Jun 24, 2025 Board of Commissioners

[Call Board of Commissioners Meeting to Order]

[00:00:09]

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE JUNE 24TH, 2025 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING.

AS USUAL, WE WILL START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE LED BY COMMISSIONER KOLARS THIS MORNING. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU AND WELCOME.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE EVER PRESENT SILENCE YOUR CELL PHONES, WHICH. MINE KEEPS GOING OFF, SO WE'LL JUST DITCH IT.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

[Approval of Agenda]

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED. SECONDED. THANK YOU.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA,

[Approval of Consent Agenda]

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO PULL ANYTHING OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA AT THIS POINT? HEARING AND SEEING NONE. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND. THANK YOU. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. APPROVAL OF THE BILLS IS NOT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[Approval of Bills]

THE AGENDA FORMATTING WITH IT.

BUT JUST FOR TO BE SURE, IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA JUST TO APPROVE IT AS SEPARATE. GREAT. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE BILLS.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE? SO MOVED. SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING AND SEEING. NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC APPEARANCES.

[Public Appearances]

[Health and Human Services]

GOOD MORNING CASSIE. GOOD MORNING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS.

THIS MORNING I AM REQUESTING APPROVAL OF OUR FRAUD PREVENTION INVESTIGATION GRANT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES.

THIS GRANT AGREEMENT IS FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1ST, 2025 THROUGH JUNE 30TH, 2027.

THE GRANT AWARD THIS TIME HAS INCREASED BY APPROXIMATELY $10,000 PER FISCAL YEAR, WITH OUR TOTAL AMOUNT OF $89,933 AWARDED TO US FOR EACH FISCAL YEAR.

NICOLLET COUNTY UTILIZES THESE GRANTS TO SUPPORT FRAUD INVESTIGATOR POSITION, WHICH IS EMPLOYED BY THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND EMBEDDED WITH THE HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT. FOR THE CONTRACT ITSELF, THE KEY CHANGES TO THE GRANT AGREEMENT IS THE TRANSITION OF OVERSIGHT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THIS MORNING AS WELL THAT LOOKING AT OUR STATE FISCAL YEAR 2024 DATA REGARDING THE FRAUD PREVENTION PROGRAM, NICOLLET COUNTY SAVINGS FROM HAVING THIS PROGRAM IS $362,000, OR 362 $974.

THE MAJORITY OF THESE COST SAVINGS, ROUGHLY 300,000, IS RELATED TO GENERAL COST SAVINGS RELATED TO PREVENTION.

FOR INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE OFFERED TO PREVENT THE MISUSE OF FUNDS, RATHER THAN COLLECTING OF MISUSED FUNDS.

THANK YOU. SO THIS MORNING I AM REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT.

MADAM CHAIR, I'LL MOVE IT.

I HAVE A QUESTION. THANK YOU.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

COMMISSIONER KOLARS YOUR QUESTION. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

I APPRECIATE YOU POINTING THAT OUT.

THIS $300,000 IN SAVINGS.

SO THAT GIVES YOUR DEPARTMENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW PEOPLE THAT THERE MAY BE A MISTAKE IN THEIR APPLICATION. CORRECT? YES. BECAUSE IT IS A FRAUD PREVENTION PROGRAM.

THE TIME IS ABLE TO BE SPENT ON THE FRONT END PROVIDING EDUCATION AND INTERVENTION EARLY ON. AND THAT'S BEEN HELPFUL.

YES. IT PREVENTS FURTHER LIKE THE POTENTIAL FOR FRAUD.

AND WE PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS TO OUR ELIGIBILITY WORKERS AS WELL AS TO OUR CLIENTS SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM.

AND MADAM CHAIR, IN MY VIEW, THAT'S A GOOD USE OF MONEY.

RATHER THAN CHASING AFTER FRAUDSTERS THAT APPARENTLY EXIST SOMEPLACE AND THAT MIGHT BE HANDLED BY THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. CORRECT? YES. A PORTION OF THE TIME IS DEFINITELY INVESTIGATING.

WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE AN INVESTIGATOR ROLE EMBEDDED IN THE DEPARTMENT.

YES. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MISS SASSENBERG? HEARING AND SEEING? NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?

[00:05:01]

[Public Works]

NICOLLET COUNTY PARK ORDINANCE WAS INITIALLY ADOPTED ON JUNE 12TH, 1972, AND HAS BEEN AMENDED FOUR TIMES SINCE THE LAST BEING ON JULY 10TH OF 2012.

NICOLLET COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STAFF, ALONG WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON DEVELOPING A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE PARK ORDINANCE.

WE HAVE ALSO SPOKE WITH THE COUNTY BOARD AT SEVERAL BOARDWALK WORKSHOPS TO SOLICIT INPUT FROM THE BOARD. WE ARE AT A POINT NOW THAT WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A FINAL DRAFT OF THE UPDATED PARK ORDINANCE, AND WE ARE READY FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I'M ASKING THE BOARD TODAY TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR THE PARK ORDINANCE OF AUGUST 12TH, 2025 AT 10 A.M..

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARING PARKS ORDINANCE? SO MOVED. SECONDED. AUGUST 12TH, 2025.

FURTHER DISCUSSION? THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS.

I KNOW IT'S BEEN REVIEWED SEVERAL TIMES, SO THANK YOU.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

THANK YOU. THE NEXT ITEM I HAVE IS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER A BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. SO NICOLLET COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NEW ULM JOINTLY MAINTAIN THE CASA 37 A 20TH STREET, SOUTH SOUTH STREET BRIDGE.

IT'S BRIDGE NUMBER 08520, AND IT SPANS THE MINNESOTA RIVER.

DURING AN UNDERWATER INSPECTION BY COLLINS ENGINEERS IN NOVEMBER 2024, THEY DISCOVERED SIGNIFICANT EROSION THAT'S BEEN OCCURRING AROUND PIERS ONE AND TWO.

AND THEN THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL BANK EROSION UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM ALONG THE WEST EMBANKMENT WHICH WOULD BE THE CITY OF NEW ULM SIDE.

THE EROSION THAT IS OCCURRING REQUIRES TIMELY REPAIR.

ATTACHED TO THIS ITEM IS A BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY AND COUNTY STAFF HAVE DEVELOPED THAT ESTABLISHES THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF EACH AGENCY.

THE CITY WILL BE THE LEAD AGENCY IN HIRING A BRIDGE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT.

THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THIS.

IT'S WITH SETH TO DEVELOP THE PLAN SPECS, COST ESTIMATE, AND PERMITTING NEEDED TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT.

THE CITY WILL ALSO OVERSEE THE BIDDING AWARD OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION AND PROJECT CLOSEOUT. THE COUNTY, WE MAY PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES. IF STAFFING LEVELS ALLOW.

THE CITY MIGHT HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF WORK GOING INTO THE FALL.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE BECOMING AVAILABLE LATER IN THE FALL.

SO WE MIGHT HELP OUT WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION.

AND SO CONSTRUCTION OF THE REPAIRS WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO DO THIS WORK YET THIS YEAR IN THE FALL. SO MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THE, ON THE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.

ULTIMATELY, I'M LOOKING FOR THE BOARD TO APPROVE THE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, AUTHORIZE THE BOARD CHAIR AND THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT.

ONE ITEM ON THE FUNDING OR THE THE COST RESPONSIBILITIES.

WE WILL SPLIT THE COST RESPONSIBILITY 5050 WITH THE CITY.

AND THAT'S BEEN PAST PRACTICE WITH PAST PROJECTS.

WE WILL USE OUR STATE AID REGULAR CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT TO FUND OUR PORTION OF THE PROJECT. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NEW ULM? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE BRIDGE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF NEW ULM. I'LL SECOND IT.

QUESTIONS? MADAM CHAIR, WOULD THERE BE A CHANCE THAT WE COULD EVER SEE. OR WOULD WE BE ABLE TO DETERMINE OURSELVES BY LOOKING AT PHOTOS OF WHAT THESE PEOPLE SAW UNDERNEATH THESE PIERS? I KNOW IT TAKES DIVERS.

COLLINS ENGINEERS HIRED THROUGH MNDOT AS A LARGE UNDERWATER BRIDGE INSPECTION CONTRACT, AND COLLINS ENGINEER LOOKS AT THESE TYPE OF STRUCTURES IN RIVERS THAT REQUIRE DIVERS.

AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT YOU'RE REALLY ABLE TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON OTHER THAN GOING OUT WITH A BOAT AND TRYING TO PROBE.

BUT EVEN PROBING THAT GIVES YOU SOME IDEA, POSSIBLY ON DEPTH, BUT UNTIL YOU GOT A DIVER TO ACTUALLY GO DOWN AND LOOK AND FEEL, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE THE FULL EXTENT OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND MADAM CHAIR, AT OUR AREA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MEETING LAST WEEK, WE LEARNED THAT MNDOT CERTAINLY IS LOOKING AT WAYS TO REPAIR BRIDGES THAT ARE 50,

[00:10:08]

AND IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF INVESTMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. SO I DIDN'T KNOW HOW YOU FOLKS IT'S THE SCUBA GUYS, RIGHT? I'M NOT GOING DOWN THERE.

SCUBA GUYS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? JUST ONE. MADAM CHAIR, IF THAT'S OKAY.

GOING FORWARD. ARE WE DOING ANYTHING TO INCREASE INSPECTIONS ON THESE BRIDGES? IT JUST OCCURS TO ME BECAUSE OF THE THE RAIN EVENTS FROM LAST YEAR AND HOW SIGNIFICANTLY THEY DAMAGED SOME OF OUR INFRASTRUCTURE.

