02/17/2003 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Regular Council Meeting 2-17-03 Page 10 of 20 Mr. Marquardt said I would say that one thing that I don't see on it is any kind of cost estimate for the implementation or the follow-on work. I think in the interest of good management that should be done. And I also think that in the event that we want to use the cost of this-and since it's an unfunded mandate, as rationale to go after other grants and that type of thing-which would be prudent for us to put together a cost estimate to have all the activities defined-and keep track of that cost. Mrs. Cinco said you have a good point there. I think, too, we have to realize that this, again, is mandated by the l Oth of March to have this in-cost or no cost involved-whether they've even gone on to-I mean, it's irregardless, we have to have this done, you know, March l Oth. A lot of these things, as you see, we are doing. Mr. Marquardt said that doesn't mean there shouldn't be some costs collected for them. Mrs. Cinco said no, no. But I don't even know if there's been an estimate, Tom, on costs of some of these things? Do you even happen to have--- Mr. Metzung said again, it wasn't part of the initial-the mandate was to get the packet together and certainly it makes sense to put together the cost estimates for it. Especially since part of the packets that will fund these improvements-but that will be the continuing work of the Stormwater Management Committee. This is not a committee that will go south for the Winter after this is passed; this will be a committee that remains functional throughout the five years of the permit. Mayor Rinker said just one note. History has shown to us that every time we look at these things there is probably like a Chinese menu, you can go grade A, B, C, D, E or F meal. The fact of the matter is; an example in Worton we looked at what it would take to remediate. We looked at the Burgess & Niple study and the updated study which, 10 years ago, just to get the studies cost us about $75,000, something north of that figure, just to get the paper that we thought well we'd invest in that because it would give us good long-tertn basis, and I think in terms of inechanics, it definitely did that. It gives you a ballpark idea but to remediate the thing, if we did it as aggressively to hit whatever ratings there would be for storm controls, we could have gone with gabions, canals, I mean we could have done like L.A. did to channel all the rocks that come tumbling down the mountainsides of L.A. I mean you could get very ambitious--or not. And I think part of the challenge for us is not only understanding what we have to do overall to meet some kind of goal that is being mandated but practically speaking, which ones we are going to prioritize. We've tried to do that in the past but costing is definitely a goal. It's something that is worthwhile doing but within that there's a lot a mischief as to just exactly how involved, how comprehensive your approach is going to be and unfortunately part of that process is just when do you prioritize, where do you look at some of the lower level remediation like we're doing with the Infrastructure Committee and where do you do big ticket items like in Upper 40 that we're doing or we're able to get in conjunction with the Metroparks. And a lot of times you get the engineering focused at that time because just doing the engineering you get enough of the