HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995.09.13 CC Minutes - Browns Creek floodingMINUTES FOR THE HUGO CITY COUNCIL MEETING _OF__SEPTEME±ER 1- . _1995
The recessed City Council meeting of September 11, 1995, was reconvened by
Mayor Miron at 6:00 PM at the Washington County Public Works building.
PRESENT: Goiffon, LaValle, Leroux, Miron
City Administrator, Robert Museus
City Engineer representative, Pete Willenbring
em
The u pose for this meeting was to review possible solutions to the
flooding problems being experienced along Brown's Creek with
representative of adjacent communities, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
MNDNR. Brown's Creek WMO, Washington County ASCS, Washington County
Department of Public Works, and area residents.
City Administrator, Robert Museus, facilitated the meeting, which
identified agency and individual concerns regarding the management of the
Brown's Creek watershed, as well as potential resources to help resolve
these problems. A list of the concerns and resources is attached
separately and made a part of these minutes.
A group consensus was reached that four activities must be undertaken in
order to resolve the flooding, environmental, and development concerns in
the watershed:
1. The future organizational structure of the Brown's Creek. WMO should
be defined. Possibilities include transitioning_ the organization to
a watershed management district or amending the Joint Powers
Agreement among the communities comprising the watershed. This
matter was to be discussed further with the assistance of
representatives from the Bureau of Soil and Water Resources and DNR
at the regularly scheduled Brown's Creek WMO's meeting on September
20, 1995.
2. Conduct a detailed hydrologic, environmental, and regulatory study of
the Brown's Creek watershed in order to develop a base of knowledge
with which to create an implementation plan for managing the
district. If possible, this study is to be based on an area study
undertaken by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under a Section 25
small flood control project.
3. An implementation plan should be developed for resolving the issues
identified by the BCWMO, preferably through the revision to their
watershed management plan.
4. Various municipalities should review the existing emergency situation
in their communities, and take such steps as necessary and reasonable
to resolve critical flooding on as on -needed basis.
Goiffon made motion, LaValle seconded, to direct Pete Willenbring from the
City Engineer's office to facilitate the development and scope of work for
the floodplain study with representatives from the adjacent communities
and the Corps of Engineers, and provide a recommended scope of work: to the
BCWMO during their meeting of 9/20/95, if possible.
All aye. Motion Carried.
City Council meeting of 09/13/95
Page 2
LaValle made motion, Leroux seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:40 FM.
All aye. Motion Carried.
Robert A. Museus
City Administrator
RECEIVED ;EP f. 8 1995
BROWN'S CREEK FLOODING
PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION MEETING
SUMMARY
September 13, 1995
Meeting Purpose:
To identify all concerns and available resources regarding the Brown's Creek flooding
and to set a course of action.
Participants:
Residents and members of the following organizations:
County, Minnesota DNR, Corps of Engineers. OSM, SEH, SWCD, Brown's
Creek Watershed Management Organization, Cities of Stillwater and Hugo.
Problem Statement:
During 1986, and again in 1995, the Brown's Creek watershed suffered from high water
elevations. Land -locked basins and areas with poor drainage faced flood conditions
exceeding established 100 -year flood elevations. Public roads were covered by water,
private septic systems were inundated, and homes threatened.
Concerns of increased flooding due to changes in runoff characteristics, lack of public
easements on natural drainage channels, environmental issues, and a general lack of
hydrologic information on the watershed, are hindrances to solving these problems.
Population growth and development in the watershed are creating concerns regarding the
rate, volume and quality of surface water runoff, especially as it impacts the lower one-
half mile of the creek, which has been designated by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources as a protected trout stream.
Page 1 of 4 mrja& A: & c:=oVMCRK.WG
Page 2 of 4 Brown's Creek Flooding, Cont'd.
Concerns: All of the concerns, except those that are highlighted, could be addressed
with a good stormwater management plan. The highlighted concerns will
need to be resolved with a different course of action.
Low homes on land -locked basin (40+)
Public roads blocked
Farmer's fields
Flooded septic systems
Possible well contamination
Who leads
Property loss
Public information/insurance
Dead trees
Downstream effects
Trout stream -thermal impacts
Financing/cost
Intensification of development
Cost to repair infrastructure
Neighborly relations/conflict resolution
Reasonable timeframe for solutions
Homes in floodplain (insurance)
Erosion/sedimentation.
Need for easements
Complexity of problem
Regulatory changes - zoning, building permits
Management objectives
Shared electronic information
Page 3 of 4
Resources Available:
Brown's Creek Flooding, Cont'd.
Corp of Engineers: 205 Program - flood control
#22 Program - planning assistance grant
Cost -share, up to $5 million
SEH: (Brown's Creek WMO engineer)
Has modeled about 40% of the watershed.
Has done a broad, general hydrologic study.
DNR: Flood Damage Reduction grant - $40,000
BCWMO: $30,000 from member communities
Had intended to apply this to a $60,000 quick and dirty study.
Washington County: Meeting rooms. Facilitation assistance.
PCA Clean Water Cost -share program, studies or projects to protect or restore
Partnership: surface of ground water.
BWSR: Wetland Grant - $16,000 immediately from county, more
available in 1996 - 50150 match
Water Implementation Grant - $18,000 immediately through
the county, Challenge Grant money
Second generation WMO plans
City: Assessments
Foundation Money: McKnight, Anderson
Page 4 of 4
Course of Action:
Brown's Creek Flooding, Cont'd.
Two -track approach to address leadership issues and to begin a hydrologic study
simultaneously.
Leadership Issue:
WMO with assistance from DNR and BWSR will discuss its future - remain as is,
enhanced joint powers with new authorities allowed by the 1995 legislation, become a
watershed district. Attempt to resolve at September 20 meeting of the WMO.
Hydrologic Study:
1. Develop scope of work - City Engineers, Corps of Engineers, County Public
Works
2. Identify what concerns won't be addressed by the study and determine actions
ngeded - OSM
3. Seek resources to conduct study - WMO
Short-term impacts:
Each community, to the best of its ability, will assist residents with immediate needs. In
some cases there may be nothing that can be done in the short term.