Not sure how many will find this real time, but here is the morning update on flooding. The sewer plant is keeping up with the inflow extra load, with our secondary pump needing to be turned on to assist.
Only one report so far of a sewer backup, which that may be due to a localized issue. Have a report of 6 inches of water in a basement on North Cottonwood.
The biggest area of concern is water coming off the fields from the SE, flowing thru yards, over by the school, down Main Street to Caseys. There was water over the road on that route.
Bryan Ave is closed due to high water. Britson Circle has water up to car axles in the middle of the block. There are other low spots with water over the streets too.
Bear Creek is up but not in a major flood state as of 7:30. Though that may change as water flows downstream to us.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Council Meeting tomorrow night
Just a note on a couple agenda items that are on the docket for tomorrow's council meeting. Of course, citizens are always invited to our meetings. But 90% of it is just humdrum, not controversial, not particularly interesting stuff.
Tomorrow night is two things that may perk a little more interest tho. One is we will likely be holding a vote to borrow money to complete Arthur Drive and Bryan Avenue. I think it is a good idea, but if passed, it will obviously raise taxes to pay for it.
The 2nd will be a discussion on "Urban Chickens". I know this is a hobby/pastime that is growing across the US. There is some interest by some Roland citizens to do this. Under our current ordinance, it probably falls under the "not allowed" due to not having farm animals in town. However, assuming you don't have a rooster, they are pretty quiet, and inoffensive.
But that may be a topic that I am assuming people might like to weigh in on, pro or con. So I wanted to remind folks of it here.
Tomorrow night is two things that may perk a little more interest tho. One is we will likely be holding a vote to borrow money to complete Arthur Drive and Bryan Avenue. I think it is a good idea, but if passed, it will obviously raise taxes to pay for it.
The 2nd will be a discussion on "Urban Chickens". I know this is a hobby/pastime that is growing across the US. There is some interest by some Roland citizens to do this. Under our current ordinance, it probably falls under the "not allowed" due to not having farm animals in town. However, assuming you don't have a rooster, they are pretty quiet, and inoffensive.
But that may be a topic that I am assuming people might like to weigh in on, pro or con. So I wanted to remind folks of it here.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Library featured in Trib
The Ames Tribune had an article today on our new library. HERE is the link to it. The above photo is from the article.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Critters
Stopped into City Hall tonite to sign some stuff. Among the things was to renew our city's contract with Story County Animal Control. Just like our city contracts with the county sheriff for our police protection, we contract with Story County Animal Control to deal with stray cats and dogs, or other animal issues. We have to pay SCAC for coming to pick up strays. So we have a line item in our budget for this. I don't think it is more than a couple hundred bucks, but it is something your tax dollars pay for.
SCAC also has pets for adoption. Here is a link to their webpage. The webpage also has a section on reporting strays, and what to do if you think a pet is being abused.
On a mostly related topic, if you have an issue with animals around your home, the city does have traps to borrow. As I write this, I don't remember if there is a charge for the trap. Best bet is to call city hall for details. They are a cage thing that is humane, not like a bear trap!
SCAC also has pets for adoption. Here is a link to their webpage. The webpage also has a section on reporting strays, and what to do if you think a pet is being abused.
On a mostly related topic, if you have an issue with animals around your home, the city does have traps to borrow. As I write this, I don't remember if there is a charge for the trap. Best bet is to call city hall for details. They are a cage thing that is humane, not like a bear trap!
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Iowa League of Cities lawsuit
Here is an email I got from the Iowa League of Cities. Roland is a member of the Iowa League of Cities, so this is certainly of interest. One of my main topics on blog posts has been dealings regarding our sewer system and the problems our city council has in trying to do the right thing. I think this is a great thing that the League has done to help out Iowa's cities. I know it is a lot of type, but if you read anything, check out the last paragraph, that wraps it up pretty well.
On July 22, the Iowa League of Cities Executive Board approved filling a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because of its reinterpretation of several federal rules for wastewater treatment plants and stormwater-related discharges. This approval follows a June 18 recommendation from the League Environmental Coordination Committee to take such an action. Pursuant to the Board's approval, a suit was filed by Hall & Associates on behalf of the League in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, July 26.
