Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council debates 8-inch vs 10-inch water main for River Knoll extension; no immediate action taken

City of Mayville Common Council · March 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council heard engineering options to extend an 8-inch main or install 10-inch main to Slagle/Slag Road as part of River Knoll Drive extension; trade-offs include capacity, future looping benefits, and about $35,000 incremental cost for the 10-inch loop option; council deferred immediate action.

City staff presented options for the River Knoll Drive extension: extend the existing 8-inch water main or upgrade to a 10-inch main to Slagle/Slag Road. Engineers explained that a 10-inch main provides higher flow and better low-velocity circulation (examples given: low-velocity values ranging from roughly 734 to 1,900 gallons per minute for 10-inch vs lower flows for 8-inch under certain conditions), while the 8-inch option is less expensive and would match most existing nearby infrastructure.

Staff outlined two construction approaches: replace and extend 10-inch mains all the way to Slagle (estimated additional cost in the order of $74,000 for full replacement) or extend 8-inch with a future plan to loop to 10-inch when development or TIF expansion makes it sensible. One staff estimate for adding 10-inch looping from the intersection toward County Highway B was about $35,000.

Council members discussed the pros and cons—engineering capacity gains from upsizing versus the uncertain timing and scale of future high-water users—and noted that looping the network in the future could improve flow. Council did not take immediate action on changing the bid; staff said option 1 (8-inch as bid) remains feasible and the council can revisit if a large user expresses interest.

No motion was made to change the bid; the council left the item for future consideration and to align with TIF expansion planning.