Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977.09.07 CC Minutes - Special Meeting 7 1rTEMBER 7, 1977 SPECIAL MEETING PUBLIC HEARING HORSESHOE LAKE LEVEL CONTROLS A special meeting was held at Hugo City Hall at 7:30 P.M. by Rice Creek Watershed for a hearing on an improvement petitioned by the City of Hugo to construct level control structures for Horseshoe Lake and to improve and reconstruct existing ditches and drains leading from Horseshoe Lake to the outlet in Hardwood Creek in Forest Lake Township. PRESENT: RICE CREEK WATERSHED A. Cardinal G. V. Dimke W. L. Goyer R. R. Hamilton E. A. Petrangelo J. R. MacLennan, Engineer Wm. D. Weidenbacher, Engineer Frank Murray, Attorney VIEWERS: Bruce L. Lease Dwayne V. Moon Clinton Baumgard D.N.R. Ron Harneck Bruce Sandstrom CITY OF H[TGO: Mayor LaValle H. Schletty D. Spitzer L. Irsfeld C. Johnson, Attorney H. Kuusisto, Engineer The opening statement by Hamilton was as follows — The Board found the petition sufficient ' in that it was signed by the City of Hugo, that the proposed improvement is for the public interest and welfare, and is practicable and in conformity with the overall plan of the district, it identified the project, appointed an engineer and caused the necessary surveys and plans to be made. The Engineer has made his report of his findings and recommendations as to the proposed improvement and has found the improvement feasible. The report was properly filed and thereafter appraisers were appointed and they have filed their report with the Board. Timely and proper notice of this hearing has been given to all parties affected and interested in these proceedings by publication and mailed notice. SEPTEMBER 7, 1977 "" At this hearing the managers shall hear all parties interested who may be for or against the establishment of the proposed improvement and the confirming of the reports. All questions relative to the proposed improvement including jurisdiction, sufficiency of the petition, practicability and necessity shall be determined upon evidence pre— sented at this hearing. Any findings made by the managers prior to this hearing shall not be conclusive but shall be subject to further investigation consideration and determination at this hearing . By statute, the Board may order and direct the mod— ification of the engineer's report and the assessment of benefits and damages and amend or change the list of property reported as assessable. If the Board finds that the improvement will be conducive to public health and promote the general welfare and is in compliance with the provisions and purposes of M. S. Chapter 112, and that the benefits resulting therefrom will be greater than the cost of construction and damages, it will make findings accordingly and order and direct the construction of the improvement and confirm the report of the engineer and of the appraisers. Plans and specifications for the necessary construction shall be ordered and this hearing recessed to await the engineer's report and receipt of bids. If on the other hand the Board does not find the aforesaid, it may dismiss the petition or order further investigation of such matters as may be found necessary as a result of this hearing and order a continuance pending report of the same. The order of the hearing is as follows: the petitioner shall verify petition, engineer shall testify and appraisers shall explain their report and the method of reaching at their conclusion. The Board is neither a proponent nor opponent or objector to the proposed improvement, but shall make its findings and final determination upon the facts and evidence pre— sented at the hearing and any continuance thereof. Ron Harneck stated he would hope to make a determination that evening as a second meeting is co.,tly. Bruce Sandstrom, DNR reprted as follow: The construction or reconstruction of dams and other water level controls or changing the level of an existing structure shall not be permitted where it is proposed to raise 80 or lower water levels solely to satisfy private shoreline. Water level control projects may be permitted if substatial justification has been made of the need for the proposed permanent control facilities in terms of public and private interests and the available alternatives. The DNR has performed a survey of Horseshoe Lake to determine the ordinary high water elevation and the natural runout for the lake. This survey and analyses defines the OHWE as 931.4 NGVD 1929 and the NROE as 930.7 NGVD 1929. Another area of concern of the DNR is the impact of the proposed outlet channel on the wetlands downstream of Horeshoe Lake. The channelization as proposed would lower the ground water table in the wetland thereby drastically changing their characteristics and reducing their value to wildlife habitat. Unless specific mitigative measures are provided, the DNR would probably have to react unfavorably to the portion of the pro— ject. They believe that there are alternatives to the area which would be discussed with the district and a mutually agreeable alternative workout. In addition, the EQB guidelines do require preparation of EAW prior to final