Laserfiche WebLink
Letter dated September 3, 1999, recommended that discussion needs to take place regarding the <br />financing for this storm sewer. Two options are offered for this financing. First, Zitco could <br />obtain permission from the City to discharge their run-off into the regional pond and design and <br />install a private storm sewer from their property to the regional pond. This option would have <br />the advantage of placing the schedule directly in control of Zitco. A second option would be to <br />order a public improvement project as provided by City Code for the construction and <br />installation of a public storm sewer to service both Zitco and adjacent parcels. The advantage of <br />this alternative is that it would provide a more comprehensive and planned approach to providing <br />a drainage solution to existing problems and future development. Such a project would be <br />initiated by directing a feasibility study to be prepared addressing both the nature and extent of <br />the improvements along with financing. The disadvantage of this option is that the process could <br />not anticipate construction until spring 2000 at the earliest. A third option would be to revise the <br />scope of the proposed development by eliminating the self-storage units and utilizing the area for <br />a detention pond. This option has the following advantages: 1) It allows the opportunity for fall <br />construction, which is important to the property owner. 2) The pond could easily become a part <br />of a future regional drainage system and would reduce the pipe size, cost, and perhaps even the <br />necessity of boring under the railroad tracks. The disadvantages would be that it doesn't allow <br />for as intensive development of the property as desired by the owner, and it wouldn't eliminate <br />existing drainage problems or the need for a comprehensive storm sewer system for the area. <br />Staff recommended the alternative of initiating a public improvement project to address the <br />drainage for the area, since it would have the greatest public benefit. <br /> <br />Councihnember Anderson stated that she was under the impression that Staff was going to <br />research information on Minnesota Statue 444. <br /> <br />City Attorney Goodrich reviewed the options available to finance the project. <br /> <br />City Administrator Norman explained that the storm drainage utility system was not <br />recommended as a financing method because the utility fund would be used for long term <br />drainage problems primarily for the residential area which currently has a very extensive list. <br /> <br />Mayor Gamec stated at one point there had been a discussion of the City paying to oversize the <br />pipe and then allow Mr. Zitzloff to take care of the drainage problem on his property which <br />would then allow the City time to develop a policy and yet have the pipe the correct size for the <br />project <br /> <br />City Engineer Jankowski replied that the project would held up until early spring if it becomes a <br />City project. <br /> <br />Councihnember Hendriksen stated that he is concerned over the timeline for the applicant and <br />was distressed that the issue was back on the agenda without a solution. He understood that after <br />the last Council meeting Staff was going to establish a Minnesota State Statute 444 district and <br />have that before Council to proceed with the project. <br /> <br />City Council/October 12, 1999 <br /> Page 9 of 28 <br /> <br /> <br />