The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1967/08/28-Agenda-Pre-Council 4 F f A G E N D A Pre-counct1—Con f§ e"rF— �0 A,M. Monday A64.ji.t '1b. 1 '167 T bUdj}cl. tiluuy tie`a5l(ojrt p-at Monday, AuK_r:t 18 , lvr�7 ntctenLe Ruum telt Avenue .,. s:rm Drain at Alt., Mesa B0kJ;evJrd R x11251) ng improvement d) Award O1 l L)r.t i as. t A hr Wv r.t ltir_ (Mt.t. C- 1049 ; b) Paving in Cobb and Buck Sansom Park Road :ut,1 Parktng Lot at licribrook Gcl t Course (M1f('. c -1051) L ) Seal Coating aL I, Locations rMt,t' t -1052) - 4) Acceptance -)t grant �ltfet NIP I!ousltiK Rel,.tl;tltt ,te i�.tn Gr.int (M&C C- lu , i) . '- . ether Md.t .s ui Augu t 2t+ , 190; 6) Other I[ems MI1"JTES PRE-COUNCIL CONFERENCE AUGUST 28, 1967 Presen Late Asant , McKinley 8. Guinn (item 2) Norse 2. Dunham 9. Hoover Item 2) 3. Kemble 4. Stovall 5„ Wilson f> : Kersnick 7 , Sarsgard I t e m Follow-up Budget Study Sess::on NAN The City Manager reminded Council Members of the budges study session to be held August 28, 1967, at 5:00 p.m. 2. Welch Avenue Storm Drain at Alta Mesa Boulevard EHD - Have Graham draft M&C, (IR #1251) The City Manager ripened the discussion asking if there were any questions regarding IR #1251 . Mr. Sarsgard asked ii any work had begun on the project. Mr. Graham replied that it had not. The Mayor stated that a precedent would be set if the City participated in the cost of the project . Mr. Kemble added that he believed it would be a bad pre- cedent. Mr. Dunham asked if the storm drainage system in the development met City standards disregarding the presence of the thoroughfare. Upon receiving an affirmative reply, he stated that it seemed logical to him that the City should participate in the cost of the project, since it is the presence of the thoroughfare that necessitates the project . Mr. Sarsgard asked if the developer was paying any part of the cost for storm drainage facilities in the development . The City Manager replied that the developer S ys for the cost up to Aragoo and Welch, and the City pays the entire cost from there. Mr. Kemble stated that he believed the developer should look into all aspects of drainage in an area before- hand. Mr. Dunham stated that the developer meets all design criteria; therefore, it appears the City should pay the extra cost caused by the thoroughfare. At this time Mr. Graham listed the following arrange- ments that could possibly be negotiated with the developer: 1) The City and the developer could split the cost 50-50; or 2) The City could pay the cos! of installation if the developer paid for the pipe. The Mayor asked what size of pipe was going to be used. The Manager stated that 27 inches in diameter was proposed. The Mayor then asked if any differer., size pipe could be used. Mr. Graham replied that anything the City �,.,,,,. �''^ �a did would be a solution, but that that would be a policy Ul i ►�� 1%,u A v decision which hinges on the le Val of service that the �11� ��'�R"tml �I• I�r'ORIH, 19. 2 G.n:ncil wishes to provide. Mr. Kemble asked if a study was being made of drainage in the entire City. Mr. Graham replied in the affirmative and stated that the final report would be presented to the Council in about 30 days. He went on to say that his preliminary analysis of the report indi(ated that the City's storm drain system appears to be based upon a 2-year rather than a 5-year flood cycle. Mr. Wilson asked how the decision in this case aFfect Council relations with other developers who previously had paid the entire cost of drainage projects . iL Sarsgard asked if there had been a similar situation in tile past . Mr. Graham replied that in a thorough search of City records no parallel case could be found. Mr. Hoover asked how much the school was participat- ing in the cost of the project. Mr. Graham replied that the school had paid about $5,000 for various inlets and a lead pipe to the center of the thoroughfare. Mr. Hoover asked if the school children had been considered . Mr., Graham replied that tlo main consideration in the gnustion before the Covincil was not the school children but rather the thoroughfare. The Mayor asked how wide the thoroughfare was . Mr. Graham replied that it was a double 32 foot boul,_vard. The Mayor asked what part of the str,:ct the City paid [.err. Mr. Graham replied that the City paid for everything in excess of 44 feet . Mr. Kemble suggested the Council delay action for one week so that administrative negotiations could take place. The City Manager stated that the policy question should be settled by the Council. Mr. Dunham again asked if it would be fair to ask the developer to pay for the project . The City Manager stated that the developer was already benefitting from the thoroughfare which the City helped pay for. Mr. Graham stated that the Council still had to decide the level of service to be provided . He then made a visual presentation explaining the three major methods of moving storm waters. He explained the work that the school had done and the present drainage situation in the area. He added that he had advised the school to put in inlets because otherwise the intersection would have to carry a considerable quantity water. The Mayor asked Mr. Graham if his advice to the school (to put in inlets) should affect the decision be- fore the Council. Mr. Graham replied that it should not. Mr. Hoover asked how the City handles run-off from other areas when it converges on a low area. Mr. Graham replied that the City participates in the cost of a project when water from upstream necessitates a line greater than 36 inches in diameter. Dr. Guinn expressed his belief that the developer should pay for the project. Mr. Dunham explained the developer's viewpoint that the storm drain is a city-wide utility, therefore the City �� v et � ij should pay for it. Mr. Kemble stated that he felt that 4 JG the area had been develnped because of the benefits derived ��' from the proximity of the thorough far-,e 3 The City Manager stated that this question before the Council would probably come up again because of the City's attempt to keep "sheet water" off the thoroughfares Mr. Hoover suggested that the City could possibly lower its standards a little so that the City could participate more. The City Manan r said that this would not resolve the i-' Lie of who pays for drainage of major thoroughfarev > The Mayor stated that a smaller system utilizing 12 to 16 inch pipe would probably benefit only th=• adjacent landowners ; whereas the propj,:ed 21 inch pipe would benefit a much larger area . Mr. Sarsgard said that the Council should not penalize the developer by making him pay 3 cost that he could not have antici- pated earlier. He added that the Civ.v �.hotild establish a defi- nite policy to clear up future uncertainties but that cru doiii: so, the developer in the c:ise befog the Council should not he penalized. Mr. Hoover suggested that Mr. Graham include this quest. i",, in the master plan report concerning storm drainage in the entire city. Mr. Dunham asked Mr. traham if similar situations would came before the Council with any great frequency,: Mr. Graham stated that he didn't think so. Mr. Dunham stated that because of this being a rare situation, the Council could set a policy now and not handicap or penalize anyone. Mr. Hoover stated that his sympathies were with the de- veloper. The Mayor stated that he felt the same way but that the effect t,n the future should be considered , 71ie clatter was reterred to Jack Graham for further nego- Liations. At the end of the regular Council meeting;, the Manager reported that an agreement had been reached between Mr. Graham and Mr. Amis whereby the cast of the project would be split 50-50 between the City and the developer. There was insufficient time to discuss other items on the Pre-Council Agenda. Evw,