10-05-82 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

--Whittaker - if we pumped, could we fit it into present Mn/DOT 16 cfs pipe? (Dornfled - you could use 16 cfs pipe, would have to do it when it i wasn't being used.) --Eder - they wouldn't ask us to pay something if we wanted to use it for emergency at off-peak time for, say, 30 days? --Rosas - Department has policy that requires some kind of cost participa- tion to use their drainage facilities. To use this facility would require Federal Highway Administration approval, and the feds are probably not going to approve something unless- there's cost participation. Can't say for sure about emergency situation. If someone wanted to put water in there for a few days, I don't image there's a problem. But an emergency probably would take more than a few days. With the situation under 35 cfs system, it would take 100 days to handle water, so if we go to 16 cfs system it would probably take twice as long. We've gotten into a problem that could last considerably longer than 30 years. The Federal Highway Admin. and Mn/DOT deal with communities on joint storm water systems all the time; actually this proposal they've given us is more favorable to local communities than what was done a couple years ago. --Dornfeld, in answer to Eder's question - If the communities are satisfied with the 16 cfs outlet and whatever has to be negotiated with Mn/DOT in the future, there's no petition needed ... if pipe is to be enlarged, then a hearing is required. --Whittaker - still have to anticipate cost of W. Lakeland storage site to rest area. (Dornfeld - that can be negotiated anytime, big enough to handle 35 cfs pipe.) --Whittaker - is W. Lakeland/rest"area pipe low enough? --Dornfeld - we have to raise ours 4' but means we store more water at W. Lakeland permanently... floods more land...cost of land is as in ( original outline, it's just that we have less bounce. Have to consider 100-year event, once system gets balanced out there won't be continuous bounce. To lower pipe to original elevation, added cost to City. --Eder - under 25 cfs system, it talked about raising the outlet, the amount of permanent storage then has been increased and the temporary storage decreased... the cost of the improvements to allow flow at this overflow level has also been substantially reduced to about 150,000. Is $554,000 for entire site? (Dornfeld - that's appraised land cost -- appraised 1 to 1-1/2 years ago --with no contingencies, doesn't include 5th Street improvement.) --Mottaz - history tells us that W. Lakeland storage site was once a lake. What happens if nothing is done and water fills up old lake bed? --Dornfeld - if we don't get involved in altering any of the outlets and upstream lakes, there's no problem; if altered you can have lawsuit. --Dornfeld, in answer to Eder's question - if you're satisfied with 16 cfs pipe, I don't see any reason to petition. --Whittaker - and also if we're satisfied the pipe is 4' higher than planned. --Rosas - we're pretty much stuck with that. With unavailability of W. Lakeland site, Mn/DOT went to site south of Highway 94 which they bought; with higher ponding site, they raised pipe 41, reduced cost of excavation; we would have to pay cost of lowering that pipe 4' all the way down to W. Lakeland storage site ... suspect cost is very high. They were able to reduce drainage cost by using higher ponding site. --Eder - earlier they talked of paying some part of the $700,000; now are we going to pay the whole cost? --Rosas - we were going to buy the W. Lakeland site, and use part of that cost as credit against using our system. Using the W. Lakeland site would reduce our cost participation; now department is not using W. Lakeland site and don't feel there'll be any credit; however might be negotiable.