Minutes - Council - 04/11/2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City Engineer Jankowski stated the cost of Alternative #1 is $391,050; Alternative #2 is $399,140; Alternative #3 is $424,098, Alternative #4 is $441,375; and Alternative #5 is $470,238. He explained the differences in the various alternatives. Mr. Holasek commented on each of the alternatives and what he sees as pros and cons of each. He stated from the storm sewer flow issue, he thinks Alternative #3 is preferable even though it costs $424,098. He asked if developed properties will also be assessed. He stated some drain to Highway #10 at no cost and now undeveloped properties are being assessed to add a pipe to the river. City Engineer Jankowski noted that the developed properties constructed on-site ponds which sacrificed a portion of their property to create ponds to handle their drainage. Mr. Holasek reviewed Exhibit B and stated the majority of the property is undeveloped except for a wedge shaped property. He noted the majority of the property is not developed so it will create a hardship to put this cost against those parcels and may force them to develop. He suggested that these properties could also be drained by an on-site pond or at the time they are developed, the City could give them the alternative to install a storm sewer system. He restated he does not understand why undeveloped properties are intended to be assessed when developed properties are not and some drain into the Highway 10 ditch. Councilmember Zimmerman reviewed the properties that will be fully developed without a space available for a holding pond. He noted that last year there was knee deep water in that area so something needs to be done. He suggested approaching the area as a whole will result in a lower cost project. Mr. Holasek stated Burger King was not allowed to develop without a pond, as others have not been allowed, and asked why these properties cannot develop with a pond. Councilmember Zimmerman noted these properties have limited space when compared to the properties being cited as having an on-site pond. Mayor Gamec stated as development occurs on Highway #10, the property value will restrict placing holding ponds on-site. Mr. Holasek again stated his objection to charging properties that are not yet developed. He stated he does not think the City should consider this project which would create a burden on the property. Councilmember Hendriksen noted these lots are currently under commercial development except, perhaps, for two parcels. He pointed out that the majority are commercial with the vast majority of their sites being paved without holding ponds to address their drainage. City Council/April 11, 2000 Page 6 of 27