>> LET'S START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
[Call Board of Commissioners Meeting to Order]
[00:00:02]
AS ALWAYS THE FIRST THING IN OUR AGENDA IS SILENCE OUR CELL PHONES.
NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA.
DO WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, ANYTHING NEW, UNUSUAL, OUT OF THE ORDINARY?
>> THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE AGENDA.
[Approval of Agenda]
HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THERE IS AN AMENDED AGENDA ITEM FORM FOR CONSIDER AWARD OF 2025, HIGHWAY 12 PROJECT, YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF YOUR SEAT AS WELL AS THE ONLINE PACKET WITHOUT SO APPROVAL.THANK YOU.>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION?
[Approval of Consent Agenda]
HEARING AND SEEING NONE OF THOSE IN FAVOR.>> NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA.
WOULD ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD LIKE TO PULL OFF ANY ITEM FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION? HEARING AND SEEING NONE? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA?
[Public Appearances]
>> THANK YOU.ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
[Property Services]
>> NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS PUBLIC APPEARANCES AND SEEING NO PUBLIC IN THE AUDIENCE AT THIS POINT WE WILL ROLL ONTO PROPERTY SERVICES. GOOD MORNING?
>> GOOD MORNING MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
TODAY, WE HAVE PLN 25-4, WHICH IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW WITH FINDINGS OF FACTS BY DENNIS MICHAEL.
THE PROPOSAL AT HAND IS A REQUEST FOR A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND GRAVEL PARKING AREAS IN ORDER TO ADD BACKUP STORAGE FOR CURRENT CAMPERS AT THE SAWMILL CAMP GROUND.
IT'S ON A COUNTY ROAD JUST WEST OF US 14 TO THE NORTHWEST OF THE CITY LIMITS OF NORTH MANKATO.
THIS WAS REVIEWED LAST MONTH BY THE NICOLLET COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING ADVISORY COMMISSION.
THE MAJOR ADDITION TO THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WAS A MODIFICATION OF ONE CONDITION TO INCLUDE IN ADDITION TO NOT BEING ABLE TO USE THEIR NEW STORAGE SITES FOR HABITATIONAL PURPOSES, THE BOARD ADDED MODIFICATION ABOUT NOT USING THE SITES FOR THE STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES WITH THE IDEA THAT IT WOULD BE TOO HARD TO MONITOR THE STORAGE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES TO MAKE SURE THEY WILL NOT BE USED FOR HABITATION PURPOSES.
WE WOULD BE LOOKING FOR AN APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AS WELL AS AN APPROVAL OF THE FINDINGS OF FACT.
>> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE?
>> DISCUSSION. WHAT IS A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE?
>> A RECREATIONAL VEHICLE, WE DO HAVE A DEFINITION OF THAT IN OUR ORDINANCE.
BASICALLY, IT'S A VEHICLE THAT CAN BE TOWED AND MOBILE AND USED FOR [INAUDIBLE]. ACTUALLY, I SHOULD CLARIFY THAT IF IN THE FUTURE THE APPLICANT DID WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL OVERNIGHT CAMP SITES INSTEAD OF JUST USING THE AREA FOR STORAGE, IT'S ACTUALLY PUBLIC WORKS WOULD NEED THE APPLICANT TO PAY FOR A TURN LANE AND ACTUALLY, THE CLOSING OF THE SECOND ACCESS SO ALL OF THE ENTRANCES WOULD BE FOCUSED ON THE MAIN ACCESS POINT AND YOU'D HAVE A TURN LANE.
BUT CURRENTLY, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE CAMP GROUND USES
[00:05:04]
MUNICIPAL WATER FROM NORTH MANKATO AND THERE IS NO EXTRA CAPACITY FOR THAT [INAUDIBLE].>> THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. I RECALL WHEN THIS WAS STARTED MANY YEARS AGO, CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WERE STAYING AT THIS SITE.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEY OWNED THE RECREATIONAL VEHICLES THAT THEY STAYED IN.
DID THAT COME UP IN THE CONVERSATION AT ALL THIS TIME AROUND? DOES THIS PLACE HOST CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WHO MAY NOT OWN THE VEHICLES?
