Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Council Meeting Minutes <br />October 14. 1986 <br /> <br />Council Business. continued <br /> <br />Williams stated he would abstain from voting on the project as <br />he. a non-expert. does not think it is going to work. doesn't <br />believe the Clean Flo system will disintegrate a bog. and does <br />believe this is a waste of their money. Williams further stated <br />he spoke unofficially with representatives of the DNR who indi- <br />cated they might approve a proposal for actually hooking some- <br />thing onto the bog. pulling it ashore. and sawing it up and <br />getting rid of it (which has been done in other instances) rather <br />than blowing bubbles in a lake. <br /> <br />Benke stated he understands the residents have also questioned <br />and discussed that. but notes that in the staff report and from <br />other discussions they have objectives in addition to removing <br />the bog (specifically to increase the lake depth. to improve the <br />lake clarity. and reduce weed growth) and understands the <br />residents feel there is progress in those areas which is the <br />basis for their request to continue the project. <br /> <br />Williams felt the improved water clarity was probably due more <br />with the amount of water that flowed through the lake this summer <br />due to a lot of rain than any aeration, because this is a little <br />basin that has a heavy inflow and a heavy outflow and tomorrow's <br />water is not what you are blowing bubbles into today or last <br />week. <br /> <br />Schmidt questioned if a contract had been received from Clean <br />Flo; Proper stated Clean Flo has a basic agreement which is <br />changed by a simple amendment each year. <br /> <br />Schmidt. in response to William's concerns. recalled the council <br />gave the residents a second opportunity to meet among their own <br />group and to make sure they were getting what they had bargained <br />for. recognizing the city is a facilitator for the project. The <br />residents have approved it and did. then. vote for the contin- <br />uation on that basis. <br /> <br />Williams asked if any consideration had been given to some kind <br />of performance standards in the contract so that a portion of <br />the money is withheld unless there is measurable improvement <br />based on the proposal by Clean Flo; Proper stated there were <br />some performance criteria having to do with dissolved oxygen. <br />reduction of nitrogen. etc. and Proper asked the residents if <br />they felt they were accomplishing something and whether or not <br />they wished to proceed with the process. Proper reported the <br />residents felt they were accomplishing something or at least <br />staying even and they did wish to proceed. <br /> <br />Motion by Schmidt. seconded by Benke to. WAIVE THE READING AND <br />ADOPT A RESOLUTION CONTINUING THE LAKE DIANE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT <br />FOR A THIRD YEAR (NOVEMBER 1986 TO NOVEMBER 1987) AND TO APPROVE <br />THE CONTINUATION OF THE CONTRACT WITH CLEAN FLO LABORATORIES FOR <br />A THIRD YEAR (NOVEMBER 1986 TO NOVEMBER 1987). <br /> <br />3 Ayes - 0 Nayes - 1 Abstain (Williams). Motion Carried <br /> <br />Benke asked Proper to communicate the concerns to the residents. <br /> <br />Page Eleven <br />