Laserfiche WebLink
Boulevard wh/le altemative 5 would not eliminate this condition. Both of these options mer/t <br />with a decision based on financial considerations. Although Alternative 3 is the least costly <br />present~ it do¢~ not' address th¢cos~; wtiiciiwil}' eventual}y nee,6 ~be incurredqn rel~lacingthe- <br />existing culvert. Alternative 1 & 2 are the most costly and fail to rectify either of these auxiliary <br />issues. Mr. Jankowski advised staff recommends that either alternative 4 or 5 be recommended <br />for implementation. Staff should be directed to prepare plans and specifications for the selected <br />alternative. Funding for this project woutdl be from the Storm Water Utility. <br /> <br />Motion to recommend to City Council that Alternative 4 be implemented and that staff should <br />be directed, to prepare plans and specifications for the selected alternative. Funding for this <br />project would be from the Storm Water Utility. <br /> <br />Action: <br /> <br />Ratify the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. <br /> <br />COMMITTEE/STAFF INPUT <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec inquired if the dewatering of the creek has been completed. Public Works <br />Director Olson explained there has been a bit of an issue with the deep sewer project. Soil <br />borings were completed in one of the areas planned for the deep sewer soil borings and it was <br />found that the peat runs very deep. This could result in the need for modifications to the design. <br />Once the extent is known the issue will be brought back to the Council. The issues are currently <br />being defined, and in the meantime the dewatering is being slowed down. <br /> <br />RevieGed by: <br />Public Works Director/Principal City Engineer <br />City Engineer <br />Finance Director <br />Street Superintendent <br /> <br />CC: 05/09/06 <br /> <br />-278- <br /> <br /> <br />