My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
res_6267
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Resolutions
>
06xxx
>
6200
>
res_6267
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:09:04 AM
Creation date
4/23/2005 5:20:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Resolutions
Resolution #
6267
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
<br />If we go back and pick up this 15 acres and do the same <br />thing with it - again take it to a surging lagoon where the <br />cattails and marsh grass will do some work to the phosphates, <br />etc. Intercept this pipe, take it to this big marsh - that <br />adds again another $20,000 or so. That's up to about $150,000. <br />That would be taking care of 262 acres here, 55 here, and 15 <br />here and this marsh is already taking care of 180 acres there. <br />At that point we could have the whole 500 acres Roseville puts <br />into this lake in somewhat improved markedly improved perhaps, <br />but quite an expense involved. <br /> <br />We thought perhaps (inaudible) problem too. If we dealt <br />with this area and said we could take 262 acres, intercept it <br />here, take it across Lexington to the swamp, we can get 262 <br />acres improved which ultimately improves Lake Josephine for <br />about $88,000 but that doesn't plan to build anything down to <br />this lagoon. That would probably end up with 90% of what Rose- <br />ville contributes to nutrients. It would~ handling the 262 <br />acres and this is taking care of (inaudible) but this does not <br />take into account the 55 acres or the 15 acres. There is no <br />way to do that by gravity because these things are too low with- <br />out going to the expensive pumps and someplace we would have to <br />get a surging basin and that wouldn't be (inaudible) convert <br />Autumn Grove Park into a surging basin which was under water <br />several times a year. That's where we are. <br /> <br />To some degree, I look at this probably as two different <br />projects - one up here that says we have some flooding and it <br />will cost $200,000 to get rid of the flooding. We have another <br />which I could call Lake Josephine, to cost about $88,000 to <br />$350,000 to approach that problem, and obviously if you would <br />put one hundred some thousand, $88,000 and $350,000 - any num- <br />ber you wish - to this $200,000 project, you have made it a <br />markedly different project in the way of cost. This project <br />is just over the 20% level now in funding by assessments and <br />none of these would be able to (inaudible) bonding with this <br />added expense unless special assessments were considerably <br />higher than they are today as we envision them. <br /> <br />MAYOR LINEBARGER: I have one question. In this environ- <br />mental impact study which relates itself to those first two <br />areas, the flooding problem (inaudible) storm sewer. I understand <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.