Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee approves Amendment No. 2 for Bowser Clean Water Fund, authorizes HR Green design work
Summary
The committee approved Amendment No. 2 to extend completion dates for a Bowser Clean Water Fund gully‑remediation project and authorized staff to solicit a design proposal from HR Green after staff and the Soil and Water Conservation District reported localized erosion downstream of the project’s plunge pool.
Paul Sandy presented Amendment No. 2 for the Bowser Clean Water Fund project and summarized project history, funding flow, and remaining balances. He said the original project was initiated under previous staff (Jesse Dean) and that Bowser routes grant funds through the Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), which reimburses the city as work is invoiced. Sandy said about $24,000 remains in the original project balance and roughly $50,000 remains to be invoiced to close out the project.
Sandy said staff and SWCD site visits identified localized erosion downstream of the project’s plunge pool that was not part of the original design. He described proposed next steps: approve Amendment No. 2 to extend the completion date, authorize limited topographic survey and engineering from the original designer HR Green, solicit contractor quotes for a stabilization scope, and return to council with an engineer’s estimate before authorizing construction. "We would kind of...get a scope of work put together and...return to council with a recommendation to move forward with HR Green on the design portion," Sandy said.
Melissa Barrick of the Soil and Water Conservation District told the committee that SWCD typically has conservation‑engineering funds and that the district receives roughly $30,000 a year for such work. "I think we can fairly quickly look at what we have on our books and talk about funding for that," she said. Staff also noted the original grant included in‑kind contributions (easements) that were counted toward the local match, and staff said they would verify remaining match obligations.
Council members asked whether the downstream area had been omitted from the original design (staff said yes), whether engineering costs could be covered by SWCD funds, and whether the remaining city budget (~$24,000) would be preserved for construction. Sandy said staff hopes for a near‑net‑zero outcome for city costs by using SWCD engineering funds and holding construction funding in reserve.
A motion to approve Amendment No. 2, authorize solicitation of a proposal from HR Green for design, and coordinate with SWCD on supplemental engineering funds was made and seconded; the committee approved the motion by voice vote.
