The commission revisited the city’s flood‑control approach after staff reported the peer review of an injection‑well strategy was canceled and said the current design contemplates modifying 10 existing wells. Commissioners asked for technical and cost details and urged staff to consider alternative stormwater approaches such as pervious asphalt or pervious concrete.

Commissioner Joseph asked whether a peer review was canceled; staff confirmed the peer review had been canceled and said the city engineer conducted an internal review that supported injection wells as an alternative to earlier pump‑station proposals. City staff said the design currently includes 10 wells, but bid costs and pump specifications were not yet available because the project had not been bid.

Commissioners sought specifics. Commissioner Joseph requested the capacity of the wells, pump cost estimates, and whether injection would require additional environmental permits or filtering. The city manager said the commission previously approved the concept of injection wells and staff were preparing bidding documents; he said no physical work would proceed without later commission approval of contract awards.

Some commissioners urged staff to evaluate pervious/asphalt or pervious‑concrete alternatives that can increase on‑site infiltration and reduce runoff, and to assemble comparative cost and performance data. City engineering staff said prior internal engineering review did not recommend pervious pavement as a full substitute but agreed to collect technical comparisons. Commissioners asked staff to return with engineering analyses, environmental permitting requirements, detailed cost estimates, and maintenance implications before advancing the project.

Next steps: staff will provide well capacities, pump specifications and cost estimates, permitting and environmental information, and an engineering comparison of injection wells versus pervious pavement approaches for commission review.