The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2014.08.18 CC PowerPoint Bald Eagle Lake DamBald Eagle Lake Outlet Update August 18, 2014 A WSB o f r Y - � . ��•��. JAS-e�.,'f?'` � � M'.� -� .s � � IAN d r _11w Bald Eagle Lake I I July 8, 2014 Meeting Mayor and Council, City staff RCWD Board of Commissioners, Administrator, and Atty. DNR Commissioner and support staff Washington, Anoka County Commissioners Representatives Dean and Runbeck Discussion Topics Funding of the outlet replacement project N Ownership of the dam A WS I 9 Project Funding RCWD willing to contribute to replacement I Contingent on not owning the dam DNR staff supports funding N Not successful in 2014 legislative session May still have funding available Counties — RCWD best positioned to lead A WS Ownership Is dam abandoned? Potential DNR ownership through statutory authority N DNR to investigate RCWD, City stake in ownership of dam? City interest in roadway crossing of dam A WS Further discussions [ Communication from Counties Each sent a letter requesting RCWD to take the lead Ownership and funding I Is reviewing abandoned dam question I Not a priority I Doubtful that DNR will accept ownership 1 Interested in participating financially A WSB A .3sxeufw— liar. I I Further discussions RCWD Unwilling to accept ownership Encouraging the city to accept ownership I Larger RCWD share in financing I Willing to defer ownership question I Smaller RCWD share in financing St Paul Water Authority I Has limited water appropriations over the lake Would they give them up? Would they keep them in exchange for financing? A WSB da Asxrxraars. 1�. 3 options City Accepts ownership Ask others to finance 100% of the project costs Defer ownership question Split remaining costs among 3 or 4 parties Ask RCWD (or DNR) to own and maintain it There is some risk that nothing happens anytime soon Fits within their mandate A WSB rf .3sxruiaars. lme. 1 I I To own or not to own it Ongoing Maintenance There has been very little or no maintenance over the last 100 years. I Eventual replacement costs Liability What if it fails? 1 What if someone gets hurt? Drainage rights I Damage to property upstream or downstream I . Uncertain history of the structure I . Previous lawsuits over water elevations Control — Owner may have more say over what happens 1 WSB � assurrerrl. r� Option #1 — City ownership City owns the road along with prescriptive right-of-way City does not own the property (or the structure) Structure and road could be maintained together by city There are other interests in the structure beyond the City of Hugo It's Free — we'd ask other to pay 100% of replacement costs Would get the structure replaced more quickly A WS A Option #2 — No owner Defer on the ownership question. Possible JPA among entities concerning division of replacement cost and ongoing maintenance But no acceptance of ownership by anyone w How do decisions get made? May set the stage for future misunderstandings Would get the structure replaced after JPA is negotiated A WS Option #3 — Someone else owns it Current path... Hugo has strong argument that it doesn't belong to the City There are better arguments that it belongs to RCWD, DNR, or SPWA � Fits within their mandates The 3 County Boards agree City's road is impacted by failing dam Resolution along this path is not clear in the short term A WS I I Option #4 — Let the courts decide Bring action Sort out the history and roles of everyone involved Court action to declare it adversarial and costly A WS Current Funding Status Total Estimated Cost MnDOT Bridge funds Remaining Funding need $600,000 $252,000 $348,000 Outlet could be replaced within one year if funding available ... and ownership established A WS Next steps Provide direction to staff A W,