Laserfiche WebLink
the existing fence from their properties if desired and assess that portion of the costs back to the <br /> residents. <br /> Chairperson Riley agreed that the fence is run along the edge, as originally desired. He was unsure <br /> that the old fence needs to be considered as that is on private property. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff stated that he agrees, but still feels like those residents should be <br /> informed about the project and if those residents desired the existing fence to be removed,perhaps <br /> there would be a cost savings that could be offered by having the City contractor remove the fence. <br /> Councilmember Musgrove agreed with going as close as they can with the fence and angle the <br /> end. She agreed that the existing fence should be left in place and if the homeowners want that <br /> removed, they could do that. She still had concern that this may not fully protect the area from <br /> noise and the City may need to extend it further in the future. She commented that she would not <br /> want to delay the project by asking the residents about the existing fence. <br /> City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby replied that there would be some benefit to <br /> extending south and to put the angle on the end. He stated that when the property to the north <br /> develops, the City would look to the developer to build that as part of their project. <br /> Chairperson Riley confirmed the consensus of the Committee with that direction. <br /> City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby identified the length the fence would run for <br /> clarity. He stated that the existing fence is 170 feet, and the proposed fence would be about 328 <br /> feet in length. <br /> Chairperson Riley confirmed the consensus of the Committee to leave the existing fence in place. <br /> Councilmember Woestehoff commented that he would still like the property owners to be <br /> informed of the project once it is approved and awarded by the City Council. <br /> Chairperson Riley stated that this item does not need to come back to the Committee and should <br /> go forward to the City Council. It was the consensus of the Committee to place the case on the <br /> Consent Agenda. <br /> City Engineer/Interim Public Works Director Westby noted that this will most likely go to the first <br /> or second Council meeting in January which would bring the contract award consideration back <br /> to the Council in March which would allow for spring construction. <br /> 5.02: Update on Plans for Wetland 114P Outlet <br /> Civil Engineer IV Linton reviewed the staff report and stated that staff recommends bringing the <br /> project to the December 13, 2022 City Council meeting for authorization to advertise the project <br /> to receive quotes for the work. <br /> Public Works Committee/ November 15, 2022 <br /> Page 5 of 9 <br />