Laserfiche WebLink
Study Session Meeting <br />January 29, 2005 <br /> <br />Other related issues include bridges, many of which are not large enough to <br />accommodate the flow of water underneath them. Whenever a new bridge is designed, <br />the City checks with MSD and the Army Corps of Engineers to make sure the opening <br />design is appropriate for the flow of water. Mr. Ollendorff referred to a photo of a <br />specific bridge and asked the Council to look at the bridge deck railing, required to be <br />open in the event of flooding. He described and discussed the features of this particular <br />bridge. Then he referred to the map in front of the meeting and noted that the location of <br />several other bridges replaced in recent years or those needing to be replaced in the <br />forthcoming years. The Purdue pedestrian bridge is moving ahead. Mr. Sharpe said he <br />preferred being able to drive on that bridge. Discussion about this bridge ensued. <br /> <br />Mr. Wagner asked about the Groby Bridge and was told it was in the current five-year <br />plan. <br /> <br />A final item included mention of a communication with the Army Corps of Engineers <br />recently. Mr. Sharpe asked if City money could be refunded from the Engineer's and <br />was advised that the City would ask. Mr. Ollendorff said his aim was to explain all of the <br />items shown on the map currently before the meeting. Any final questions were asked <br />and discussed at this point, including one about SEMA. <br /> <br />Ms. Welsch suggested that Councilmembers keep track of the work done by MSD <br />because they have a billion dollars set aside to deal with combined sewer overflows <br />when they must. "When they have to do it, they do it," she added. Also, they would like <br />to get through a loophole in the State law that DNR opened up for them, so they would <br />not have to pay to get rid of sewer overflows. If they do that, University City will be <br />dealing with this issue forever. Discussion about bonds and wathershed followed. She <br />talked about building cases, showing how people use the River. The Mayor said the <br />current administration in Jefferson City is gutting the Department of Natural Resources <br />and there is going to be trouble. Discussion followed relating to this statement. <br /> <br />There was no consensus expressed. The preceding discussion was for information <br />purposes. <br /> <br />2. Unimproved Streets and Alleys - Review Assessments Policy <br /> <br />Mr. Ollendorff introduced this topic as reviewing unimproved streets and alleys and the <br />means by which citizens are assessed for the costs. There are several different issues. <br />He referred to a map and to items circulated in the previous week's packet to the <br />Council. The first issues are unimproved streets and alleys. There are about twenty <br />unpaved streets in the City and a dozen unpaved alleys, a very small portion of City <br />streets. He defined "paving" as "having concrete curbs and gutters and good quality <br />stone base, with good quality asphalt or concrete surface." Asphalt spread over mud <br />does not constitute as "an improved street." Mr. Sharpe asked if "streets" included <br />sidewalks and was told no. The City Manager said that a "fully improved street" could <br /> Page 5 <br /> <br /> <br />