Laserfiche WebLink
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION September 8, 2015 <br />APPROVED <br />46 information about the gate system — it would be an electronic system that could be <br />47 automatically triggered to close when a certain level is reached in the lake. The system <br />48 would be under city control. <br />49 <br />50 Council Member Roeser asked how the Mattamy proposal is involved in the project and <br />51 Mr. Willenbring explained that they are basically planning to build homes at a certain <br />52 level to manage what could be the highest possible level. <br />53 <br />54 Council Member Rafferty discussed the design of the gates with staff. He discovered that <br />55 the stainless steel gates would be tested regularly. They would not be based on any new <br />56 technology. Council Member Rafferty discussed the look of a wier and difficulties that <br />57 could present. Mr. Willenbring concurred and added that the gates could be hidden if that <br />58 is the desire. <br />59 <br />60 The council discussed with Mr. Willenbring how the pipe size is chosen and how it is <br />61 installed. They discussed safety concerns such as keeping humans and animals away <br />62 from the pipe. <br />63 <br />64 Community Development Director Grochala discussed impacts on property owners. He <br />65 noted the cost of the project and suggested that staff will be looking at the Surface Water <br />66 Management Fund to determine if it can cover the cost of this project. It is possible to set <br />67 up a special district to charge benefiting properties. The council questioned if there <br />68 should be some funding involvement from the City of Hugo since the area would be <br />69 receiving water from that vicinity. Mr. Willenbring explained that cities generally <br />70 accommodate water from surrounding communities; further he doesn't see any benefit to <br />71 that city from this system. <br />72 <br />73 Mr. Grochala noted the special work session scheduled by the watershed district board to <br />74 discuss the topic of the drainage plan. All council members are invited to attend. He is <br />75 recommending that the city move forward with the feasibility study to keep answers and <br />76 information coming. Mr. Willenbring suggested that the watershed work session should <br />77 bring some clarity from the board; staff has been dealing with watershed staff only up to <br />78 this point. <br />79 <br />80 Council Member Rafferty asked if grant funding is a possibility and Mr. Grochala said <br />81 not for the structure. The city has invested about $50,000 at this point; the feasibility <br />82 study cost is estimated at $69,000. <br />83 <br />84 Council Member Kusterrman asked how the question of growth fits into this plan. Mr. <br />85 Grochala noted that the city's comprehensive plan guides this area for development. In <br />86 fact it has been guided for development for the past forty years. It is not a new idea but it <br />87 is a plan to improve drainage for the area. <br />88 <br />89 Mr. Willenbring noted that the feasibility study will include more informration on project <br />90 costs as well as funding options. The study would take about three months to complete. <br />2 <br />