At issue is the EPA's reinterpretation, without going through administrative rulemaking, of the existing federal bypass, mixing zone and secondary treatment rules. The EPA previously allowed municipalities to use alternative approaches and innovative technologies to process peak flows. Municipal operations were also given options in treatment facility design to safely process peak flows that would otherwise upset the system's operation. Many communities designed physical/chemical treatment units to supplement plant capacity under wet weather conditions and to ensure advanced treatment units could properly function under peak flow events such as unusually heavy rains and storms. Also, states were previously given flexibility to determine when and where swimming uses would reasonably be expected to occur, particularly under high flow conditions. The EPA allowed limited "mixing zones" and other less restrictive requirements where a state confirmed that such uses were improbable due to the physical setting.
Since 2009, however, the EPA has initiated a series of more restrictive federal rule interpretations regarding collection system design, bypass rule applicability, allowable mixing zones and acceptable plant design/operations that have placed otherwise compliant facilities into ongoing violation and have dictated extreme sewer system and treatment plant designs to address rare wet weather flows. In other words, the EPA changed its approach without going through the rule-making process. It now asserts that previously approved rules and processes are unlawful, potentially putting many hundreds of millions of dollars are at risk.
Issues created by the EPA's reinterpretation include:
1. Requiring municipalities to construct additional treatment facilities even when underlying water quality standards and technology-based limitations are already being achieved.
2. Holding municipalities legally accountable for treating flows associated with "Noah's flood."
3. Preventing communities from designing facilities with state-of-the-art physical/chemical peak flow treatment technologies.
4. Forcing communities with advanced treatment processes to modify operations and designs to ensure all flows pass through the complete biological process.
The EPA has created a situation where cities will be in ongoing violation with no reasonable means to achieve compliance. Communities will be forced into large expenditures that have no relationship whatsoever to environmental needs or technology rule compliance.
For these reasons, the League is seeking to overturn the illegal rule changes, inform the EPA on the extent of federal authority regarding wastewater plant design, direct the EPA to adhere to statutory provisions when developing wastewater requirements and allow the states to continue to use cost-effective options to safely process peak wet weather flows.
Please direct all questions regarding this litigation to Alan Kemp, League Executive Director at (515) 244-7282.
On July 22, the Iowa League of Cities Executive Board approved filling a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), because of its reinterpretation of several federal rules for wastewater treatment plants and stormwater-related discharges. This approval follows a June 18 recommendation from the League Environmental Coordination Committee to take such an action. Pursuant to the Board's approval, a suit was filed by Hall & Associates on behalf of the League in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday, July 26.
At issue is the EPA's reinterpretation, without going through administrative rulemaking, of the existing federal bypass, mixing zone and secondary treatment rules. The EPA previously allowed municipalities to use alternative approaches and innovative technologies to process peak flows. Municipal operations were also given options in treatment facility design to safely process peak flows that would otherwise upset the system's operation. Many communities designed physical/chemical treatment units to supplement plant capacity under wet weather conditions and to ensure advanced treatment units could properly function under peak flow events such as unusually heavy rains and storms. Also, states were previously given flexibility to determine when and where swimming uses would reasonably be expected to occur, particularly under high flow conditions. The EPA allowed limited "mixing zones" and other less restrictive requirements where a state confirmed that such uses were improbable due to the physical setting.
Since 2009, however, the EPA has initiated a series of more restrictive federal rule interpretations regarding collection system design, bypass rule applicability, allowable mixing zones and acceptable plant design/operations that have placed otherwise compliant facilities into ongoing violation and have dictated extreme sewer system and treatment plant designs to address rare wet weather flows. In other words, the EPA changed its approach without going through the rule-making process. It now asserts that previously approved rules and processes are unlawful, potentially putting many hundreds of millions of dollars are at risk.
Issues created by the EPA's reinterpretation include:
1. Requiring municipalities to construct additional treatment facilities even when underlying water quality standards and technology-based limitations are already being achieved.
2. Holding municipalities legally accountable for treating flows associated with "Noah's flood."
3. Preventing communities from designing facilities with state-of-the-art physical/chemical peak flow treatment technologies.
