Laserfiche WebLink
each other, however, the larger the cost of the <br />project the more difficult it becomes. <br />2. Public Financing - This would entail the City <br />engaTTng a contractor and specially assessing the <br />cost against the storm sewer area that is served. <br />Not only does this put the city's stamp of approval <br />on the project but regardless of the route taken puts <br />the city at risk for financing to the degree the risk <br />has not been limited by special assessment waivers. <br />The City does have some concern regardin'^ the city's <br />participation inabove ground a storm sewer project in this <br />particular situation. The underground solution would be built to <br />the 5 year standard and the city's liability would probably be to <br />the extent of the 5 year design, however, the above ground <br />solution may in fact result in the assumption that it will handle <br />any storm. While this "ay not be the case, it may handle the <br />water better than not doing anything. <br />An avenue related to an above ground solution would be the <br />possibility that the City "reacquire" this parcel from the Cuffs <br />as part of the solution. <br />ALTERNATIVES <br />Issue 1. !ublic Hearing <br />1. Hold the public hearing. <br />2. Close the public hearing. <br />3. Continue the public hearing. <br />Issue 2. Development of Plans and Specs <br />1. Direct plans and specs be developed. <br />2. Direct an alternative system be designed. <br />3. Take no action. <br />4. Table for further discussion. <br />Issue 3. <br />1. Approach <br />al Status Quo <br />b) Aboveground <br />c) Underground <br />2. Financial <br />a) Private <br />b) Public <br />c) Waiver of Assessment <br />RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended that the public hearing be <br />herB*”and uporfconclusion of the public hearing not undertake <br />plans and specs until the neighbors have agreed upon a solution <br />and signed petition waivers if they desire the City to do a <br />public project.