AND JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, THINKING AHEAD, IF WE SEE THESE KINDS OF RAIN EVENTS MORE OFTEN, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO THERE? THERE IS A SPECIAL ADOPTED INSPECTION PLAN FOR THIS BRIDGE THAT THE CITY, THE CITY IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BRIDGE AND THE INSPECTION CYCLE SINCE IT PROVIDES BENEFIT TO BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY, THAT'S WHERE WE GET INVOLVED WITH WITH COST SHARE.

BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHERE DOES THE BRIDGE RESIDE AND THE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THAT, THAT'S WHAT THE CITY OF NEW ULM.

BUT THERE IS A ACTION PLAN THAT'S ADOPTED FOR WHEN YOU GO OUT AND DO IN, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL INSPECTIONS ON THE STRUCTURE AFTER HIGH WATER EVENTS.

OKAY. AND I BELIEVE THIS UNDERWATER INSPECTION WAS ACTUALLY MOVED UP ONE YEAR BECAUSE OF THE MAJOR FLOODING THAT WE HAD LAST YEAR.

I BELIEVE THIS UNDERWATER INSPECTION, TYPICALLY THEY'RE DONE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

AND SO I BELIEVE THE CYCLE WAS FOR THIS YEAR FOR THAT TO OCCUR.

BUT SINCE WE HAD ALL THAT FLOODING LAST YEAR, AND THEN OF COURSE, FOLLOWED BY DROUGHT AND THE RIVER DROPPED THEY GOT OUT ON THE MINNESOTA RIVER TO LOOK AT MULTIPLE BRIDGES UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM TO, YEAH, FIND THESE POTENTIAL ISSUES THAT MAY BE OCCURRING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? HEARING AND SEEING. NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? I THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY UPDATE.

OH. I THINK MANDY GOES NEXT.

OH, SORRY, MANDY. I GOTTA PRINT THESE THINGS OUT RATHER THAN FLIP THROUGH THEM ON MY.

I GOTTA HAVE MORE THAN ONE SCREEN, PUT IT THAT WAY. OR PRINT THEM OUT.

UNDERSTANDABLE. GOOD MORNING MANNY.

[Administration]

IT'S FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY STUDY MASTER PLANNING, PHASE ONE, CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER TWO.

ON AUGUST 27TH OF 2024, THE BOARD APPROVED AN AGREEMENT WITH CNM CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS TO ASSIST WITH THE OVERALL REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND MASTER PLANNING PREPARATION. AN AGREEMENT WITH BR CONSTRUCTION AND CONSULTING LLC WAS ALSO APPROVED TO ASSIST WITH THE DESIGN TEAM SELECTION, PROJECT PLANNING AND SITE EVALUATION, AND F AND E ITEMS. SO THE SELECTION OF THE TWO CONSULTANTS ARE BASED ON THEIR SERVICES, WHICH COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER AND PUT THE COUNTY IN THE BEST POSITION FOR A SUCCESSFUL PHASE ONE.

DURING THE DECEMBER 17TH, 2024 BOARD MEETING, THE BOARD CONSIDERED AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT WITH CNM CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS TO ADD JULIE TAYLOR TO THE TEAM AS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR BASED ON HER EXPERIENCE IN PUBLIC WORK FACILITIES AND PUBLIC STRUCTURES IN GENERAL.

THERE WAS NO INCREASE OF THE CONTRACT RATE AT THAT TIME.

WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS IN REQUEST FROM CNM CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS TO A AMEND THE CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT FOR A SECOND TIME TO INCREASE THEIR FEE FROM 40,000 $43,890 TO $51,890, AN INCREASE OF $8,000 AS A RESULT OF ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED DUE TO A SHIFT IN SCOPE, AS IDENTIFIED ON THE HIGHLIGHTED SECTIONS OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY TAB THAT STAFF HAVE AND ALSO DEFINES THE ROLES OF THE OWNER REPRESENTATIVE TEAM.

THIS SHIFT WAS A RESULT OF WORKLOAD LEVELING BETWEEN CNM AND BRC.

AS WE GOT FURTHER INTO THE PROCESS, AND ALSO PART OF THE INCREASE WAS THE THERE MODIFICATIONS TO THE RFP, WHICH CNN CONTRACTS CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT TOOK THE LEAD ON DRAFTING BASED ON CONSULTATION WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND STATUTORY REQUIREMENT COMPLIANCE.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THAT THE COUNTY WAS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE POSITION AS FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN SELECTION TEAM OR WITH OUR DESIGN SELECTION TEAM AND THE SUBMITTAL OF THE RFP PROCESS, OR THAT WHOLE RFP PROCESS TO MAKE SURE THE COUNTY WAS IN THE BEST POSSIBLE POSITION AS WE WENT THROUGH RELEASING THE RFP AND THEN

[00:15:02]

SO, MADAM CHAIR, I'M REQUESTING THE BOARD CONSIDER THE AMENDED AGREEMENT NUMBER TWO WITH CNM CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANTS FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY STUDY MASTER PLANNING PHASE ONE AND WOULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE.

IN IT A CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT WITH.

WHAT'S THEIR NAME? C AND M CONSTRUCTION.

SO MOVED. THANK YOU. SECOND.

SECOND DISCUSSION. I'M LOOKING AT COMMISSIONER ZINS AND I.

WE WERE ON THIS COMMITTEE TOGETHER.

AND I DO RECALL THERE WAS THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE SPENDING TO TAKE PLACE.

BUT AS I SEE IT ON PAPER.

KURT. AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF IT HITS YOU THE SAME WAY.

WHAT? I'LL ASK MANDY. WHAT WILL THIS CONTINUING SUPPORTING THE PROJECT EFFECTIVELY ACTUALLY MEAN? CURRENTLY, THEY HAVE ABOUT $73 LEFT IN THEIR CURRENT CONTRACT FOR US.

AND BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN THE LEVELING OF THE DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES FROM BURKE TO CNM CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT CNM CONSTRUCTION CONSULTANT, TOOK ON MORE OF THE ROLE OF THE DRAFTING OF THE RFP, WHICH TOOK MORE OF THEIR TIME THAN THEY HAD ORIGINALLY ANTICIPATED WITH THE INITIAL CONVERSATIONS LAST YEAR.

AND THAT'S A CLEAR ANSWER, I THINK.

CERTAINLY WE'RE ALL EAGER TO SEE THE RESULTS OF THIS PLAN AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

SO I'M SORRY IF I MISSED IT AT THE TIME, BUT THAT CLARIFIES IT FOR ME.

KURT DO YOU HAVE ANY FEELINGS ON THAT? NO, THAT'S KIND OF MY THOUGHTS AS WELL.

OKAY. AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT, AS THE BOARD APPROVED AT THE LAST MEETING, THE ARCHITECT FOR PHASE ONE, THAT THE INVOLVEMENT OF BOTH OF OUR OWNER REPS WILL GO DOWN BECAUSE IT WILL BE TAKING THE LEAD OF BRENTON ARCHITECTS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. THERE MAY BE SOME CONVERSATIONS, BUT WE WON'T HAVE THE AMOUNT OF INTERACTION WITH BOTH OF OUR OWNER REPS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS BECAUSE BRUNTON IS TAKING THE LEAD.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE, AYE. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

IF YOU'RE NOT DONE YET. BUT OUR ATTORNEY IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS POINT.

SO WE ARE GOING TO PUSH THAT DOWN THE AGENDA A LITTLE BIT.

WE WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION AROUND 11.

OR AS SOON AS WE CAN START THAT MEETING AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING AT TEN.

SO I THINK WE COULD MOVE ON WITH THE REST OF THE AGENDA AND THEN RECESS THE COUNTY BOARD BEFORE WE DO THE 10:00 DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING.

COOL. SO NOW WE GET TO HEAR FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND MADAM CHAIR,

[County Attorney Update]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS COMMISSIONER COMMITTEE REPORTS,

[Commissioner Committee Reports, Meetings & Conferences]

AND WE WILL START WITH COMMISSIONER KOLARS.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THIS MONTH OF JUNE IS GETTING BUSY.

I KNOW, FOR ALL OF US, BUT MAYBE THERE'LL BE A BREAK IN JULY.

DIVERSITY FINANCE ATTENDED THE AMC SAINT MEETING IN SAINT JAMES, OF COURSE, THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, OUR WORKSHOP LAST TUESDAY, THE DIVERSITY EVENT, THE JUNETEENTH AT MSU AND OUR AREA TRANSPORTATION PLANNING BOARD THAT I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, I WILL SHARE WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THE DRAFT OF THE FISCAL YEAR TARGET PROJECTS FOR YOU TO CHECK AND SEE WHERE YOU LIVE OR WHERE YOU HAVE RELATIVES THAT LIVE AND THAT'S THE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE.

IN TERMS OF FUNDING FOR STATE ROADS, HIGHWAYS, WE'RE GOOD FOR THIS YEAR.

BUT THE QUESTIONS FOR 2026 ARE STILL OUTLYING IN DC.

AND THAT'S MY REPORT, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. HELGET.

I HAD THE BOARDWALK WORKSHOP LAST WEEK.

MVAC JOINT POWERS MEETING BOARD OF APPEALS AND EQUALIZATION MEETING.

AND THEN JUST A QUICK VISIT TO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE TO MEET THE NEW DOG MAVERICK.

HIGHLIGHT OF MY UPDATE.

[00:20:01]

I, ALONG WITH ALL OF YOU, DID THE BOARD WORKSHOP AS WELL AS I HAD THE ATTENDED THE AMC DISTRICT MEETING WITH IN SAINT JAMES BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS AND ALSO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COMMITTEE WORK MEETING AT THE SAME TIME, AS WELL AS ATTENDED A PERSONNEL COMMITTEE THIS MORNING.