>> I'M NOT AWARE OF WHO WOULD OWN THE VEHICLES.
THE APPLICANT HAS SPOKEN ABOUT THE FACT THAT CONSTRUCTION WORKERS DO STAY [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS SOME CONTROVERSY AROUND [INAUDIBLE]
>> MARY [INAUDIBLE] FROM THE BELGRADE TOWNSHIP BOARD.
SHE WAS THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO ATTENDED THE MEETING AND SHE SPOKE IN FAVOR OF IT AND THAT BEL [INAUDIBLE].
>> WELL, THEN THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR, MADAM CHAIR THERE, APPARENTLY [INAUDIBLE].
[Public Services]
UNIFORMED AND OVER [INAUDIBLE]
[00:10:47]
[Public Works]
>> I DIDN'T MARKET BUT [INAUDIBLE].
[00:15:49]
[INAUDIBLE][00:21:43]
WHAT WOULD THE INVESTMENT BE FOR NICOLLET COUNTY TO HAVE ITS OWN STRIPING?APPARENTLY.BUT THEN WE COULD BE A PROVIDER FOR A NEIGHBOR. AS MURDERS. D S UHH
[Sheriff's Office]
[Administration]
[County Attorney Update]
[Commissioner Committee Reports, Meetings & Conferences]
[00:32:05]
MADAM C HAIR, NO MEETING THE LAST TWO.[Approve Per Diems and Expenses]
[Adjourn Board of Commissioners Meeting]
[Call Drainage Authority Meeting to Order: Chair]
[00:35:23]
>> RESULTING FROM THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT,
[00:35:26]
PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD AT THE LAST MEETING ON JUNE 24TH, 2025.THIS ORDER DIRECTS THE ENGINEER TO PROCEED WITH A DETAILED SURVEY REPORT AND ALSO APPOINTS THE VIEWERS TO DETERMINE THE BENEFITS RELATED TO THE IMPROVEMENT.
THE FINDING EFFECT IS IN YOUR PACKET AND I WILL BE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF THAT.
>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDING EFFECT AND THE ORDER?
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDING'S EFFECT.
>> THANK YOU, IS THERE A SECOND?
>> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING AND SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> THANK YOU. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA IS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR COUNTY DITCH 38 FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT.
>> AT THIS POINT WE CAN OPEN THE HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT PETITION.
>> A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PURPOSE OF THIS HEARING IS THAT A PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT TO COUNTY DITCH 38A WAS SUBMITTED TO NICOLLET COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICES OFFICE ON MAY 29TH, 2024.
ON JULY 9TH, 2024, THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY ACCEPTED THE PETITION AND APPOINTED CHRIS OTTERNESS OF HOUSTON ENGINEERING AS THE ENGINEER RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS REPORT.
ON FEBRUARY 11TH, 2025, THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY HELD THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT HEARING AND ORDERED THE ENGINEER TO PREPARE THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND APPOINTED VIEWERS TO THE PROJECT.
ON MAY 15TH, 2025, CHRIS OTTERNESS OF HOUSTON ENGINEERING SUBMITTED THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT.
ON JUNE 25TH, A LANDOWNER INFORMATIONAL MEETING WAS HELD HERE AT THE COMMISSIONER'S ROOM.
SEVERAL LANDOWNERS ATTENDED THE MEETING AS WELL AS THE ENGINEER AND THE VIEWERS AND THEY EXPLAINED THE PROJECT AND HAD SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS.
NOTICE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS GIVEN.
IT WAS MAILED TO ALL LANDOWNERS ON JUNE 24TH, 2025, POSTED ON THE SAME DAY, PUBLISHED IN THE COUNTY NEWSPAPER ON JUNE 19TH, JUNE 26TH, AND JULY 3RD.
THE PURPOSE OF TODAY'S HEARING IS TO REVIEW THE FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT, THE VIEWERS REPORT, AND TAKE STATEMENTS FROM ALL PARTIES TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT OR DISMISS THE PETITION.
