1979_0723.ws_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

COIL WORK SESSICN July 23, 1979 - After regular meting Re: Shoreview ose ille Storm Sewer rear victoria. From: Public works Director, Charles V. Honchell This new is to serve as a status report on the on-going consideration for the construction of a joint outlet for the cities of Shoxevi.ew and Roseville, to serer the area near Victoria and west Owasso Boulez* As you recall, last year at a joint neeting of the two councils, it was determined that a prcblem existed for Roseville where its pond in this area, because of unantici- pated unde drainage. Shoyeview also has storm drainage problezm on Lakes Judy and fly., Both comTunities need the storm sewer outlet to Lake Owasso to resolve these problems and it was obvious by jointly working on them, a substantial savings would be obtained for each The consulting finn of Short, Elliott, Hendrickson & Associates was authorized to do -a feasibility study to solve these problems and the. feasibility study has new been cowl.eted . The Engineering Staff of both conrm rr i ties have reviewed the report and concur ar n the alignrrent and basic design for the outlet pipe. -it is Doped that this construction can take place late this year so that it would be available next spring for the snmm eIt, spring rain activity. The problem of deter g the rust stable way of funding the project has been the subject of several discussions for the last month between the staffs, As you recall, last ninth an appare nt solution had been reached at the staff Level based on a proposal by Roseville. This proposal was ]used on the nurrber of acres of each community running directly to the pond plus $20,000 from Shoreview to oversize the pipe for the Lake Judy - Lake Emily area and a ro 7- mately $12,600 frcm Shoreview to pay for part of the ponding expenses for the already constructed pond in Roseville, After reviewing this , Shoreview thLn requested ted the, consultant to prepare another cost d ivi. s ion estimate assuming that a larger higher pipe were built prior to any of the work in the Minnesota fealty Plat being dome two years ago, Assuming this theoretical pipe construction and using a nethod of wage plus in-pervious or runoff factors and the sarre $12,,600 for part of the ponding expense, a different set of figures resulted. These are shown on the acconpanying sheet identified as the Roseville Proposals and the Shorevi.6w Proposals You will note that almst 6, -000 difference in shares results, If the mid - point were picked between these two proposals, Roseville ' s share would. be $144,000 and Shoreview approximately $77,000. In an attest to resolve this - s i tuatti.on and find a. r tho'd which can be more easily explained i and identified in both c ` ties , a caTpromise was suggested to Shoreview. This caaprcmise, also shy on the accorq3anying sheet, would be to split the cost 50/50 on the new pipe and have the city assurre the entire cost of the p6nd which we have already built and paid. for. It is felt that this solution would be fair to all concerned and protect I seville' s interests. The staff supports this concept. This would result in slightly over $145,000 for the City cost and slightly over $75,000 for Shoreview' s cost. That infcrmtion was taken to the Shoreview Council this week though we have not been able to determine their reaction as yet.