COMMISSIONER. DEHEN AMC WORKSHOP, THE BOARD OF APPEALS SPENT SOME QUALITY TIME IN THE BASEMENT. DURING THAT MEETING AND THEN THE COUNTY WORKSHOP AFTER THAT.

THANK YOU. I HAD THE SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA HOUSING BOARD MEETING IN MANKATO MULTIPLE TDS

[Chair’s Report]

HENDERSON IS NO LONGER AN ISLAND, BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY IN WHICH IS ONE LANE AND ONE WAY OUT. THAT'S TWO LANES.

AND THEN THE REGION NINE COMMISSION MEETING FOLLOWED BY A BRIEF PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MEETING THIS MORNING. THANK YOU.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS ANY FUTURE CONFERENCES AND OR MEETINGS.

NOT UNTIL JULY 23RD OR AT THE NICOLLET TOWNSHIP ASSOCIATION MEETING.

OTHERWISE, THEY'RE JUST THE THE TYPICAL ONES.

THERE'S INTEREST, THERE IS A SCHEDULED ON JULY 9TH, THE NICOLLET COUNTY COMMUNITY HEALTH COMMUNITY HEALTH SNAPSHOT IN LAFAYETTE. MADAM CHAIR, ABOUT THAT ONE, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE AT THAT SNAPSHOT? OR MAYBE CASSIE, DO YOU KNOW.

I BELIEVE IT WAS JUST A REQUEST FROM THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE.

THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THAT AREA JUST UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THE OVERALL COMMUNITY HEALTH PLAN. AND IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS FOR BOARD MEMBERS TO ATTEND TO.

LISTEN, IF YOUR SCHEDULE ALLOWS.

OKAY? OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS APPROVED PER DIEMS AND EXPENSES.

[Approve Per Diems and Expenses]

[Adjourn Board of Commissioners Meeting]

[Call Drainage Authority Meeting to Order: Chair]

GOT TO WORK ON THAT. DRAINAGE AUTHORITY.

FIRST ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR CORRECTIONS? THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA? SO MOVED. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. NEXT ON THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY IS THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO MOVED. SECOND. THANK YOU.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY PUBLIC APPEARANCES FOR DRAINAGE? HEARING AND SEEING? NONE.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00.

SO IT APPEARS WE HAVE A BREAK.

SO WE WILL RECESS THE DRAINAGE UNTIL 10:00 WITH OUR PUBLIC HEARING.

STARTED FOR OUR PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:00.

REGARDING THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON COUNTY DITCH 61.

SO AT THIS POINT, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND MISS KOPET WILL START US OFF.

MORNING, MADAM CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS DITCH SYSTEM AND THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

ON OCTOBER. ON AUGUST 9TH, 2020 FOR REPETITION FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT FOR NICOLLET COUNTY DITCH 60 ONE WAS PRESENTED TO THE NICOLLET COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT. THE PETITION WAS REVIEWED BY NICOLLET COUNTY ATTORNEY MICHELE ZEHNDER FISCHER AND APPROVED BY THE BOARD ON SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2020. FOR CHRIS OTTERNESS OF HOUSTON ENGINEERING WAS APPOINTED AS THE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT AND INSTRUCTED TO DRAFT AN ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY REPORT.

THE PRELIMINARY REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT ON MAY 15TH, 2025. IN. THE HEARING IS SCHEDULED FOR TODAY AT 10 A.M..

THE NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARING WAS MAILED TO LANDOWNERS ON JUNE 9TH, 2025, FOLLOWING MINNESOTA STATUTE 103.261 SUBDIVISION ONE.

[00:25:02]

I'M SORRY, $1,303,263.

THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING IS TO REVIEW THE ENGINEER'S PRELIMINARY REPORT AND GATHER TESTIMONY FROM ALL PARTIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT OR DISMISS THE PETITION. IF THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY VOTES TO PROCEED, THE BOARD WILL BE ASKED TO APPOINT VIEWERS TO ASSESS THE BENEFITS TO THE AFFECTED LANDOWNERS. THANK YOU.

NEXT IS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. OTTERNESS WILL PRESENT HIS PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT.

CHRIS, TAKE IT AWAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THERE WE GO. SO AGAIN, I'M CHRIS OTTERNESS WITH HOUSTON ENGINEERING.

WE WERE AGAIN APPOINTED TO BE THE ENGINEERS FOR THIS PROCEEDING.

SO I WILL GO OVER A FEW THINGS TODAY IN MY PRESENTATION.

I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT THE SCOPE OF THE PETITION WAS AND WHAT OUR SCOPE OF WORK WAS AND REVIEWING THE PETITION AND, AND CONSIDERING THE PROPOSED WORK WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE OVERALL FEASIBILITY OF THE PROJECT BOTH IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF VALUE IS DERIVED FROM THE THE PROJECT AND LOOKING AT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED UNDER STATUTE.

103 E THEN WE'LL LOOK AT THE COST FOR THE PROJECT, BOTH THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT AND THE COST THAT IT WOULD OTHERWISE TAKE TO REPAIR THE TILE THAT IS OUT THERE.

AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT OVERALL HOW EFFECTIVE THIS IS AND IF IT'S ESSENTIALLY A FEASIBLE OVERALL PROJECT.

DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE WORKING HERE.

MAYBE I'LL JUST TELL YOU TO DANCE THERE.

SO THE LOCATION OF CD61 IS GENERALLY WITHIN COURTLAND TOWNSHIP.

THREE DIFFERENT SECTIONS SECTIONS THREE, 34, AND 35. IT DRAINS GENERALLY FROM SOUTHWEST TO NORTHEAST INTO A BACKWATER AREA OF SWAN LAKE.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE SYSTEM IS WELL OVER A HUNDRED YEARS OLD, ORIGINALLY BEING CONSTRUCTED IN 1916.

AND FORMALLY ESTABLISHED IN THAT TIME PERIOD AS WELL.

IT'S ALMOST 100 PERCENTILE.

THERE'S A SHORT SEGMENT AT THE BOTTOM END OF THE SYSTEM.

ABOUT 360FT OF OPEN CHANNEL BEFORE IT GOES INTO THE LAKE.

BUT OTHER THAN THAT, IT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL TILE.

IT DOES HAVE SEVERAL BRANCHES ALONG ITS MAIN TRUNK.

AND IT DRAINS AN AREA OF A LITTLE OVER 700 ACRES.

ABOUT 1.13MI². NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE REASON FOR THE PETITION IS TO BE ABLE TO REPLACE A SYSTEM THAT IS ALREADY FAILING AND TRY TO REPLACE IT WITH SOMETHING THAT MEETS A MODERN DRAINAGE STANDARD.

RIGHT NOW VIA TELEVISING, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE ARE COLLAPSES IN THE PIPE AND OTHER FAILURES AT DIFFERENT POINTS ALONG THE SYSTEM THAT ARE CAUSING IT TO FAIL. AND SO IT'S A SYSTEM THAT IS WELL PAST ITS LIFE EXPECTANCY AND REALLY CANNOT BE REPAIRED DUE TO ITS AGE AND AND WHAT KIND OF CONDITION IT IS.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE PETITION THAT WAS RECEIVED WAS TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM TO A HALF INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT. AGAIN, THAT'S TAKING A HALF INCH OF RUNOFF OVER THE CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA.

WITHIN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.

BUT THE PETITION IS ONLY FOR THE MAIN TRUNK.

SO THE BRANCHES ON THIS SYSTEM ARE NOT PART OF THE PETITION, NOT PART OF WHAT WE CONSIDERED FOR THE IMPROVEMENT.

[00:30:02]

BUT GIVEN THAT THAT'S NOT THE SCOPE OF THE PETITION, THOSE WEREN'T CONSIDERED AS.

WITHIN OUR PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT. SO THE CURRENT CONDITION OUT THERE IS A DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT THAT'S REALLY INSUFFICIENT FOR CURRENT LAND PRACTICES.

THERE ARE PORTIONS OF IT THAT ARE LESS THAN 1/12 OF AN INCH PER DAY.

AGAIN, A MODERN DRAINAGE STANDARD TYPICALLY WOULD BE LOOKING AT GETTING A HALF INCH COEFFICIENT OR HALF INCH PER DAY ON A TILE SYSTEM.

NEXT SLIDE. SO WE DID COMPLETE A SURVEY OF THE SYSTEM.

WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE A LOOK AT LOCATIONS ALONG THE VARIOUS INLETS THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG THE SYSTEM GROUND ELEVATIONS.

AND THEN WE WERE ABLE TO PICK UP THE TILE CENTER LINE IN A FEW SPOTS WHERE THEY NEEDED TO BREAK THE TILE IN ORDER TO COMPLETE THE TELEVISING ALONG THE SYSTEM.

AND BASED ON THAT, THAT'S HOW WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE GRADE, THE EXISTING GRADE ALONG THE SYSTEM.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE.

WE HAVE SPOTS AT VARIOUS POINTS ALONG THE SYSTEM, BUT IT NEVER IS GOING TO BE PERFECT BECAUSE YOU KNOW, MOST OF THE SYSTEM BEING UNDERGROUND, YOU'RE JUST NOT ABLE TO SEE IT.

NEXT SLIDE. THE AREA THAT IS OUT THERE IS RELATIVELY FLAT MARGINAL SURFACE DRAINAGE.

THAT'S WHY THE TILE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND WHY A TILE SYSTEM IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO DRAIN WATER OFF.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THE AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE TO INCREASE THAT CAPACITY TO A HALF INCH PER DAY.

