Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES FOR THE JOINT PUBLIC HEARING HELD BY THE CITY OF HUGO AND MAY <br />TOWNSHIP ON APRIL 8, 1996 <br />The meeting was called to order by Hugo Mayor, Fran Miron, at 7:45 PM. <br />PRESENT FROM THE CITY OF HUGO <br />City Council: Debra Barnes, Andrew Goiffon, Marvin LaValle, James Leroux, <br />Fran Miron <br />City Administrator, Robert Museus <br />Attorney Representative, Robert Briggs <br />City Clerk, Mary Ann Creager <br />PRESENT FROM MAY TOWNSHIP <br />Town Board: Tracy Mazanec and Rebecca Johnson <br />This joint meeting was called to consider adoption of an ordinance <br />establishing a storm sewer improvement tax district within the meaning of <br />Minnesota Statute 444.16 et. seq. <br />The public hearing was opened, and the following is a summation of oral <br />comments: <br />1. Status of flooding situation. <br />2. Let nature take its course - flooding will pass. <br />3. Resident thought study was already underway. He was informed that the <br />subwatershed had to be defined, and the ordinance passed before the <br />study could be commenced. <br />4. Why isn't Stillwater, Grant Township, and Oak Park Heights involved in <br />this matter? <br />5. Residents were informed that the study would cost approximately <br />$24,000 with 1/2 being paid by the DNR and 1/2 by the benefitting <br />property owners. , <br />6. A number of residents stated that they do not contribute to the <br />problem and would not be benefitting by any improvements. <br />7. How would property be assessed? Number of acres? Property <br />valuation? This will not be determined until an assessment hearing <br />has been held. <br />8. The engineer explained possible remedies: deliver water to Brown's <br />Creek or through Long Lake in the Rice Creek Watershed District. <br />9. School Section Lake resident felt that a "do nothinc" solution was not <br />acceptable as consideration money will be spend to raise City/County <br />roads. <br />10. Some residents felt that the area assessed should be expanded because <br />roads used by people outside of the assessed area. <br />11. Residents questioned how the flooding problem occurred, and questioned <br />whether the study would provide an explanation. <br />12. There was discussion about a "sunset clause" being added to the <br />proposed ordinance, but was determined it was needed because of the <br />clause being part of the Joint Powers Agreement. <br />13. Will Washington County contribute to flooding remedy because of <br />savings to them for raising of C.R. 57? <br />14. Is the flooding problem the result of surface water or groundwater? <br />15. Will development of Kelly Land & Cattle impact this situation? <br />