documentation supporting that. <br /> Public Works Committee/January 18, 2022 <br /> Page 5 of 15 <br />