4. Forcing communities with advanced treatment processes to modify operations and designs to ensure all flows pass through the complete biological process.
The EPA has created a situation where cities will be in ongoing violation with no reasonable means to achieve compliance. Communities will be forced into large expenditures that have no relationship whatsoever to environmental needs or technology rule compliance.
For these reasons, the League is seeking to overturn the illegal rule changes, inform the EPA on the extent of federal authority regarding wastewater plant design, direct the EPA to adhere to statutory provisions when developing wastewater requirements and allow the states to continue to use cost-effective options to safely process peak wet weather flows.
Please direct all questions regarding this litigation to Alan Kemp, League Executive Director at (515) 244-7282.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
House coming down
Looks like the dilapidated house on South Cottonwood will be coming down in the next week or two. There has been stuff in the hopper on this for the past few months, but I have avoided talking about it here, as I did not want some speculator to become aware of it and attempt to purchase it, or something like that.
Here's the deal with it. (from my recollection--I may have some details slightly wrong) The homeowner let it go back to the bank. The bank did no upkeep on it. So the property became a massive eyesore. The city tried to purchase the house from the bank (Citibank I think), but they would not talk to us. They also refused to pay any taxes on it. So the house went to a sheriff's sale.
Some other individual bought the taxes on it, but didn't do anything with the house. So we as a city went to court to take over the property. As it should be, it is very difficult for a city to take over a property. There are lots of legal hoops to go through, which again, I think is good, to protect people from getting their property claimed by a government entity.
Adding to this, the Iowa Legistlature had recently changed the rules regarding this, so the judge and the county officials wanted to make sure they had done everything right. So that added to the delay.
The judge eventually ruled in our favor to take over the property. So we had to return the money to the individual who had purchased the taxes on it.
Then we had the house inspected, and found there was asbestos. So we have gotten that abated. And FINALLY, we should get the house, and the dead trees, and all the junk torn down and hauled away in the next couple weeks.
So the city will have a lot to build a house on. No decision has been made on what to do with it yet, or what we might sell it for. But if you, or someone you know, are interested in a city lot, in an established neighborhood with mature trees, and all that, let City Hall know.
Here's the deal with it. (from my recollection--I may have some details slightly wrong) The homeowner let it go back to the bank. The bank did no upkeep on it. So the property became a massive eyesore. The city tried to purchase the house from the bank (Citibank I think), but they would not talk to us. They also refused to pay any taxes on it. So the house went to a sheriff's sale.
Some other individual bought the taxes on it, but didn't do anything with the house. So we as a city went to court to take over the property. As it should be, it is very difficult for a city to take over a property. There are lots of legal hoops to go through, which again, I think is good, to protect people from getting their property claimed by a government entity.
Adding to this, the Iowa Legistlature had recently changed the rules regarding this, so the judge and the county officials wanted to make sure they had done everything right. So that added to the delay.
The judge eventually ruled in our favor to take over the property. So we had to return the money to the individual who had purchased the taxes on it.
Then we had the house inspected, and found there was asbestos. So we have gotten that abated. And FINALLY, we should get the house, and the dead trees, and all the junk torn down and hauled away in the next couple weeks.
So the city will have a lot to build a house on. No decision has been made on what to do with it yet, or what we might sell it for. But if you, or someone you know, are interested in a city lot, in an established neighborhood with mature trees, and all that, let City Hall know.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Nice Saturday afternoon
Stopped in at the Library Open House on Saturday afternoon. A few people stopping in to mill about, and get some snacks and punch. Twas nice to have a little celebration of the new facility.
Then the highlight of the day was the sweet corn feed at the community center. Great job by the RADC folks for the eats. Burgers, brats, bologna, watermelon, and all the sweet corn you could eat. For 6 bucks. I like going out for pizza, and Mexican, and I love a good steak. But a meal like that is really hard to top.
The crowd was pretty big when I was there from 5:30 to 6:15 or so. The meal was a fundraiser for roof repairs on the community center. Wasn't sure how big of crowd you would get on a weekend in prime vacation season. But it was a pretty good turnout.
So thanks to everybody that helped put these 2 events on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
