Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

After some heated discussion about placing a storm water retention pond near the city pool parking lot in the Albert Lea City Council’s work session Monday, the council voted 6-1 during its regular meeting to move forward with a project to resurface the pool parking lot — but without adding the adjacent pond.

The issue was pulled from the agenda about a month ago for further discussion after some councilors voiced opposition to adding the pond. City Manager Ian Rigg on Monday gave an in-depth presentation during the work session about the city’s storm water retention policy before the issue was brought to vote.

He said the project had included removing and replacing the bituminous surface and settled or heaved sections of curb and gutter in the city pool parking lot, as well as removing and replacing the bituminous surface on the entrance road to Bancroft Park. In addition, city staff had proposed a new storm water pond between the pool parking lot and the basketball court to the east.

Rigg said the new pond would have helped the city with its storm water responsibilities. The city has various guidelines and permits it follows to reduce sediment and pollutants entering the waterways from the storm system. It achieves these goals through things such as street sweeping, rain gardens, dredging, cover crops, storm water ponds and infiltration basins.

He said while the pond would not be required under the city’s policy, it would be encouraged to reach the city’s future goals. Staff are asked to consider the pond in an effort to reduce flooding and basement backups, to improve water quality and to stay in compliance with regulations. While no single project will be the answer by itself to these problems, they all play a part, he said.

He showed a series of other ponds that have been built throughout the city and also went through one by one what he described as excuses for not implementing the pond.

The storm water ponds themselves incorporate what he described as a safety access bench in the shallow slope on the outside of the pond to allow equipment access and to prevent people from slipping into the water. As you move further in, the slope drops off to where it is deeper. Sediment storage is at the very base of the pond underneath the water.

Vegetation is planted along the perimeter to prevent access to the pond. There are also typically warnings posted that the pond would not be a place for recreation or fishing and it would not be stocked with fish.

Rigg said policy matters because the city will always get disgruntled residents, describing those people as NIMBY — Not In My Back Yard — and CAVE — Citizens Against Virtually Everything.

He said policy matters when individuals with a momentary need come to the city and are louder than the majority receiving the long-term benefit.

History has also shown when council members have made an exception for the few because they want to be helpful in the moment, that there is more expense and difficulties later, he said.

He questioned recent concerns tied to the pond of drowning, liability, mosquitoes, cost, fencing or location and asked about those concerns in regard to the city pool and Fountain and Albert Lea lakes. He said the storm water pond would be designed in such a way to not make it an attraction to people.

He asked the council to try to look at the issue from a policy level and said he gets frustrated with breaking policy after someone calls and complains or the council makes exceptions.

Sixth Ward Councilor Brian Anderson said he appreciated all of the information Rigg presented but questioned whether not doing one storm water pond in a spot where people think it’s a bad location would represent a complete reversal of policy.

He and Rigg noted it is law when there is a new nonpermeable surface to require a storm water retention pond; however, aside from that, the city should look for other opportunities to incorporate efforts.

Rigg said the city cannot make plans based on whether someone will call council members and complain. Instead, decisions need to be made based on policy.

“I still don’t think this is the right spot for one,” Anderson said, noting he thought the space was too confined and said there was not enough space between the things that were already there.

He questioned why a pond couldn’t have been built by the Freeborn County Humane Society where there is less activity and no children playing when Eddie Cochran Street was redone this summer.

Fourth Ward Councilor Sherri Rasmussen said she was concerned about the cost — adding the pond would be about $100,000, up from the $25,000 the council was initially told it would be. A few large trees would also have to come down to build it.

“I understand why we want to do a lot of the retention ponds, and I think it’s really really good and necessary, but I’m a little bit offended at the way this has been presented and kind of shoved down our throats,” she said.

She said she thinks her role as a councilor is to take information she receives from city staff and make an informed decision if it is something she wants to move forward with.

“It’s not that I don’t agree with most of what we do as a city, but that doesn’t mean I’m always going to agree with everything that’s put in front of us,” she said. “It’s not my job to sit here and nod my head. It’s my job to sit here and look at all the information and then make an informed decision.”

First Ward Councilor Rachel Christensen said all of the councilors come from different experiences and take their roles as councilors seriously.

“I, too, got a little bit of a shaming feeling …,” Christensen said, referring to Rigg’s presentation. “I take my job very seriously. I’m going to consider all of the best information, and it doesn’t matter if somebody says ‘I don’t like it.’ What’s the best ideal for the city?”

Second Ward Councilor Larry Baker asked if staff could find another location for the pond that could have the same effect and also questioned the removal of two trees to put in the pond.

Rigg said the retention pond would do far more for the environment than the two trees that would need to be taken down for the pond.

Mayor Rich Murray said he thought Rigg gave a good presentation but noted he had spoken with five of the six councilors about the project. He said they had given the subject a lot of thought, and he didn’t think they were against the pond because of what Rigg described as NIMBY or CAVE, though he recognized they did receive calls about the project.

“I think the councilors have done a very good job of analyzing what they like or not like about this particular project. … They’ve come down on the side of we don’t like the property,” Murray said. “It may be the cost. It may be the location. It may be taking the trees down, it may be a number of things going on here with this project.”

Murray said he did not view the decision as a change in policy for the whole city and asked that city staff not stop looking for opportunities to add ponds in the future.

Third Ward Councilor Jason Howland asked what had changed for the councilors since it was last discussed previously as he recalled only Anderson was against it at that time.

Rasmussen said for her it was the cost and having more information now to make her decision.

The project with the pond was $489,320, while without it was $393,371.

The council approved the bid without the pond construction from Ulland Brothers Inc.

Howland was the only councilor to vote against removing the pond.