Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />1 1 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />29 <br />30 <br />31 <br />32 <br />33 <br />34 <br />35 <br />36 <br />37 <br />38 <br />39 <br />40 <br />41 <br />42 <br />43 <br />44 <br />45 <br />46 <br />City Council Regular Meeting Minutes <br />May 22 , 2012 <br />Page 3 <br />toward this. There also may be funds from the DNR . Mr. Hubmer stated there are a number of <br />partners involved and this would not be the quickest solution to the problem. Mr. Hubmer stated <br />Option 4 would be feasible . <br />Councilmember Stille referred to Option 2 and asked if the road replacement was in Ramsey <br />County's plan. Mr. Hubmer stated he does not believe it is in their plan. <br />Councjlmember Roth asked if a ditch can be a pipe. He questioned how large the pipes are. Mr. <br />l-Iubmer responded it could be a 7-8 foot diameter pipe moving water. Mr. Hubmer stated there <br />is a ditch authority for Ramsey County and that is the Rice Creek Watershed Di strict. They will <br />be given a copy of the model. <br />Councilmember Roth asked how flood-proofing a house can be done. Mr. Hubmer stated walk- <br />outs can be blocked, berms can be constructed, replacing egress windows with glass block . It <br />depends on the type of the house and what can be done for flood-proofing. Mr. Hubmer stated <br />the previous programs were 65% paid by the City and 35% paid by the resident. <br />Councilmember Jenson asked Mr. Hubmer if the other Cities have the same momentum to get <br />something done. Mr. Hubmer stated New Brighton has energy to move forward. <br />Councilmember Jenson asked if this report was shared with the other Cities and Mr. Hubmer <br />s tated thi s report was created for St. Anthony and a similar report was created and presented to <br />New Brighton Council and accepted. <br />Mayor Faust asked about timelines in general and what interim measures can be taken. Mr. <br />Hubmer stated the backflow prevention device is one option as well as lowering the level of <br />Mirror Lake. Mr. Hubmer stated this was an extreme rainfall event and these types of events do <br />not occur often. Mr. Hubmer stated they are seeking cost estimates and should come back to <br />Council in approximately two weeks. Mayor Faust asked how long it would take to install the <br />device and Mr. Hubmer stated it depends on how long it takes to obtain the device. <br />Ms. Debra Larson , Mirror Lake Townhomes, asked for clarification on options five and six. She <br />stated their flooding was due to the backup. At the May 3, 2012 meeting they discussed possibly <br />putting the drainage system back together. She asked if option five included putting the drainage <br />system back together. Mr. Hubmer stated it is part of the bio-filtration system repair. Ms. <br />Larson stated option 4 is the most desirable solution but that will not happen. Ms. Larson asked <br />if option 5 would prevent the Mirror Lake Townhomes from flooding. Mr. Hubmer stated he <br />cannot make promises but it will be better given a hundred year flood. Ms. Larson asked what <br />percentage the backflow device would work and Mr. Hubmer stated it offers a 95% reliability. <br />Mayor Faust stated option 4 would be the engineering school solution but it would be the longest <br />solution. In an attempt to mitigate as best we can with the least amount of money the back flow <br />pre venter solution was suggested. Mayor Faust said if the backflow preventer was installed the <br />City could still seek funding for option 4. <br />Councilmember Roth stated it seems the ditch size is the issue. Would the backflow preventer <br />be at the expense of Rice Creek Watershed District? Mr. Hubmer stated they will pursue their