1966 331-332 _ 10-24 cont. - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

331 involved in this alternative. Although the holding basin concept will require additional study, it would appear from our preliminary analysis that this approach would also exceed by a considerable sum the amount previously budgeted for the project. As you know, the creek is not active throughout the year and if a hold- ing basin is created it will be necessary to provide an artificial supply of water and a recirculating pump system to prevent the water in the holding basin from becoming stagnant. Recommendation as follows: 1. That the work within the creek be limited to extensive cleaning and minor realignment at this time. 2. That funding in the amount of $97,000, the estimated cost of guniting, be "encumbered" to ensure that some form of improvement will be made within the funds provided in the storm drainage bond issue. 3. That the remaining major drainage work items contained in the bond issue be engineered and costed out in an effort to determine whether the $106,000 additional required for the boxing of the creek will be available within the original bond funds. Recent bids have come in considerably under the engineer's estimates and have partially offset the Bay Road storm drain and pump station bid which you will recall came in well over the engineer's estimate. We must point out, however that the accelerating construction costs may "eat up" some of the savings reflected in the favorable bids. It is hoped that these savings will, in part, provide the additional funds required to box the creek. 4. Review prior to fiscal 1967-68 budget preparation the status of the storm drainage bond funds and, if necessary, supplement the $97,000 required for guniting with the additional funds necessary to box the creek. Councilman Henderson complimented City Manager on excellent report and moved it be accepted, adding to Item #3 the estimated cost of the previously suggested "holding basin" or bond, seconded by Councilman Granger. Councilman Rosselli felt action should be taken to implement correcting this deficiency and suggested the use of galvanized pipe instead of a box culvert. Councilman Petersen asked that costs be developed for "pond" development. City Manager advised this pond had been investigated to some extent by Mr. Adamson and both he and Staff felt this "pond" could be built less expensively in another more appropriate site as a separate provisions of a future park. City Manager also advised pipe had been investigated and could not be used less expensively because of it having to be specially constructed for size needed. James Knecht, of Park & Recreation Commission, urged Council approve creek covering instead of guniting proposed which would divide.park. Doris Thompson, of Park & Recreation Commission, stated since Commission in full agreement for recommendation of covering creek to insure full use of park, felt Commission willing to wait until finances available. Mayor Herkner questioned Commissions feeling toward pond and was advised Commission favored Stulsaft Park as being a more suitable site. Councilman Granger felt sufficient funds might be raised in a year or two to make up difference but under circumstances asked to withdraw his second on the motion. Motion seconded by Councilman Bury. After Further discussion as to possible financing and establishing priority for this project, motion carried on roll call vote. (MINUTE ORDER #66-219)