REPLACE THE SYSTEM THAT IS AGED AND THE LONGER IN SERVICEABLE CONDITION.

THE EXISTING TILE RIGHT NOW RANGES FROM 10IN TO 16IN IN DIAMETER.

AND SO WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD BE WITH THE NEW TILE WOULD BE INCREASING THE TILE SIZES FROM 15IN TO 36IN IN DIAMETER.

SO IF YOU COMPARE THAT AT THE OUTLET, THEY'RE AN 18 INCH EXISTING TO A 36 INCH PROPOSED. THE CAPACITY IS ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BE FOUR TIMES THE WHAT IS THERE NOW? BECAUSE IT'S A SQUARE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DIAMETER OF THE PIPE AND THE CAPACITY IT HOLDS. AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE WOULD BE RECONNECTING ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LATERALS. SO AGAIN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PUBLIC BRANCHES OR LATERALS THAT ARE CONNECTING. THOSE WILL BE ALL RECONNECTED AND AS WELL AS ANY OF THE PRIVATE LATERALS THAT ARE ALONG THE SYSTEM.

ONE THING THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL ALONG THE WAY IS IF LANDOWNERS ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE US ANY TILE MAPS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHERE SOME OF THESE PRIVATE LATERALS ARE. AND I WOULD DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE ANY OF THE LANDOWNERS HERE THAT HAVE PROPERTY ALONG THAT MAIN TRUNK TO BE ABLE TO COORDINATE WITH ME.

AFTERWARDS AND HAVE SOME DIALOG SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION BECAUSE THAT WILL DECREASE THE COST IN THE LONG RUN.

IF WE'RE ABLE TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS WE CAN AHEAD OF THE PROCEEDING WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.

TO BE ABLE TO KNOW WHERE THOSE TILES ARE AND MAKE SURE WE AREN'T MISSING ANY BECAUSE IT CERTAINLY CAN MISS A PRIVATE LATERAL IF WE DON'T KNOW AHEAD OF TIME WHERE IT'S LOCATED.

AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE A SIGNATURE ON THE SURFACE OF WHERE THESE ARE MOST OFTEN.

A FEW THINGS WE WILL ALSO DO AS PART OF THIS PROJECT IS ADD SOME INLETS AS NECESSARY IN ANY LOW AREAS, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW THE WATER TO GET OFF EFFICIENTLY.

THE OLD TILE WILL BE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE.

SO WHAT WE DO IS WE PERIODICALLY CRUSH THE TILE AND THEN CAP THE ENDS OF IT SO THAT WE DON'T GET WHEN THE TILE DOES CONTINUE TO DETERIORATE, WE DON'T GET BIG CAVITIES THAT ARE OPENING UP AND ALLOWING WATER TO CREATE A SINKHOLE IN THOSE AREAS. SO WE WILL TAKE THAT OLD TILE OUT OF SERVICE.

NEXT SLIDE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF TABLES IN OUR REPORT HERE THAT HAVE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN HERE THAT SHOW THE TILE SIZING.

AND WHAT WE TOOK A LOOK AT IS UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS AND WHAT A REPAIR WOULD NEED TO BE WHAT THOSE TILE SIZES ARE AND WHAT THAT EFFICIENCY IS.

AND AGAIN, ON THE EXISTING CONDITION, YOU CAN SEE THE DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF .08 OR 1/12 OF AN INCH PER DAY.

THAT'S PRETTY SMALL CAPACITY.

[00:35:01]

NEXT SLIDE. A COUPLE OF UNIQUE THINGS ABOUT THE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT ISN'T TYPICAL OF ALL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF AREAS WHERE WE'RE CHALLENGED WITH GETTING COVER OVER THE PIPE.

AND I'LL GO OVER THIS IN A LITTLE BIT.

BUT ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THAT CHALLENGE IS THAT WE HAVE KIND OF A FIXED ELEVATION AT THE DOWNSTREAM END DUE TO THE LAKE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CHALLENGED WITH TRYING TO LOWER THE END OF THE TILE OR THE LENGTH OF THE TILE, ANY MORE THAN WHAT WE HAVE ON THE PLANS.

SO TO ADDRESS THAT. ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 460TH LANE, THE TOWNSHIP ROAD THERE AND WEST OF CASA 21 WE HAVE AN AREA THAT WITH THE LARGER DIAMETER TILE WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ENOUGH COVER OVER THAT TO BE ABLE TO FARM OVER THAT WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PLACE SOME FILL OVER IT.

SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS THAT WE'D BE PLACING SOME ADDITIONAL FILL YOU KNOW, TOPPED OFF WITH TOPSOIL TO MEET THAT THREE FOOT A THREE FOOT MINIMUM COVER OVER THE TILE TO BE ABLE TO AGAIN, ALLOW AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE OVER THE TOP OF THE TILE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TILE DOESN'T FLOAT UP BECAUSE THESE PLASTIC TILES, IF YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH COVER, THERE IS A POTENTIAL WITH HIGHER GROUNDWATER THAT THEY CAN FLOAT. NEXT SLIDE.

THEN THE OTHER AREA WOULD BE JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 460TH LANE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE TOWNSHIP ROAD. IN THIS AREA.

THE TILE CURRENT TILE GOES THROUGH A WETLAND AND BECAUSE OF THAT WETLAND IF WE WERE TO PLACE FILL OVER IT LIKE WE DID ON THE OTHER SIDE WE WOULD BE HAVING CHALLENGES WITH THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT AND WE'D BE ADDING IN SOME COSTLY MITIGATION, WETLAND MITIGATION AS PART OF THE PROJECT IF WE WERE TO PLACE FILL IN THERE.

AND RIGHT NOW THIS AREA IS NOT ACTIVELY ROW CROP FARM.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAY BE HATE ON OCCASION AND ARE PASTURED.

SO WE'RE PROPOSING IN THIS LOCATION IS TO TAKE OUT THE TILE HERE AND INSTEAD REPLACE IT WITH AN OPEN DITCH FOR THROUGH THAT WETLAND PORTION.

AND IN THAT WAY, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO AVOID SOME OF THOSE WETLAND IMPACTS UNDER THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT.

WE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE CAPACITY THAT WOULD BE NEEDED AND NOT WORRY ABOUT THE COVER OVER THE PIPE. I'VE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE LANDOWNER AT THIS LOCATION ALREADY. AND CERTAINLY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN GETTING MORE INPUT FROM HIM.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD HERE.

AND ABOUT OPTIONS AND THERE'S CERTAINLY OTHER OPTIONS THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING POTENTIALLY REALIGNING THE, THE DITCH THROUGH THIS AREA.

BUT AGAIN, A LOT OF THAT MIGHT BE DRIVEN BY HOW THE LANDOWNER INTENDS TO USE THE PROPERTY. A FEW OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WE LOOKED AT WERE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES AS REQUIRED UNDER THE STATUTE.

AND SO WE DID LOOK AT TWO NON IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES.

ONE IS A DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE AND YOU KNOW, DO NOTHING ALTERNATIVE BY DEFINITION DOES NOT MAKE THE ISSUE BETTER.

AND WE DO KNOW THAT THE ISSUE WILL CONTINUE TO GET WORSE AS THIS TILE AGES.

SO THAT REALLY IS NOT A FEASIBLE OPTION.

WE ALSO LOOKED AT A REPAIR AND CERTAINLY THE TILE COULD BE REPLACED IN KIND WITH THE CURRENT TILE SIZE THAT'S OUT THERE.

BUT THAT WOULDN'T ADDRESS THE A LACK OF CAPACITY THAT IS NEEDED FOR MODERN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES.

AND THAT'S PRETTY COMMON.

MOST OF THE TILES THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED BACK IN THE EARLY PART OF THE 20TH CENTURY, THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED YOU KNOW, ANYWHERE BETWEEN A EIGHTH INCH TO A QUARTER INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT.

AND AGAIN, THE MODERN STANDARD IS CLOSER TO A HALF INCH RANGE COEFFICIENT FOR TILING.

SO THEN WE ALSO LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES FOR IMPROVEMENTS.

WE DID LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF DOING STORAGE ALONG THE SYSTEM.

EXCUSE ME, THAT WOULD HELP WITH ANY CONCERNS REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE OUTLET OR ANY

[00:40:01]

THERE IS THE POTENTIAL TO DO STORAGE ON VARIOUS LOCATIONS UPSTREAM OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. BUT WE DID FIND IT'S NOT NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT.

IT WOULD ADD COST AND IT WOULD NOT PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL BENEFIT TO THE BENEFITING LANDOWNERS. BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT AND I'LL DISCUSS THIS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER IN A BIT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ENCOURAGED BY THE SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT. AND THERE ARE, THERE IS OUTSIDE FUNDING THAT IS AVAILABLE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF PRACTICES.

A LOT OF THAT IS COMPETITIVE, BUT I'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE LATER. THEN FINALLY, WE DID LOOK AT THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, WHICH AGAIN IS THE WAS PETITIONED THE HALF INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT ON THE SYSTEM.

NEXT SLIDE. SO WHAT WE FOUND WITH THE PROJECT IS THAT IT DOES PROVIDE MULTIPLE BENEFITS.

IT DOES REDUCE THAT MAINTENANCE COST IN THE FUTURE RIGHT NOW THERE'S A LOT OF MAINTENANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO GET THE TILE TO BE FUNCTIONAL.

