My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2003/10/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
Agenda Packets - 2003/10/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:50:45 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 11:32:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
10/27/2003
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
10/27/2003
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
175
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council October 13, 2003 <br />Regular Meeting Page 17 <br /> <br />P. Consideration of Resolution 6111, a Resolution Approving Change Order 1 <br />Number 3 for the County Road H2 Street Improvement Project – Installation 2 <br />of Infiltration Systems and Pathway Segments along County Highway 10. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Mayor Linke asked if it was possible to bill Rice Creek Watershed for this experimental process 5 <br />they required. 6 <br /> 7 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated that the City does have a grant application into the 8 <br />Watershed District for $40,000 for a partial reimbursement of the costs but the matter has been 9 <br />tabled until the project is 100% completed. 10 <br /> 11 <br />Mayor Linke indicated he did not approve of the way Rice Creek Watershed District is using the 12 <br />City as a guinea pig and charging for the experiment. 13 <br /> 14 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated the City had the option to prevent any observations on these 15 <br />devices and not allow access to them and then they would be of no value to the watershed 16 <br />district. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Council Member Stigney questioned whether there is some way that Rice Creek and the City 19 <br />could work out a better agreement or if it would be a waste of time. 20 <br /> 21 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated that Staff had tried once and it did not work. He then 22 <br />explained that the original cost participation was 75% but that was denied and the amount was 23 <br />reduced. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mayor Linke asked what the basis for this experimental retention area was. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated it is a combination of wanting to see what happens and a 28 <br />need in the area. He then said they looked at where it was possible to do infiltration basins to 29 <br />look at treating as much water on H2 as possible. There was no room on the north side because 30 <br />of the pathway and one way was to do infiltration devices under the pathway. He further 31 <br />commented that these are treating 0.59 acres of water at a cost of close to $100,000 so there is a 32 <br />question of cost benefit and it is an experimental device. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Mayor Linke commented that the City has to spend $60,000 because they said so. 35 <br /> 36 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated the City may also incur additional risk and costs should the 37 <br />devices fail. 38 <br /> 39 <br />Council Member Quick asked where the devices would be buried. 40 <br /> 41 <br />Public Works Director Lee indicated that both are installed and here is one located to the east of 42 <br />Scotland Green Court and the second is east of Silver Lake Road between Silver Lake Road and 43 <br />Park View Drive. 44 <br /> 45
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.