TODAY WE HAVE CHRIS OTTERNESS HERE FROM HOUSTON ENGINEERING.
THE VIEWERS ARE HERE AS WELL. THAT'S ABOUT IT.
>> THANK YOU. CHRIS OTTERNESS FROM HOUSTON ENGINEERING, YOU ARE HERE TO PRESENT THE FINAL ENGINEERING REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I HAVE BELLE REEVE WITH ME.
ONE OF MY ASSOCIATES THAT WILL BE DOING THE PRESENTATION.
I'LL ALSO BE HERE TO ADDRESS QUESTIONS AND ASSIST.
>> HI, EVERYONE. I'M BELLE REEVE FROM HOUSTON ENGINEERING HELPING [INAUDIBLE].
TODAY WE WILL GO OVER THE [INAUDIBLE].
TODAY WE WILL DISCUSS THE [INAUDIBLE] THE ESTIMATED COST, THE OVERALL [INAUDIBLE] AND THE EFFECTIVENESS [INAUDIBLE].
THE LOCATION OF THE [INAUDIBLE] PROJECT IS LOCATED IN SECTIONS 19, 20, 21, 29, AND 30 OF [INAUDIBLE].
>> SORRY. ANY GREEN LIGHT ON IN FRONT OF YOU?
>> SORRY. CAN YOU HEAR ME BETTER NOW?
>> SORRY ABOUT THAT. THE PETITION TILE THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IN THE FIGURE.
A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
THE COUNTY DITCH WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1904 IN BRANCH 1 LATERAL D, AND BRANCH 4 WHICH PART OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ARE 100% TILE.
THE TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA FOR THE TWO BRANCHES IS 424 ACRES OR 0.66 SQUARE MILES.
[00:40:06]
THE PURPOSE OF THIS PETITION IS FROM THE EXISTING TILE THAT IS OVER 100 YEARS OLD AND IT'S PAST IT'S FUNCTIONAL LIFE.THERE'S A LOT OF JOINT OFFSETS AND OTHER FAILURES THAT [NOISE] LEAD TO DECREASED EFFICIENCY.
THIS TILE WAS TELEVISED AND FROM THE TELEVISING, THERE WAS SEVERAL PLACES WHERE THE TILE HAD COLLAPSED AND HAD LARGE JOINT OFFSETS, WHICH THE CAPACITY DIMINISHES FROM THAT.
THEN THE EXISTING DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR MODERN AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES WITH LESS THAN A QUARTER INCH PER DAY.
HOUSTON ENGINEERING COMPLETED A SITE SURVEY WHERE WE SURVEYED THE CURRENT INTAKES AND WHERE THE CURRENT TILE OUTLETS AND DOWNSTREAM CULVERT JUST TO GET CURRENT DATA OF THE SYSTEM.
FROM THE SITE SURVEY, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE AREA IS GENERALLY FLAT WITH MARGINAL SURFACE DRAINAGE, WHICH IS WHY THERE IS CURRENTLY TILE PRACTICES THERE.
>> I'LL JUST ALSO ADD HERE THAT, YOU CAN SEE ON OUR MAPS HERE, WE HAVE CONTOURS ON THERE.
THOSE CONTOURS ARE FROM THE STATE WIDE LIDAR COLLECT.
THAT'S BEEN VERY HANDY, DECREASES THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE ON A SURVEY LIKE THIS TO KNOW WHERE THE GROUND ELEVATIONS ARE.
>> THE PROPOSED PROJECT AIMS TO HAVE A HALF INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT PER DAY.
THE EXISTING TILE RANGES FROM EIGHT INCHES TO 18 INCHES IN DIAMETER, WHERE THE PROPOSED TILE RANGES FROM 10 INCHES TO 24 INCHES IN DIAMETER.
IN VERY FEW AREAS, THE TILE WILL BE SLIGHTLY DEEPER TO PROVIDE COVER.
HOWEVER, MOST OF THE TILE IS AT THE SAME GRADE OR AT THE SAME DEPTH AS THE EXISTING.