SO GETTING THIS IMPROVED SHOULD DECREASE THAT COST FOR CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ALSO WE'LL INCREASE THE DRAINAGE FUNCTION ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT AND FOR THE LANDS THAT ARE DRIVING BENEFIT FROM THE SYSTEM IT WILL REDUCE SEDIMENT DELIVERY DOWN STREAM BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A FAILING TILE YOU SAW IN THOSE PHOTOS THAT'S IN DISREPAIR. LOTS OF SEDIMENT CAN GET IN THE TILE THERE AND BE DELIVERED DOWNSTREAM INTO SWAN LAKE. SO DOING THIS, REPLACING THE SYSTEM IN THIS WAY WILL DIMINISH THE AMOUNT OF SEDIMENT AND THE SEDIMENT CARRIES PHOSPHORUS WITH IT GOING INTO DOWNSTREAM WATER RESOURCES.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY, ONE OF THE MAIN PURPOSES OF THE PROJECT IS TO REDUCE DURATION OF CROP FLOODING, PARTICULARLY FOR SOME OF THE MORE FREQUENT EVENTS, LESS THAN A TWO YEAR EVENT.

THE IMPROVEMENT PROBABLY IS NOT GOING TO DO MUCH FOR A LARGER EVENT, LIKE A TEN YEAR OR 100 YEAR RAINFALL EVENT.

THESE SYSTEMS AREN'T DESIGNED TO HANDLE THOSE KIND OF FLOWS.

REALLY IT'S MORE FOR THOSE SMALLER EVENTS.

AGAIN, UNDER THE STATUTE 103 E, WE'RE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.

AND THIS IS ALL OUTLINED IN THE REPORT.

WE'RE INITIALLY NEEDING TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE MEASURES WHETHER THEY CAN BE IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF THE PROJECT.

AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE, THERE IS OPPORTUNITY IN, ON THE LANDSCAPE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF MEASURES THAT MIGHT BE ABLE TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY DOWNSTREAM, REDUCE THE RATE OF FLOW GOING DOWNSTREAM.

THESE DO REQUIRE A VOLUNTEER VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.

AND IT MAY REQUIRE A CHANGE IN LAND USE OR GETTING EASEMENTS ON PROPERTIES IN ORDER TO DO SO. AND WHAT WE FOUND IS THAT THERE AREN'T ANY OF THE PRACTICES THAT WOULD NEED TO BE DONE AS PART OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

THESE COULD ALL BE DONE OUTSIDE OF THE IMPROVEMENT.

AGAIN, WITH A WILLING LANDOWNER WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH DRAINAGE AUTHORITY STAFF AND THE SWCD STAFF. WE ALSO LOOK TO SEE IF THIS IS COMPATIBLE WITH LOCAL LAND USE PLANS.

IN THIS AREA IS AGRICULTURAL OF COURSE, AND PROJECTED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INTO THE FUTURE. SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE LAND USE PLANS.

THEN WE DO NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE ADEQUACY OF THE OUTLET.

AGAIN THIS OUTLETS INTO A BACKWATER AREA OF SWAN LAKE.

WE ARE PROPOSING A INCREASE IN FLOW FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION OF ABOUT A LITTLE UNDER 13 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND.

WE TOOK A LOOK AT WHETHER THIS ACTUALLY MATTERS DOWNSTREAM.

AND IN THIS CASE, WE KIND OF HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING A BIG BODY OF WATER THAT WE'RE GOING INTO. AND BECAUSE OF HOW LARGE OF A BODY OF WATER SWAN LAKE IS, IT'S GOING TO HAVE MINIMAL EFFECT ON ANY WATER SURFACE ELEVATION ON SWAN LAKE.

OUR SIMPLE CALCULATIONS THAT WE DID ESTIMATED IT'S GOING TO BE YOU KNOW, MUCH LESS THAN A 10TH OF AN INCH OF EFFECT ON THE LAKE ITSELF FOR ANY OF OUR MODELED RAINFALL EVENTS AND PROBABLY REALLY NEGLIGIBLE.

ANOTHER THING WE LOOKED AT IS THE CONDITION OF THAT OUTLET INTO THE SYSTEM.

AND WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT SHOWN HERE ON THE FIGURE HERE WHEN WE DID OUR SURVEY LAST

[00:45:03]

WE'RE PROPOSING TO LEAVE THE ELEVATION OF THAT OUTLET AT THE SAME ELEVATION IS RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN SEE EVEN IN OCTOBER THAT THERE WAS WATER THAT WAS BACKING UP A LITTLE BIT INTO THE PIPE THERE FROM SWAN LAKE.

SWAN LAKE HAS AN ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL OF, OF 981 .86, SO ABOUT A HALF A FOOT INTO THE PIPE.

THAT ORDINARY HIGH WATER LEVEL.

THAT'S KIND OF, I GUESS, WHAT IT IMPLIES.

ON A TYPICAL YEAR OF THE ELEVATION, YOU WOULD ORDINARILY EXPECT A HIGH WATER LEVEL TO BE. SO WE DO KNOW THAT THERE WILL BE EVEN WITH THE PROPOSED CONDITION, A LITTLE BIT OF WATER SITTING IN THE END OF THE PIPE AT VARIOUS TIMES.

BUT WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS ABOUT THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO.

WE KNOW WE CAN'T RAISE THE PIPE UP ANY FURTHER BECAUSE IT'S JUST GOING TO DRIVE UP THE COST AND CREATE BIGGER PROBLEMS WITH THE PIPE COVER.

ALSO, IF WE LOWER THE PIPE ANY FURTHER, THEN WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HAVING MORE TAIL WATER INTO THE PIPE, PARTICULARLY IF, YOU KNOW, SWAN LAKE GETS UP TO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER OF AN ELEVATION.

SO WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE BEST COMPROMISE IS LEAVING IT RIGHT WHERE IT'S AT FOR ELEVATION. THEN WE HAVE TO ALSO LOOK AT A FEW DIFFERENT OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS LIKE WETLANDS AND WATER QUALITY.

WE DID CONSIDER WETLANDS VIA THE NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY, AND ALSO UTILIZE AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY TO SEE WHERE THERE ARE POTENTIAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF WETLANDS THAT ARE ALONG THE PROJECT LOCATION PARTICULARLY THE SOUTH OF THE 460TH LANE.

WE ARE NOT ANTICIPATING DUE TO OUR PROPOSED PROJECT OF REPLACING THE TILE THROUGH THERE WITH AN OPEN DITCH THAT WE WOULD HAVE WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN IMPACT UNDER THE WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT, BUT WE DO NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THE LGU ON THIS. AND LIKELY WE'LL NEED TO HAVE A SITE VISIT IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY AFFECT THE WETLANDS.

SO THIS WOULD BE A STEP THAT WE WOULD TAKE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT. IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE THAT LANDOWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR OWN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SWAMP BUSTER.

AND SO IF THEY HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE POTENTIAL OF AN APPROVED DRAINAGE CONDITION ON THEIR PROPERTY AND HOW THAT MIGHT AFFECT THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH SWAMP BUSTER ACT, THEY SHOULD TALK TO THE US LOCAL USDA EXTENSION OFFICE ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION. IT'S NOT PUBLIC INFORMATION TO US.

WHETHER OR NOT A LANDOWNER HAS COMPLETED ANY OF THE PAPERWORK FOR WETLAND VERIFICATION ON THEIR PROPERTY ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE CONSIDER AGAIN IS WATER QUALITY AS PART OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE WILL NEED TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FROM THE MPCA AND DEVELOP A STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN.

THE PROJECT WILL HELP OUT WITH FUTURE MAINTENANCE ALONG THE SYSTEM.

AND AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IT WILL DECREASE THAT SEDIMENT LOADING DOWNSTREAM DUE TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE HAVING A BRAND NEW TILE THAT WILL HAVE LESS SEDIMENT PUSHING DOWNSTREAM. THIS MAP HERE ON THE NEXT SCREEN HERE, IT SHOWS THE WETLANDS IN ALONG THE PROJECT AREA IN PURPLE ALONG HERE.

OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.

WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE.

SHALLOW GROUNDWATER. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY IMPACT TO SHALLOW GROUNDWATER AS PART OF OUR PROJECT, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DEPTH OF THE TILE SIGNIFICANTLY.

AND OVERALL, THE PROJECT WILL HAVE VERY LITTLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

WE ANTICIPATE NO LONG TERM ADVERSE IMPACT.

WE'RE ALSO REQUIRED TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHETHER THERE'S AN ABILITY FOR EXTERNAL FUNDING TO POTENTIALLY PAY FOR WATER QUALITY PRACTICES OR OTHER CONSERVATION PRACTICES ALONG THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. SO AS PART OF THIS, WE DID CONSULT WITH THE NICOLLET SWCD ABOUT POTENTIAL EXTERNAL FUNDING AND OTHER BMP OPTIONS THAT ARE MIGHT BE AVAILABLE IN THIS LOCATION. THERE IS FEDERAL AND STATE COST SHARE THAT IS POTENTIALLY AVAILABLE FOR WATER QUALITY PRACTICES. AS I MENTIONED BEFORE MOST OF THESE ARE THROUGH A COMPETITIVE PROCESS.

[00:50:07]

BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ALL VOLUNTARY.

NOW FINALLY WE GET TO THE COST.

WE ESTIMATE THE CONSTRUCTION COST WITH WE ADDED A 20% CONTINGENCY ONTO THAT COST AT APPROXIMATELY $646,000.

THERE ARE OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH LEGAL ENGINEERING, ADMIN COSTS OF ABOUT 169,000.

WE'RE ESTIMATING. THIS PROVIDES WHAT OUR CURRENT ESTIMATE IS OF A PROBABLE COST OF A LITTLE OVER $814,000 FOR THE PROJECT.

SO THAT'S THE TOTAL COST WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE TILE AND AN IMPROVEMENT TO HALF INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT. WE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT THE COST WOULD BE FOR AN EQUIVALENT REPAIR ON THE SYSTEM. THIS IS WHAT WE REFER TO AS SEPARABLE MAINTENANCE.

