02-15-83 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CITY COUNCIL MEETING - 2/15/83 Page four * Morgan - Why don't we give them a try at what they're doing now. I think we have plenty of leverage with mining permit. 0 Fraser - This has been before the Council many times before, has cost the City money and time, and believe we should keep leverage because of difficulty in the past. Y Dunn - The City initiated action in the first place by going down to look at area; if they're $1,500 ahead let them have it. ® Eder - Let the record show our understanding that if it's not out by 1984 you may not get a mining permit. M/S/P Morgan/Dunn that Hammes is now responsible for the $1,500 and and for getting the concrete removed as quickly as possible; and to approve the Auth agreement as written. (4 ayes; Fraser nay) 9. ENGINEER'S REPORT A. Cottage Grove Ravine - The following are now to be incorporated into water management systems: Cottage Grove, Woodbury, Lake Elmo, Woodbury, and Oakdale. Woodbury, Cottage Grove and. Oakdale plans provide that rate of runoff should not exceed predevelopment conditions. (Predevelopment conditions are conditions that exist at time organiza- tion is formed.) Lake Elmo's policy provides for control of rate of runoff and volume leaving development; if all did this, lakes, streams and ponds would flunctuate like they did for years. What we're talking about here is water presently flowing out of Lake Elmo where volume is or is not controlled. Even though Lake Elmo stores water, it may not be relieved from assessments. What form of water management would Lake Elmo prefer? Lake Elmo has to opt for either the Watershed District or ( Joint Powers; if not done by end of 1983, Lake Elmo will be assigned to one. Watershed management will provide outlets, paid by special assessments (Whittaker - general tax levy and/or special assessments), and Lake Elmo may be paying for all improvements downstream. * Whittaker - Concern is that Joint Powers would allow Cottage Grove and Woodbury to have most of the voice and power, such as to build big pipes as presently planned for, and Lake Elmo would have to .pay for it. We want to preserve our water resources by storing it, by ponding, etc. ® Fraser - Not much to be done except preaching our concerns to them. s Eder - We could sit down with Woodbury and work out some kind of compromise on this sub -Watershed and then could get Cottage Grove to treat their's differently. ® Morgan - Lean toward Watershed District in lieu of Joint Powers since we would have very little voice. s Whittaker - All would have to volunteer for Joint Powers; Woodbury and Cottage Grove are committed to Joint Powers; I think we're safer with Watershed District. They want to make decision Thursday night so joint powers agreement can be drafted. We could say unless you are willing to negotiate separate conditions for Lake Elmo and Oakdale, we aren't positive; or we could support Joint Powers only if Lake Elmo is not part of a big pipe system, can hold all our runoff., is not included in pipe to Cottage Grove Ravine, and pipe under 494 is not enlarged. Could be better choice if there's advance agreement. M/S/P Morgan/Eder that Lake Elmo is opposed to Watershed District or Joint Powers for anything other than Cottage Grove Ravine. (5 ayes) R. Local Road Restrictions - M/S/P Morgan/Mazzara to allow Maintenance Foreman and City Engineer to determine when and what streets should be posted for load restrictions due to softening of subgrade. (5 ayes)