Laserfiche WebLink
City Engineer Jankowski indicated the consultant has provided five alternatives for addressing <br />his charge of resolving the flood plain violation. However two other elements should be <br />considered in recommending the preferred alternative. Alternatives 4 & 5 would both replace the <br />existing 72 inch concrete culvert, which has open joints that are permitting soil loss from the <br />base of the road and shoulder areas. A second consideration is that alternative 4 would remove <br />the 100 year flood from overtopping Ermine Boulevard while alternative 5 would not eliminate <br />this condition. Both of these options merit with a decision based on financial considerations. <br />Although Alternative 3 is the least costly presented it does not address the cost, which will <br />eventually need to be incurred in replacing the existing culvert. Alternative 1 & 2 are the most <br />costly and fail to rectify either of these auxiliary issues. Mr. Jankowski advised staff <br />recommends that either alternative 4 or 5 be recommended for implementation. Staff should be <br />directed to prepare plans and specifications for the selected alternative. Funding for this project <br />would be from the Storm Water Utility. <br />Public Works Director Olson noted this situation occurred in 1988. <br />City Engineer Jankowski explained normally it would be expected that the line representing the <br />limit of the floodway on the map would be along the channel. In this case the line is along the <br />channel, but there is a second floodway shown going over the top of the road, which is an <br />unusual situation. There is also another line showing the 500 year flood and the flood fringe. <br />Polaris indicated they had run into a few of these situations in the past. <br />Chairperson Elvig inquired about the funding source. <br />Public Works Director Olson replied the funding source would be the Stormwater Utility, which <br />collects approximately $330,000 per year. Utilizing this funding may require a few projects <br />from the CIP to be delayed, but staff feels this is something that needs to be done as part of the <br />overlay. <br />Councilmember Cook stated the only alternative that is not a bandage is Alternative 4, and if this <br />situation is going to be corrected it should be done right. <br />Motion by Councilmember Cook, seconded by Councilmember Olson, to recommend to City <br />Council that Alternative 4 be implemented and that staff should be directed to prepare plans and <br />specifications for the selected alternative. Funding for this project would be from the Storm <br />Water Utility. <br />Further discussion: Chairperson Elvig directed staff to provide further information if there are <br />any thoughts for amenities that can be created while there is a need to be utilizing equipment in <br />this area. <br />Motion carried. Voting Yes: Chairperson Elvig, Councilmembers Cook and Olson. Voting No: <br />None. <br />COMMITTEE/STAFF INPUT <br />Public Works Committee / Apri118, 2006 <br />Page 9 of 10 <br />