action by the DNR. Therefore, if the pro— ject is ordered subsequent to the hearing, the procedure will proceed. The department's final area of concern is with the benefits of the project. They are not aware of any evaulation of the damages caused by flooding. If any, what types of damages are they, how many people are affected and how much monetary systems, the DNR feels that this would not be sufficient reason to lower the lake outlet elevation for two reasons: 1. A lowering of the lake by 1.7 feet would not make any affected septic system a conforming system according to any future municipal shoreland ordinance by the City of Hugo. 2. A municipal shoreland ordinance will likely be adapted by the City of Hugo in 1978 or shortly thereafter. Any ordinance the city adopts will have provisions which will require the upgrading of any non—conforming septic systems. The DNR does approve of the concept of a weir outlet control which could provide some obstruction to fish migration as well as establishing a tamper proof outlet elevation. The department, however, would look infavorably on either the proposed outlet elevation of 929.0 due to lack of justification for such nor any unmitigated adverse affects on any wetlands affected by the proposed downstream channel. Engineer MacLennan gave his report as per Howard Kuusisto survey which was run in 1974, establishing the need and feasibility of a water level control structure for Horseshoe Lake and the construction of a ditch to Harwood Creek to control flooding. SEPTEMBER 7, 1977 8 1 Engineer MacLennan: Explained materials, maps, and drainage way. Mayor LaValle: Has been a problem area for many years and in 1974 the water was going every which way basements were being flooded. The problem went out of the jurisdiction of Hugo and into another community so therefore asked Rice Creek to follow the proceedure to help resolve the problem that is why the petition was filed. Engineer Kuusisto: In 1974 there was severe drainage and ponding in Horseshoe lake area. The preliminary investigation showed obstruction occurring. The Rice Creek Watershed engineer was contacted to determine which way the water was to flow as proposed in the engineering report. Viewer Lease: Stated the Viewers were fronbou thern Minnesota and had no partial interest but to make a recommendations on the facts that were received by the engineers and contacted people in the area. They were appointed by the Watershed District. The total cost estimated is $42,200 and was explained to the audience haw they determined the individual assessment. Wayne K. Sechrist: Stated he lives on the west shore since 1954 and was as close to the lake as anybody. Only trouble with water in basement was in 1975 when the entire area was saturated. Gas tanks were popping up along highway 61. Water in basement not from the lake. Post in lake indicating water levels. Cannot see the expense involved to resolve a small problem. C. Pfingsten: Stated a ditch would not resolve anything. People in swamp area should fix own shoreline and not have other people pay for it. John Niemczyk: The only water he had in basement was surface water, never from the lake. Lawrence Jasinski: Re—routing water would be bringing water into areas where their isn't much water at the present time. Ray Houle: Wanted show of hands who wanted project. Answer: Stated viewers would determine that when they speak with audience. 82 Joe Gregoire: If you run the water out without cleaning, it will again back up. Marvin Winkels: When were photos taken: 1976, spring. Ray L'Allier: Water is west of Tester, where does it lead after that? The viewers then discussed the individual assessments with those members present who were involved. Goyer: Apparently none of you_ are having a problem with excess water. Audience: No. Goyer: Do you want something done about the problem. Audience: We have a problem, but we can take care of the problem but not this way, it is too costly. Goyer: We are not hear to force anything down your throat, we thought you had a problem but apperently you don't. Are your satisfied to live with what you have got? You don't have that severe of a problem that necessitates corrective action. • LaValle: The City of Hugo has a problem inthat area. While the people might be willing to live with what they have got the problem still exists. When the water problem existed, the people were in City Hall screaming and yelling about high water. The City wants a better course for the water to go, a course where dams will be harder because the land is so low to obstruct the flow and cause a problem. The specific year in question, was high water but we have had pro— blems there many times, not the last two years, but a continuance problem. Mr. Hamilton stated that at the next meeting of the Rice Creek Watershed, September 14, 1977, 7:30 P.M. the board will decide which way the project should go. All written complaints or comments will be received up to 5:00 PM on September 13, 1977. SEPTEMBER 7, 1977. 8 3 Motion was made to adjourn meeting at 11:06 P.M. Motion carried. C!a, .P a -6,-iiikomt Carol g. Williams, Clerk City of Hugo