WE DO KNOW THAT THE TILE MUST BE REPLACED, REGARDLESS OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDINGS, TO BE ABLE TO RESTORE FUNCTION TO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AGAIN.

IT'S IN DISREPAIR AND IS NOT ABLE TO BE MAINTAINED IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION.

SO IN ORDER TO REPLACE THE MAIN TRUNK TILE VIA A REPAIR, WOULD WE ESTIMATE THAT COST TO BE APPROXIMATELY $605,000 TOTAL AND 6055 50.

AND SO WE DO RECOMMEND THAT THE VIEWERS CONSIDER THIS AS A SEPARABLE COST RELATIVE TO THE IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDINGS. SHOULD YOU APPOINT VIEWERS CONTINUE ON WITH THIS PROCEEDING. AND WE DID HAVE DIALOG WITH THE DNR PRE-PROJECT.

WE HAD A MEETING WITH THEM VIRTUALLY, AND THEN THEY PROVIDED WHAT THEY REFERRED TO AS A NATURAL RESOURCE ASSESSMENT.

THEY PROVIDED US BACK IN OCTOBER OF 2024.

AND IT JUST IDENTIFIED AREAS THAT THE DNR HAS.

DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE IN GENERAL ABOUT THE AREA AND SUMMARIZES THEM, INCLUDING WHETHER IT'S POTENTIAL FOR IMPACT TO THREATEN ENDANGERED SPECIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO THEY PROVIDE US AND THAT'S KIND OF WAS THE BACKBONE OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS SECTION IN OUR REPORT.

AND WE DO HAVE THAT ATTACHED WITHIN AN APPENDIX IN OUR REPORT.

WE ALSO DID RECEIVE A DNR COMMENT LETTER BACK ON JUNE 6TH, AND JACKIE WILL BE READING THAT INTO THE RECORD SHORTLY.

AND I DO HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT THAT WILL BE PROVIDING AS WELL.

I GUESS WE CAN MOVE FORWARD JUST A COUPLE MORE SLIDES HERE.

ONE MORE PLEASE. SO OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT THE PROJECT IS NECESSARY, FEASIBLE AND PRACTICAL.

WE DO RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE WITH THE, THE DASHBOARD, CONTINUE WITH THE PROCEEDINGS TO IMPROVE THE MAIN TRUNK OF THE SYSTEM, AND WE RECOMMENDED THAT THE BOARD.

ORDERED THE ENGINEER TO CONTINUE WITH THAT DETAILED SURVEY REPORT AND THEN TO APPOINT VIEWERS FOR THIS PROCEEDING.

AND JACKIE, DO YOU WANT TO READ THAT LETTER IN THE REPORT RIGHT NOW? I WILL. ALL RIGHT. I WILL READ THE, THE LETTER FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATUTE.

103.261 SUBDIVISION. TWO THAT THIS LETTER MUST BE READ VERBATIM AT THE HEARING FROM THE ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES REGION FOUR, SOUTHERN REGION 21371 HIGHWAY 15, SOUTH NEW ULM, MINNESOTA 56073. IT'S DATED JUNE 6TH, 2025, ADDRESSED TO THE NICOLLET COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, 501 SOUTH MINNESOTA AVENUE, SAINT PETER, MINNESOTA 56082.

REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR NICOLLET COUNTY DITCH 60 ONE MAIN TRUNK NICOLLET COUNTY DRAINAGE AUTHORITY, THE MINNESOTA DNR APPRECIATES THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT P E R FOR THE PURPOSE FOR THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF NICOLLET COUNTY DITCH 60 ONE.

THE ADVISORY REPORT, PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONER, OFFERS EXPERT INSIGHT AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA STATUTE.

103.255 BASED ON MAY 14TH, 2025 IMPROVEMENT REPORT.

OVERVIEW. THE PETITIONED IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AIMS TO REPLACE THE EXISTING UNDERSIZED AND

[00:55:08]

THE 7344 FOOT MAIN TRUNK, LOCATED IN CORTLAND TOWNSHIP, DRAINS NORTHEAST INTO GLIMMER BAY AND SWAN LAKE, ULTIMATELY FLOWING INTO THE IMPAIRED NICOLLET CREEK AND THE MINNESOTA RIVER.

THE PROJECT INCLUDES LOWERING THE OUTLET ELEVATION SLIGHTLY AND INSTALLING NEW TILE TO ACHIEVE A HALF INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENTS.

COEFFICIENT. ALTHOUGH ALTERNATIVES INVOLVING ADDED STORAGE WERE CONSIDERED, THEY WERE DEEMED ECONOMICALLY UNFEASIBLE DUE TO LIMITED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS AND LACK OF EXTERNAL FUNDING. ONLY THE MAIN TRUNK IS ADDRESSED IN THIS PETITION.

LATERAL BRANCHES ARE EXCLUDED.

THE SURVEY AND LIDAR DATA WERE USED TO GUIDE THE DESIGN.

THE SURVEY REPORT STATUS.

PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING CHANGE DATA IN A TABLE FORMAT COMPARING EXISTING AND PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR THE VARIOUS STORM EVENTS DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT.

THE SECOND BULLET. THE WETLAND SECTION 4.5 WITHIN THE PR INDICATES THIS IMPROVEMENT REQUEST WILL PURSUE THE W C A EXEMPTION.

HOWEVER, BASED ON THE MOST RECENT MINNESOTA STATUTE CHANGE, A REPLACEMENT PLAN MAY BE NECESSARY IF THE WETLAND IMPACTED HAVE BEEN IN THE LANDSCAPE FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS, AND WETLANDS IMPACTS WILL BE GREATER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN HISTORICALLY PRESENT ON THE LANDSCAPE.

IT IS SUGGESTED THAT YOU WORK WITH THE W C A LGU TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL EXEMPTIONS.

REPLACEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO WETLANDS.

THE NICOLLET COUNTY WATER PLAN CALLS FOR RESTORING 25 ACRES OF WETLAND IN THE SWAN LAKE WATERSHED. REDUCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT DUE TO SWAN LAKE BEING A DESIGNATED WILDLIFE LAKE, A PRIORITY SHALLOW LAKE AND A LAKE OF OUTSTANDING BIOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE.

ALONG THESE LINES, DNR RECOMMENDS INCORPORATING SOME STORAGE OR WETLAND RESTORATION INTO THE PROJECT TO BETTER ALIGN WITH THE LOCAL WATER PLAN.

WHILE A PUBLIC WATER WORKS WORK PERMIT MAY NOT BE REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, A FINAL DETERMINATION WILL DEPEND ON RESPONSES TO THE QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS OUTLINED ABOVE. FOR ANY COMMUNICATION REGARDING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, PLEASE CONTACT US VIA REGION FOR DRAINAGE@STATE.MN.US.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING THESE COMMENTS.

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT AREA HYDROLOGIST ALAN GLEISNER AT ALAN.GLEISNER@STATE.US OR ME AT ETHAN JENSEN.JENSEN@STATE.M.US.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR CONCERNS, BEST REGARDS. ETHAN JENSEN, E W SOUTHERN DISTRICT MANAGER IT WAS CC'D TO NAYER GHAZANFARPOUR DNR DRAINAGE ENGINEER.

HAYLEY BYRON, DNR REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ECOLOGIST.

ALAN GLEISNER, DNR AREA HYDROLOGIST JACQUELINE KOPET, NICOLLET COUNTY PROPERTY AND PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR.

CHRIS OTTERNESS, HOUSTON ENGINEERING PROJECT ENGINEER.

GRIFFIN MCCOMAS, HOUSTON ENGINEERING ENGINEER.

AND IF CHRIS WANTS TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THOSE COMMENTS.

SURE. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE LEAST COMMENTED PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORTS THAT I'VE SEEN FROM DNR. I THINK DUE TO THE FACT THAT IT HAS A PRETTY SIMPLE OUTLET, AGAIN, IT GOES INTO SWAN LAKE.

THE HYDROLOGIC IMPACTS OF THAT ARE GOING TO BE INCONSEQUENTIAL.

SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BIG REASONS THAT WE HAD FEWER COMMENTS ON THIS ONE.

THEY DID PRETTY MUCH HAVE THREE PRIMARY COMMENTS.

ONE WAS ADDING THE FLOW CHANGE DATA IN THE TABLE.

[01:00:02]

FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING THEIR CONCERN.

THE SECOND ITEM WAS REGARDING THE WETLANDS AND THEIR CONCERNS THAT THERE MAY POTENTIALLY BE IMPACTS BASED ON THE RECENT MINNESOTA STATUTE CHANGE.

SO WE AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, WE WILL BE COORDINATING WITH THE WAKA LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT IN DEVELOPING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT ENSURING THAT WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH WAKA. LOOKING AT THE STATUE CHANGE, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN EXEMPTION THAT EXISTED PREVIOUSLY THAT WOULD NOW NOT BE EXEMPTION BECAUSE OF THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST CONCERN ON THAT.

IT'LL BE MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, ANY CONCERNS THEY MIGHT HAVE REGARDING THE CHANGE INTO AN OPEN DITCH.

AND THEN FINALLY, THE LAST ITEM THEY TALKED ABOUT WAS THE ESTABLISHMENT OR THEIR GOAL FOR ESTABLISHING YOU KNOW, 25 ACRES IN THE WATERSHED TO SWAN LAKE FOR NEW OR RESTORED WETLANDS.

AND CERTAINLY THAT IS A GOAL THAT IS WORTHY OF ACCOMPLISHING, BUT IT ISN'T SOMETHING THAT REALLY CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH OUR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.

