Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/23/1986 Council Minutes256 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING January 23, 1986 Council member Bohjanen pened the Special Council Meeting at 7:30 P.M. Council members MP.ier and Bisel were present. Mayor Benson and Council member Rein( -t were absent. City Attorney, Bill Hawkins; City Engineer, Bob Todda ; and Clerk- Treasurer, Marilyn Anderson were also present. Rice Creek Watershed District members present: Managers Petrangelo, Sande, Scott, Cardinal and Willcoxen; Engineer, Bill Weidenbacker, and Attorney Grant Murray. Anoka County representatives present: Commissioner, Margaret Lang - feld; Engineer, Paul Rudd; Engineering Staff, Mel Fields and Bill Sironen. Mr. Bohjanen welcomed everyone and asked Mr. Cardinal to explain the purpose of the meeting. Mr. Cardinal explained the purpose is to discuss the upgrading of County Road #14 (Main Street) and 4th Ave- nue and how it relates to County Ditch #22 and #10. Mr. Weidenbacker posted a map of the area of these two ditches. Mr. Cardinal explained this area is an area of naturally high water ta- bles and in addition County Ditch #22 has been diverted from its easement. Mr. Weidenbacker explained that the RCWD has no authority to go on private property, therefore there will be a problem in areas where the ditch has been diverted from the right of way. He also noted that Anoka County has an excellent set of ditch records. A survey has been made by RCWD to determine the cost of cleaning the ditch where it is it the correct right of way. Profiles also have been made. Peter Willenbring, RCWD Engineer, has determined cost estimates for Ditch #10 where it is in the original alignment and Ditch #22. Mr. Willenbring is of the opinion that just clean- ing out these ditches will not provide the drainage the City is looking for. In order to do the job correctly, a ditch improvement project will have to be initiated along with some realignment pro- ceedings so that the proper right of way can be established for future access for maintenance. Mrs. Langfeld asked where the ditches have been diverted are the ditches in any better condition than where it is in the original alignment. Mr. Weidenbacker said those portions were not physi- cally inspected because they are on private property. From the aired photographs those areas appear to be in the best condition. He cannot tell how this affects the properties to the north of the sod fields. Mr. Weidenbacker had aireal photos with him for ref- erence. 1 1 1 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING January 23, 1986 Page Two Mr. Sunde commented that just cleaning out certain areas will not do the job. To do an adequate job of providing drainage, some im- provements will have to be made. He wanted to be sure this was understood. Mr. Weidenbacker explained the repair cost (only returning the ditch to its original grade and cross section) of County #10, which in- cludes 1,400 lineal feet of cleaning, 1,800 cubic yards of channel excavation and three culvert replacements, engineering, legal and administrative fees is $45,000. County Ditch #22 requires 1,600 lineal feet of cleaning or 7,000 cubic yards of excavation, replace- ment of four culverts, engineering, legal and administrative fees for a total cost of $75,000. These figures may be on the high side. Mr. Sunde felt the gain from spending this large amount of money would be questionalbe, the drainage needed for this area will not be obtained by returning the ditch to its original conditions. It was explained this was also Mr. Willenbring's opinion. Mr. Cardinal indicated the ditches were originally dug to provide drainage for farmland. Now it is becoming residential and this is where the problem is developing because there is no outlet. Mr. Marier explained the developer would construct the outlet but there is no place to run the outlet since the County ditches are not ade- quately maintained. Mr. Rudd asked if there are repairs required southeasterly of the culverts underneath 35W? Mr. Toddie felt the culverts under the interstate were adequate. Mr. Rudd asked if it was necessary to do the $45,000 project on the east -west branch of the ditch for the purposes the City is looking at now, (drainage for 4th Avenue and Main Street)? He also asked, if the ditch is no longer located in its original alignment how do you go about getting back to a public ditch, what is the procedure? Mr. Murray said first it would have to be decided what is needed. Could the original ditch system be abandoned and then make a new ditch system acquiring right of way for the new system. However, it cannot be abandoned with legal proceedings. If this is done in this case there could be some problems with neighbors and sod fields. Mr. Toddie said that he is currently working on the reconstruction of 4th Avenue and is trying to work with the drainage system as it currently is. He has not yet evaluated what flow will be gained but as of now he is sure he can make some drainage situations work although - they -would not be ideal from an engineering standpoint. He explained how he has determined how the drainage would flow using maps he had prepared. This would require the whole ditch 257 258 SPECIAL COINCIL MEETING January 23, 1986 Page Three system to be cleaned out. Mr. Weidenbacker felt this plan would work out but would require a ditch improvement project. There was discussion as to who would be benefited by Mr. Toddie's plan. Mr. Weidenbacker noted there would be no designated DNR wetlands affected. The CORP will not be concerned unless the dit- ches will be draining wetlands. This plan would not provide any benefit to property north of Main Street. Mr. Marier said for clarification, the City wants to know what the ditch can do and this cannot be determined until the ditch is re- turned to its original position and condition. Before the City can make any decision