Agenda - Council - 09/27/1994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

STATU,~ Background:: CASE # REPORT ON DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS IN SECTION 22 By: Steven J. Jankowski, City Engineer This is intende~l to be a follow-up on the status report issued at the Council meeting of September 12, 1994. Phase I of this project consisted of identification of the drainage routes and acquisition of easement rights. Propert~ owners had previously been notified of the intent for the City to enter upon their lands to identi,fy the necessary drainage route for the proposed ditch system. Work has been performed by l--Iakanson Anderson Associates, Inc. in locating property corners to which the proposed drainage plat will be flagged. However, an attempt to flag the drainage route on Thursday, September 22, 1994, was unsuccessful. The surveyor reported high water levels and soft mucky soil~, which made it impossible for him to reach the areas he felt he needed to flag. We will be meeting on Friday, September 23 to look for an alternate route closer to upland or consider access via a ca0oe. 5 We have recei~ved a response from Anoka County regarding our request to advise us on the procedure for cieaning County Ditch #3. This letter is attached. As you can see from the enclosed letter, there are~ a considerable number of obstacles with utilizing the procedure established for undertaking thdcleaning as a County project. Ms. McCabe concludes: "The draint~ge law was enacted for agricultural purposes. In the urbanized Metropolitan Area, it canibe difficult and costly to proceed with drainage work. It is my understanding, for examplet, that Coon Creek Watershed District, after attempting to do a ditch repair, will no longer undertake ttus type of proceeding to accomphsh a project. Watershed d~smcts and watershed management organizations have the ability to undertake water projects under Minnesota ~tatutes Chapter 103B. Municipalities also have the ability to undertake sewer projects. T~ese alternatives may be less costly and more successful than proceeding under the drainagq: law." Ms. McCabe a[};o advises that the City must petition the County to utilize its drainage system, if it undertakes thig= project. While County Ditch #3 was not flowing at the time the County Ditch inventory was! conducted, it does flow during heavy precipitation periods. I believe the improvement of County Ditch #3, while desirable, is not necessary to achieve the chief purpose of this project, which is to provide an outlet for Wetland 256 and isolated low areas in Section 22. Phase II of the!project entailed obtaining permits. As you may recall, letters were sent the last week of Augus~ 1994, to the Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Natural Resources asking for inp0t on the contents of an environmental permit for the proposed work. I have received no response from either of these agencies. I have directed Hakanson Anderson Associates, tnc~ to begin preparation of these permit applications as soon as possible. City Attorney 0oodrich is continuing to review the statutory procedures required under Section 444 to undertaki~ this project tis a drainage district public improvement project. Council Acti6n: Council shouldidecide if this project should continue to include over three miles of County Ditch #3 as a portion Of this project. Reviewed byi Copies also distributed to: City Engineer ~ City Administrator City Attorney CC:09-27-94 /ocr :