AND, AND CERTAINLY WE'RE TRYING TO ENGAGE WITH LANDOWNERS TO SEE IF THERE ARE INTEREST IN POTENTIALLY DOING THAT HERE OUTSIDE OF THE PROJECT.

AND IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T NEED THE PROJECT IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN.

SO RELATIVELY EASY. AND AGAIN, ALL WE HAVE FOR THE PRESENTATION HERE AND CERTAINLY I CAN ADDRESS ANY COMMENTS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR.

CHRIS AND JACKIE AT THIS TIME? MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. JUST REVIEWING THE DNR'S LETTER IN THEIR OVERVIEW. IT SAID AND MAYBE I'M JUST CORRECTING TO SEE IF THEY'RE INCORRECT.

THE PROJECT INCLUDE LOWERING THE OUTLET ELEVATION SLIGHTLY.

I THOUGHT YOUR REPORT SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO KEEP THE OUTLET AT THE SAME LEVEL.

WE'RE GOING TO BE KEEPING IT BASICALLY AT THE SAME LEVEL.

I MEAN, WITHIN A, I BELIEVE A 10TH OF A FOOT OR SO.

SO INCONSEQUENTIAL. I JUST WAS CONFUSED BY THEIR COMMENT ON THAT.

AND THEN REGARDING THE THE REQUEST OR WHATEVER, OR THE STATEMENT ON THE RESTORING THE 25 AREA ACRES OF WETLAND.

IS THAT SIMPLY JUST A REQUEST? I MEAN, OR IT'S AN ASPIRATION.

SO YEAH, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY TO REQUIRE THAT OF, OF THE PROJECT TO BE CONTRIBUTING TOWARD THAT.

BUT I THINK THEY'RE JUST POINTING OUT THAT THEIR INTEREST AND, AND REQUESTING THAT, THAT BE CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE PROJECT.

IN THAT REGARD. THANK YOU.

ASPIRATIONS ARE GOOD. MADAM CHAIR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SURE. CAN WE REVIEW THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TRANSITION FROM THE BURIED TILE TO AN OPEN TILE OR AN OPEN DITCH SYSTEM THROUGH THAT WETLAND AREA? AND WHAT OTHER POTENTIAL LONG TERM MAINTENANCE THAT MIGHT REQUIRE THAT MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN THE BURIED TILE? SO IS THIS TRANSITION GOING TO REQUIRE ANY KIND OF PUMP OR PUMP STATION ELECTRICITY, ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW? NO, WE WOULDN'T BE ANTICIPATING THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY SORT OF UNIQUE.

MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.

I MEAN, CERTAINLY OPEN DITCHES DO REQUIRE CLEANUP FROM TIME TO TIME.

SO THAT WOULD BE ONE ASPECT OF MAINTENANCE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED THAT YOU WOULDN'T SEE WITH A TILE PART OF THE SYSTEM, BUT IT'S A RELATIVELY SHORT LENGTH OF DITCH AND RELATIVELY SHALLOW DITCH.

SO I THINK THAT THE MAINTENANCE NEEDS WILL BE FAIRLY MINIMAL ALONG THERE.

WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF TREES TO WORK AROUND OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT EITHER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. IF I MAY FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER HELGET QUESTION, I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

BUT TO THAT POINT OF THE THAT OPEN DITCH SECTION IS GOING THROUGH A WETLAND OR PROPOSED WETLAND. DOES THAT CHANGE THAT? IS THAT A REMOVAL OF ANY OF THAT WETLAND OR IS THAT ANYTHING TO BE CONCERNED, CONCERNED WITH? RIGHT NOW WE IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WORK WOULD NOT BE IMPACTFUL BECAUSE IT WOULD BE RIGHT NOW.

THE TILE DOES PROVIDE DRAINAGE OF THAT WETLAND.

[01:05:03]

SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING SIGNIFICANT DRAW.

THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE THERE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING THE OPEN CHANNEL BASICALLY AT THE SAME ELEVATION AS THE TILE.

THE ONLY CHANGE AGAIN IS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DIGGING SOMETHING OUT THAT'S THERE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE NATURE OF THE WETLAND ITSELF.

AND GIVEN THAT IT'S OUR OPINION THAT THE BY NOT CHANGING THE NATURE OF IT, IT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE AN IMPACT, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK WITH THE LGU STAFF TO GAUGE THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON IT AND, AND HOW THEY FIT, THEY FEEL IT FITS WITHIN WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE THINGS AREN'T BLACK AND WHITE.

ON THE WETLAND SIDE, THEY'RE USUALLY CHANGES OF THEIR SHADES OF GRAY IN THE, IN THE LANDOWNER THAT, THAT, THAT LAND GOES THROUGH THERE.

DID YOU SAY, ARE THEY, ARE THEY WILLING OR, I MEAN, ARE THEY AGREEABLE TO THAT CHANGE IN THAT PROPERTY? I DON'T KNOW YET. I'VE HAD A PHONE CONVERSATION WITH THE LANDOWNER, BUT I I BELIEVE HE IS HERE AND I WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO HAVING HIS INPUT ON HERE AND BOTH HERE AND AFTER THE MEETING TO TALK ABOUT YOU KNOW, THE USAGE OF THAT PROPERTY AND CERTAINLY THE PLAN CAN GET MODIFIED IN THAT AREA TO FIT WITHIN THE USE OF THE FARM.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GAUGE A LITTLE BIT OF WHETHER IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THEIR USE TO HAVE IT RUN ALONG THE OUTSIDE.

IF WE COULD POTENTIALLY PUT A, HAVE THE TILE RUNNING ALL THE WAY AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF THE WETLAND AND JUST AVOID IT, BUT THEN WE HAVE OTHER POTENTIAL IMPACTS TOO.

AND IT MIGHT AFFECT THE LATERAL TILES THAT HE MIGHT HAVE COMING IN AS WELL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE HE DOES HAVE SOME PRIVATE TILING AND OR DITCHING COMING INTO THAT WETLAND. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

ON THE BOARD HEARING AND SEEING NONE, WE CAN OPEN UP THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD.

GENERALLY WE LEAD OFF WITH THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY IF HE'S AVAILABLE.

MR. ZIMMERLI, I BELIEVE THAT'S YOU.

THANK YOU. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD YOUR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? YES. THANK YOU. I'M DEAN ZIMMERLI WITH THE LAW FIRM GIBSON HUNTER, NEW ULM, MINNESOTA. I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE PETITIONERS HERE.

AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME GOING OVER WHAT MR. ORDONEZ HAS ALREADY KIND OF PROVIDED THROUGH HIS, HIS PRESENTATION BUT JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR THE BOARD KIND OF WHAT I SEE AS THE, THE, THE WHAT THE BOARD'S JOB HERE IS TODAY AND HOW THAT APPLIES TO THE STATUTE.

SO 103 E 261 GOVERNS THE PRELIMINARY HEARING AND REALLY IS ASKING WHETHER OR NOT THIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SHOULD NOT, NOT NECESSARILY BE ESTABLISHED TODAY, BUT WHETHER WE SHOULD MOVE TOWARDS THE, THE MORE FINAL PLANNING PROCESS TODAY.

AND THE STATUTE BASICALLY SAYS WE'LL LOOK AT FOUR FACTORS OR FOUR THINGS FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER. IF THESE ARE ESTABLISHED, WE REALLY SHOULD BE MOVING THAT TO THE NEXT.

THE NEXT STEPS. AND THE FIRST IS WHETHER THIS PROJECT IS FEASIBLE.

NEXT, IS THERE A NECESSITY FOR IT? THIRD IS WILL IT PROMOTE THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PUBLIC HEALTH? AND IS THE OUTLET ADEQUATE? AND MR. ATTORNEY'S REPORT, I THINK ADDRESSED ALL OF THOSE HERE TODAY.

FIRST, IT'S FEASIBLE. THE QUESTION IS LIKE, IS THIS A PROJECT THAT CAN BE DONE? CAN IT BE CONSTRUCTED? ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S JUST IT REALLY IT IS, IS YOU KNOW, INSTALLING SOME LARGER TILE REPLACING A SECTION WITH OPEN DITCH. IT'S CERTAINLY A FEASIBLE PROJECT THAT CAN BE DONE. IS THERE A NECESSITY FOR IT? YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT A DRAINAGE SYSTEM THAT AT ITS OUTLET, IT'S PROVIDING 0.08IN PER DAY OF DRAINAGE CAPACITY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WELL BENEATH THE CURRENT STANDARD OF A HALF AN INCH PER DAY.

FOR A TILE SYSTEM. SO THERE CERTAINLY IS A NECESSITY HERE.

NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THIS THIS TILE REALLY NEEDS TO BE REPLACED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. WHETHER IT'S JUST REPAIRING IT OR IMPROVING IT AND IT NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED ANYWAYS. CERTAINLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT GETTING THAT EXTRA CAPACITY,

[01:10:01]

YOU KNOW, IF WE LOOK AT THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND PROMOTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH CERTAINLY THE INCREASED AG LAND PRODUCTION YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE REDUCED SEDIMENTATION FROM OVERLAND FLOWS AND INFILTRATION, THERE'S GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BENEFITS THAT, THAT RESULT FROM THIS.

AND THEN FINALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT OUTLET IS ADEQUATE.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE WHERE WE'RE SOMEWHAT LUCKY TO LUCKILY TO HAVE AN OUTLET INTO SWAN LAKE. IT'S A LARGE BODY OF WATER THAT IS NOT REALLY GOING TO BE IMPACTED.

ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WE'RE NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EROSION IN A DOWN IN A DOWNSTREAM AREA OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT HERE.

