Laserfiche WebLink
51789.1 /3 <br />TO: Mayor and City Council <br />FROM: Mark E. Bernhardson, City Administrat <br />DATE: May I", 1989 <br />SUBJECT: Stubbs Bay Sewer <br />Attachment A. Stubbs Bay Staff Memo Dated 1/5/89 <br />B. Robert and Teresa Minkema Letter Dated 5/15/89 <br />ISSUE <br />1. Review of background work done to date regarding the Stubbs <br />Bay sewer. <br />2. Presentation of prelirainary/revised project layout. <br />3. Presentation of financing options. <br />4. Presentation of proposed process for decision. <br />INTRODUCTION - As you may recall in February 1988 Michael Gaffron <br />presented Fis Alternative Waste Management Study. This study <br />indicated that sewering of the Stubbs Bay area was the roost cost <br />effective way of permanently resolving the current and expected <br />sewerage problems for many of the Study area properties. At the <br />Council's May 25, 1988, meeting they directed Glenn Cook, City <br />Engineer, to undertake additional soil borings together with <br />updating the feasibility study that had originally been done in <br />1983. The draft revision was prepared last fall and staff <br />reviewed it to develop an alternative way to reduce the expected <br />cost that would range, depending on the area, from $12-18,000 per <br />unit. The issues related to this were reviewed at staff's <br />request by the Attorney in part last summer together with a <br />review completed this past March. The City has reviewed the <br />issue of financing this project together with other upcoming <br />projects in the past month with its financial consultant. As you <br />will note in Attachment A one possible scenario for financing the <br />revised project was proposed. <br />In addition the City has received Attachment B indicating the <br />Minkema's are on the verge of having to do a substantial upgrade <br />to their system. The system was noted failing this past fall and <br />again this spring. The inspection of the property and a review <br />of City records listed no verification of the extent of the <br />existing drainfield and they will be facing a $2-4,000 for a <br />temporary fix in order to undertake their addition. If they were <br />to go for a more "permanent fix" with the mound system upwards of <br />$10,000. In their case absent continuation of the failing system <br />and/or pumping continuously they are facing some substantial <br />expense. They are not alone as Mr. Gaffron has '~^<'^ated that at <br />least two other properties In this area a r. a similar