in this area it is asking the ditch be repaired and once this is completed the City can make a decision as what else should be done. He said he is asking that the RCWD live by their maintenance obligation. The City cannot make any decision regarding additional drainage requirements until the City knows what the ditch in its proper condition can do. Mr. Cardinal said than the hest alternative would be to clean out Ditch #22 all the way to Main Street in its original dedicated right -of -way. This may cause some problems with the land owners, but RCWD does have jurisdiction and can enforce the right -of -way. Mr. Murray said the cost of this repair could not exceed the original cost of in- stallation of the ditch and may have to mix an improvement and re- pair project. Mr. Marier did not agree with this idea. He said it is the func- tion of the RCWD to maintain ditches under their jurisdiction and this ditch has never been maintained. Mr. Murray explained that the RCWD is an administrative board. Their function is to enter- tain petitions for repair. They do not do the repairs. Mr. Mar - ier asked how much is raised each year by the RCWD board for re- pairs? Mr. Cardinal said $15,000 for about fourteen years. Mr. Marier asked how much has been spent in Lino Lakes? No answer. Mr. Murray said the Board is looking at a plan to use this money in the entire RCWD jurisdiction rather than dumping it in one area. He also said that the City does not want this to be a project be- cause benefited landowners would be assessed. He also said this could be an area where the RCWD could finance part of the work and the City finance the balance. The RCWD Board should finance some of the costs, what is the City willing to spend? Mr. Marier said clean out the ditch and the City and County will take care of the rest of the problem. Mr. Cardinal said the RCWD Board is willing to spend some money. Mr. Bisel asked why had the original ditch been diverted. Mr. Car- dinal explained this was done prior to the existence of the RCWD. Nobody said anything because it did not cost anyone anything. Mr. Cardinal said the RCWD has the right to go in and clean out the ditch in its original right -of -way. Mr. Petrangelo said he could see 259 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING January 23, 1986 Page Four repairing the ditch on a cost sharing basis, but could not see paying the entire cost. Mr. Rudd said the County is on record saying they would share in some of the costs of this project. He would like an estimate of the repair cost and then determine who will pay what. Mr. Weidenbacker was not sure that returning the ditch to its or- iginal cross section and profile would provide the needed drainage. Mr. Toddie said that the ideal situation may not be accomplished, but can do the best with what there is to work with and this will relieve the problem and perhaps solve it completely. Mr. Cardinal asked Mr. Weidenbacker to determine the cost of clean- ing out Ditch #22 to Main Street, then work with Mr. Toddie and Mr. Rudd to determine if the ditch will need to be enlarged, dug deeper or whatever is adequate to do what is needed for drainage in this area. Mr. Rudd said they would have to look at the grade of the ditch and capacity and may end up with a combination of Ditch #22, ponding areas and some restrictive culverts and even the road side ditches may bave to hold back water for a few hours. This will de- termine if just cleaning out the ditch will solve the problem. He suggested solving the problem on paper first than argue about the costs. Mr. Marier noted the plug in the ditch near Carl Street and felt it should be removed immediately. Mr. Murray said it is illegal to obstruct a County Ditch. This is a misdemeanor. It was determined that if the plug was removed no land would be adversely affected. However, the landowner who put the plug in place (sod field owner) would be quite irrate. Mr. Rudd said that Mr. Weidenbacker should get a profile on this private part of the ditch with the plug to determine the effect when the plug is removed and then make a de- cision on what to do with the plug. Mr. Bohjanen asked that Mr. Toddie and Mr. Rudd work with Mr. Wei - denbacker and determine an estimate to clean the original Ditch #22 to its original cross section and profile from Carl Street to Main Street and have this information to the Council on Monday, February 10, 1986. Mrs. Anderson is to notify the landowners that a survey team will be entering their property to make the survey of the orgiinal Ditch #22. Mr. Marier asked for clarification of the RCWD responsibility for ditch cleaning. It was explained that the jurisdiction of County ditches is vested in the Watershed District Board and they have a right to levy and accept a petition for improvement or repair. RCWD is a hearing body, they determine the facts in each case. Pe- titioners or opponents are other parties. The statute states the RCWD maintains and repairs the County ditches. It also denotes where the money's to be obtained for this. Its an empowering stat- ute. The money is to come from property that is benefited. Public 260 SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING January 23, 1986 Page Five money cannot be used for private purposes. Mr. Marier said the City has come to a conclusion on this matter and the City has not allocated any money for this repair. Mr. Bohjanen thanked everyone for coming tonight. Mr. Rudd asked about the CORP. He understands that the section of the CORP responsible for this area is a,lot more restrictive than the CORP nationwide. Is RCWD looking into this as it is usurping some of its powers. The County will be looking into this more. The meeting was adjourned by Mr. Bohjanen at 8:54 P.M. These minutes were considered and approved by a regular Council meeting on February 10, 1986. �, '��LG- Y i tip` ( 1'51) Marilyn G. Anderson, Clerk- Treasurer enjamin . enso ; ayor 1 1