SO CERTAINLY THE OUTLET IS ADEQUATE.

SO WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THOSE FACTORS, I'M SEEING THAT THIS IS A PROJECT THAT CERTAINLY MEETS THOSE FACTORS AND OUGHT TO BE MOVED ON TO THIS NEXT STEP OF HAVING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT THAT CAN ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE CONCERNS, CAN INVESTIGATE THE ISSUE OF YOU KNOW, HAVING THIS OPEN DITCH SECTION THROUGH THE, THROUGH THAT WETLAND AREA AND FINALIZE THOSE THOSE DEALS IN THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND THEN HAVE VIEWERS APPOINTED TO DETERMINE BENEFITS AND DAMAGES FOR THE PROJECT.

SO ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS, WE'D ASK THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THIS.

AND DIRECT THE ENGINEER TO HAVE TO PREPARE HIS FINAL REPORT AND APPOINT VIEWERS TO DETERMINE BENEFITS AND DAMAGES UNLESS THE BOARD HAS ANYTHING ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WOULD ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

WOULD ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WOULD ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, JACK. MAY WE ASK THE INDIVIDUAL WHO OWNS THE LAND WHERE THAT DITCH IS GOING TO BE CREATED INSTEAD OF THE TILE? I THOUGHT I SAW ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN SAY THAT WAS ME.

SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO TALK TO US ABOUT? IF YOU COME FORWARD? MAYBE, SIR.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW. I'VE NEVER BEEN IN TO THIS TYPE OF STUFF BEFORE.

SO CONCERNING ABOUT THE OPEN DITCH.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SEDIMENT. WELL, IT'S A LOWLAND WATER.

I GET FIVE, SIX FEET OF WATER DOWN THERE IN SPRING, SO IT'S STILL A LOT OF SEDIMENT.

MY THOUGHT GOING INTO YOUR TILE JUST FROM THAT LOWLAND BEING AN OPEN DITCH AREA.

AND THEN MY WIFE DOES DO DAYCARE.

WE'RE DOING DAYCARE OUT THERE FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS. THE FLIES, MOSQUITOES, STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT OPEN DITCH OR WHATEVER DOWN THERE THAT A CONCERN OR NOT? BECAUSE WHEN WES NILES CAME, MY LAND WAS THE FIRST.

I HAD THE FIRST HORSE.

THE COUNTY HAD WES NILES DUE TO THE WETLAND DOWN THERE.

AND THERE'S SOME BACKTRACK ON THIS PROPERTY BACK THERE. DOWN THERE. IT WAS NOT A WETLAND.

WHEN I FILED IN, LAW OWNED IT.

THEY CAME THROUGH, FIXED THE TILE AND PUT, I BELIEVE, 4 OR 6FT OF CLAY AROUND THAT TILE.

AT THAT POINT, THE DNR MADE IT A WETLAND.

SO THEN MY SISTER IN LAW, WHEN SHE BOUGHT IT, SHE THOUGHT IT GOT TO BE A FARMABLE WETLAND.

SO THIS WASN'T ORIGINALLY A WETLAND UNTIL THE TILE WAS REPAIRED AT THAT POINT.

SO I JUST HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS OF WHAT'S GOING TO GO FORWARD, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND WITH THE DITCH GOING THROUGH THERE NOW, I HAVE HAY GROUND.

I HAVE HORSES. HOW DO I GET TO THE OTHER SIDE TO PET OR TO PASTURE? HEY, GROUNDED STUFF LIKE THAT.

AND I TALKED A LITTLE BIT TO CHRIS ABOUT IT, ABOUT DOING AN OPEN POND DOWN THERE.

SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD WORK. INSTEAD OF DOING A DITCH, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WOULD WORK OUT DOWN THERE. AND IN REGARDS TO THE TILE LINE AND HOW STUFF LIKE THAT WORK TOO.

AND THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS I NEED TO TALK TO CHRIS ABOUT OR WHATEVER TO HELP FIGURE THIS OUT. I WANT TO GO BACKWARDS IN THIS.

SURE. GOING FORWARD. MADAM CHAIR, THANK YOU.

CHRIS. SIR, COULD YOU PROVIDE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD?

[01:15:01]

SAY IT AGAIN, TROY HAVEMEYER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND YOU'LL. YOU AND CHRIS WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE VISITING. YEAH. AFTER THE MEETING HERE, WHEN CHRIS IS STILL ON TALK OR WHATEVER.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? HEARING AND SEEING NONE.

WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS TESTIMONY.

NEXT IS TO DISCUSS THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT.

EXHIBIT B THE FOUR QUESTIONS OR FIVE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ANSWER YES TO.

JACKIE, IF I MAY I'LL REFER YOU TO EXHIBIT B.

THERE ARE FIVE QUESTIONS.

IF YOU WOULD GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY AND IF YOU CAN ANSWER AFFIRMATIVELY TO ALL.

OF THOSE QUESTIONS, YOU COULD CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD TO THE MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE.

MR.. OTTERNESS, PREPARE THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ALSO A SECOND MOTION TO APPOINT VIEWERS. MR. MARK BEHRENS AND HIS TEAM ARE WILLING TO TAKE THIS PROJECT ON.

SO IF, IF YOU GO THROUGH THOSE QUESTIONS AND, AND END UP GOING FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT, I'D ASK FOR TWO MOTIONS, THOSE TWO MOTIONS. THANK YOU.

SO QUESTION ONE IN EXHIBIT B IS, WAS THE PETITION PROPERLY FILED? I THINK WE CAN SAY YES TO THAT QUESTION BASED ON OUR PRIOR CONVERSATIONS.

QUESTION TWO WAS PROPER NOTICE OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING PROVIDED TO ALL PERSONS REQUIRED UNDER STATE STATUTE.

AGAIN, WE CAN SAY YES BASED ON OUR PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS.

QUESTION THREE THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BENEFIT PUBLIC AND PROMOTE PUBLIC HEALTH AFTER CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL AND LAND USE CRITERIA AND MINNESOTA STATUTES AGAIN.

YES. HEAD BOBBING. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. QUESTION FOUR WILL THE DRAINAGE PROJECT OUTLINED IN THE POSITION OR MODIFIED AND RECOMMENDED BY THE ENGINEER.

IS IT FEASIBLE? AGAIN, YES WOULD BE OUR ANSWER TO THAT.

AND QUESTION FIVE THE EASY ONE.

IS THE OUTLET ADEQUATE? YES. SO BEING THAT WE HAVE YES TO ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS.

WE NEED A MOTION TO ORDER THE DETAILED SURVEY AND DETAILED SURVEY REPORT TO BE PREPARED.

AND IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, EXCUSE ME, THAT TO DIRECT MYSELF TO PREPARE THE FINAL THE FINDINGS AND ORDER AT THE NEXT SCHEDULED DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING FOR THIS PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT, WHICH WOULD BE JULY 8TH, EIGHTH. YES. SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO HAVE JACKIE PREPARE THOSE FINDINGS AND ORDERS? SO MOVED. THANK YOU. THERE A SECOND.

THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE TIME, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT SOMEWHERE THROUGH THIS PROCESS THAT CHRIS OTTERNESS AND THE LANDOWNER HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS. YOU KNOW, THE FULL IMPACT ON HIS PROPERTY AND POSSIBLE.

CHOICES VERSUS TILING AROUND OPEN DITCH OR POND.

YOU KNOW THAT THAT BE PART OF THE WHOLE PROCESS.

OKAY. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? ALL OF THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. AND OUR NEXT MOTION IS TO SCHEDULE THE VIEWERS TO APPOINT THE VIEWERS TO APPOINT THE VIEWERS. MOVE TO APPOINT THE VIEWERS.

THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? SECONDED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT CONCLUDES THE MEETING COMPLETES AND WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS POINT. AND WE CAN CLOSE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING OR ADJOURN THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS TO.

GO INTO CLOSED SESSION.

THIS PORTION OF THE BOARD MEETING WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC AS ALLOWED FOR BY THE MINNESOTA OPEN MEETING LAW. MINNESOTA STATUTES CHAPTER 13.05.

IN RELATION TO AND NEEDED TO DISCUSS LITIGATION AND LEGAL STRATEGY IN THE DON MICHAELS AND MARIA MAGDALENA ALVAREZ.

BECKER VERSUS NICOLLET COUNTY ET AL.

[01:20:03]

FOLLOWING THIS CLOSED SESSION, THE BOARD ACTION MAY BE TAKEN BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED DURING THE CLOSED SESSION.

MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION? MOVED SECOND. AND WE NEED A ROLL CALL.

VOTE FOR THIS. THAT'S WHAT MY SHEET SAYS.

ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMISSIONER.

KOLARS. YES. COMMISSIONER.

ZINS. YES. COMMISSIONER.

HELGET. YES. COMMISSIONER.

DRANTTEL. YES. THANK YOU.

WE WILL GO INTO CLOSED SESSION, SO PLEASE STOP THE RECORDINGS AND OPEN SESSION. WE JUST CAME FROM A CLOSED SESSION DISCUSSING POTENTIAL LITIGATION.

PRESENT AT THAT MEETING WAS A COUNTY ATTORNEY.

MICHELLE ZEHNDER FISCHER.

COMMISSIONERS. KURT. ZINS.

MARIE. DRANTTEL. NICOLE.

HELGET. JAC KOLARS ADMINISTRATOR.

MANDY LANGKAMP. HER ATTORNEYS, DIANE EBERT, KELLY NELSON AND MC I T JEFFREY HENCHES. AT THIS POINT, WE WILL ADJOURN THE REGULAR BOARD MEETING.

THANK YOU.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.