Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Water Committee <br />Meeting Minutes <br />Friday, August 19, 2016 <br />Page2of3 <br />ii. Contract Cost: $31.2 million. <br />iii. Estimated completion: July 2017 <br />• Louisville/Lafayette Drainageway Improvements <br />i. Status: Under construction (Concrete Express- Phase 1, <br />Redpoint-Phase 2). <br />ii. Engineer's estimate: $9 million total cost before UDFCD & City of <br />Lafayette contributions <br />iii. Estimated completion: August 2016 -Phase 2, September 2016 - <br />Phase 1 <br />• Sid Copeland WTP Pump Station <br />i. Status: Project scheduled for 2016 <br />ii. Engineer's estimate: $2.4 million <br />Mr. Kowar provided a brief overview of all projects. Mr. Keany <br />asked about the scheduling of the sewer replacement work <br />around Louisville Middle School and the timing of it related to the <br />beginning of school. Mr. Keany also indicated that the 88th Street <br />Repaving project took place during the registration week for <br />Monarch. Mr. Kowar indicated that the sewer work was <br />communicated to the residents and the school. The sewer <br />schedule took place later than anticipated due to the staff work <br />Toad earlier in the year dedicated to larger projects. The 88th <br />paving took place closer to the start of the school year because <br />the paving contractor wanted to finish the larger portions of the <br />repaving work first such as McCaslin and Cherry. <br />Mr. Lipton asked about the condition of the landscaping at the <br />Howard Berry Water Treatment Facility from the sludge drying bed <br />project. Mr. Kowar indicated there would be follow up regarding <br />the landscaping with the contractor under warranty issues. <br />VII. Tap Fee <br />Mr. Kowar discussed staff findings related to the 927 Main Street Property and <br />any historical residence usage combined with commercial usage on the property. <br />Mr. Kowar reviewed diagrams of various site and building layouts on the property <br />at different periods in time. Mr. Kowar indicated that based upon what staff <br />reviewed they believed a tap fee was still appropriate. <br />Mr. Keany asked about tap fees related to total historical gallons per usage on a <br />lot. Mr. Kowar explained the City's historical and present tap fee practices <br />related to charging separate structures for a tap fee and the nuances of <br />interpreting total water usage on a property with multiple structures under that <br />logic. <br />Mr. Keany asked if the approved site layout was reconfigured as one building if a <br />tap fee would be charged. Mr. Kowar indicated that a tap fee would most likely <br />