Vote to save Grafton dam cheered by crowd

The Grafton Village Board on Monday agreed to repair the Bridge Street Dam rather than raze the structure, a decision met by applause from the crowd that numbered into the hundreds.

The action came after 45 people, mostly Grafton residents, addressed the board for more than three hours. Many implored officials to repair the dam while others said the structure should be removed and the river allowed to flow freely.

And, in a move designed to ensure the village listens to residents about the future of the dam in years to come, a group on Monday afternoon filed a petition signed by 1,672 residents intended to require any decision to eliminate the dam to be decided by referendum.

“If a permanent change is going to be made to our downtown and river ecosystem, the decision should be made by the entire community at the ballot box, not by a unilateral, simple majority vote of the Village Board, some of whom could have a hidden or personal agenda,” Bill Harbeck, a spokesman for the group, said in a statement Tuesday.

The petition seeks to have the village approve an ordinance requiring a referendum held before it spends any funds on a project aimed at removing the dam.

If the board does not approve this ordinance, it calls for the village to hold a referendum compelling the legislation.

Board members on Monday unanimously approved a motion to not only repair the dam but also seek expedited bids for the work.

“It would be a great loss for the Village of Grafton if we did not preserve our dam,” Trustee Sarah Scarpace said.

“This delay has robbed Grafton of an entire summer on the river,” Trustee Danielle Autotte said, adding by late Sunday she had received 81 emails from people who want to repair the dam and 13 who want it removed.

“Let’s get this done quickly,” Trustee Dave Armstrong said of repairing the structure.

Trustee Kevin Curtis said the board did not follow the proper procedure and should have sent the matter to the Board of Public Works for a recommendation.

“We did not do our job correctly,” he said.

While people on both sides of the issue spoke Monday, the majority came out in support of fixing the dam, which has been broken since a hydraulic cylinder broke on May 2, opening a gate on the dam and substantially draining the millpond.

A village crew tried unsuccessfully to move the gate from its lowest setting, and a study by dam consultant J.F. Brennan Co. of La Crosse then revealed the cause of the failure was a faulty hydraulic cylinder and estimated the cost of replacing it at $180,000.

But after questions about whether it would be best to remove or repair the structure were raised, the Village Board in June postponed a decision for 60 days while officials research the best long-term decision.

Village President Dan Delorit said the board treated the dam issue as an emergency initially, and that’s why only one estimate was sought.

“It’s not an emergency anymore,” he said, so the board decided to look at all options.

One important thing, he added, is that the village needs a long-term maintenance plan for the dam, noting there are cracks and other issues that will need to be addressed.

Public Works Director Julie Esch said the village had three options to consider — seek bids to repair or replace the dam, refer the matter to the Board of Public Works or direct staff members with direction for follow up.

In addition to replacing the cylinder, Esch said, the village should consider installing a back-up system in case of gate failure in the future, estimated at $500,000.

  In comparison, she said, the cost of removing the dam was estimated at $2 million.

The delay in reaching a decision was decried by the crowd Monday, with many saying the village should have acted immediately.

“The way this was handled is an embarrassment to our village,” former Fire Chief Bill Rice, a village resident, said. “People constantly ask me, ‘What happened to your river? It looks terrible.’”

“It’s unfortunate when we have such a treasure in our community we’re not investing in it daily,” Jayne Holck said. “We need to have that millpond dredged. Fix the dam and maintain that valuable resource the community enjoys so much.”

But others said that while they were initially worried what would happen after the dam failed, they were pleasantly surprised by the outcome.

“I was happily surprised I now have a sedge wetland,” Steve Holzman told the board, adding he still sees fishermen and kayakers on the river. “Outdoor recreation is still happening, it just looks a little different. A lot of the mudflats are growing native vegetation.

The dam has “damaged the health of the river” by trapping sediment, increasing water temperatures and contributing to algae blooms, he added, telling the board it “requires courage” to resist the loudest voices in the room and do what’s right.

Those seeking to retain the dam talked about its importance to the village, its history and its place in the hearts of residents, with many saying they were drawn to the village by the river.

But many of those supporting its removal said it’s healthier for the river to do so.

“Dams are one of the most harmful things humans can do to a river,” Julia Lee said. “Restoring the river to its natural state is the right thing to do.”

“The function of the dam was never to create a millpond,” Linda Dean said. “It’s frustrating we can spend money every year for something that is not meeting the function it was created for.

“The dam is not going to take away water from Grafton. We will have a healthy river that supports life.”

Others said that the dam has created its own ecosystem and removing the structure would create conditions that would harm the wildlife that lives there now as well as the village that’s grown around the dam.

“We live in the now,” Mike Gerber said. “Restore the crown jewel of Grafton, please.”

Several people reminded the board that residents voted in 2010 to save the dam at whatever cost was needed to retain the structure.

Don Somogyi, who brought his fishing pole to the meeting, told the board, “I had a great fishing spot at one time. It (the dam breaking) just kind of stopped everything. I’d love to have the dam go back into operation.”

Removing the dam, he said, would lower water levels even more.

“This is going to make our river smaller,” he said.

Corey Shebesta said the dam is the heart of the community.

“You take away the dam, you take away Grafton’s identity,” he said. “That dam and millpond is Grafton, I’m telling you.”

He questioned why the village had not done more to determine exactly why the gate failed and asked if he could conduct his own “troubleshooting” of the gate.

Ries Hansen, who lives on the river, reiterated his offer to fund the repairs himself.

“I’m going to save the dam because I want to, and I can,” he said, adding 90% of residents want to save the dam. “It’s beautiful. I love the millpond.

“Fix this thing.”

Casey Didier told the board that while she loves the millpond, she and her neighbors have experienced sewer issues in recent years that have disappeared since the dam’s been damaged.

“If we fix the dam, we have to address the sewer issue first,” she said.

Others questioned why the village had not sought other bids for the repairs, saying they believe the estimated cost is excessive.

Former trustee Lisa Harbeck said in her 16 years on the board the village had dealt with numerous emergencies, including last year’s $95,000 repair of the historic lime kilns in Lime Kiln Park.

“This is no different than how we live our lives everyday. Things come up and we fix them,” she said, noting the village has funding available for emergencies. “The single bid for the hydraulic repair to the gate is embarrassing, both to the administrator and the president, who should know better.

“To then wait three months and report you will wait for action from the Village Board on whether additional bids should be requested is dysfunctional.”