THE PROJECT, WE'LL PLAN TO RECONNECT ALL PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LATERALS AND ALSO ADD IN INLETS OR INTAKES WHERE IT IS NECESSARY IN LOW AREAS.
THEN ALSO THE OLD TILE WILL BE TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE.
>> THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT THING THAT WE ABANDON THAT OLD TILE AND WHAT WE END UP DOING IS WE END UP CRUSHING IT EVERY 100 FEET OR SO, PARTICULARLY WHERE WE FIND THE LATERAL TILE CONNECTION AND THEN PLUG IT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE WATER CONTINUING TO FLOW THROUGH THAT OLD TILE AND CREATE NEW BLOW OUTS.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN FREQUENTLY WHEN YOU REPLACE ONE OF THESE TILES IS THAT THE OLD TILES THAT'S THERE CAN BLOW OUT IF YOU DON'T CAP IT EVERY SO OFTEN.
>> THERE WAS A FEW DESIGN MODIFICATIONS FROM THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS REPORT.
A FEW MAJOR ONES BEING THAT NOW WE WILL BE DIRECTIONALLY DRILLING PLASTIC PIPE UNDER THE COUNTY ROADS VERSUS PREVIOUSLY WE HAD JACK AND BORE STEEL PIPE UNDER THE COUNTY ROADS, AND WE'RE ALSO LENGTHENING THOSE CROSSINGS UNDER THE COUNTY ROAD FROM 80 FEET TO 100 FEET TO BE ABOUT 45 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF ROAD.
SWITCHING FROM THE JACK AND BORE STEEL PIPE TO THE PROPOSED DRILL PLASTIC PIPE SAVES APPROXIMATELY $76,000.
THEN ANOTHER DESIGN MODIFICATION WAS WE PROPOSED A ROCK INLET, WHICH HELPS WITH REDUCING SEDIMENT IN THE TILE AND ALSO IMPROVING WATER QUALITY DOWNSTREAM.
OTHER SMALLER MODIFICATIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE FINAL BID PACKAGE, BUT THEY WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER THAN THESE TWO DESIGN MODIFICATIONS.
THERE WILL BE SOME DAMAGES FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT WITHIN THE WORKING CORRIDOR.
THE WORKING CORRIDOR CONSISTS OF 50 FEET ON EITHER SIDE OF THE PROPOSED TILE ALIGNMENT, WHICH IN TOTAL IS 100 FEET WIDE, AND THE PROPOSED TILE WILL BE WITHIN 15 FEET OF THE EXISTING TILE.
THE CONTRACTOR WILL HAVE TO REMAIN INSIDE OF THIS WORKING CORRIDOR FOR THEIR MATERIALS AND THEIR EQUIPMENT STORAGE AS WELL
[00:45:04]
AS INSTALLING THE NEW TILE AND THEN ALSO CRUSHING THE EXISTING TILE.IF THE CONTRACTOR GOES OUTSIDE OF THE WORKING CORRIDORS FOR CONNECTING LATERAL CONNECTIONS [NOISE] OR ANY OTHER REASON, ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS WILL BE MADE FOR THAT.
[NOISE] THEN FROM THIS PROJECT, APPROXIMATELY 24.1 ACRES IN ANTICIPATED FOR DAMAGES.
>> I'LL JUST ADD HERE TO THAT.
HOW WE SET THE CONTRACT UP WITH THE CONTRACTOR, THEY HAVE RIGHT UNDER THE CONTRACT TO GO WITHIN THAT FULL 100 FEET.
SOMETIMES IF WE'RE DOING THIS WHERE YOU HAVE A CROPPED AREA, THE CONTRACTOR MIGHT JUST COME IN AND MOLD THE CROP DOWN WITHIN THE 100 FOOT CORRIDOR JUST TO GET IT OUT OF THE WAY.
AGAIN, THE DAMAGES THAT WE HAVE IN HERE, THE COST OF THOSE DAMAGES IS DETERMINED BY THE VIEWERS.
THEY FIGURE IN THE FACT THAT YOU MAY HAVE CROP GETTING DAMAGED IN THERE IF WE'RE DOING THIS UNDER SUMMER CONDITIONS.
THERE'S BEEN A CONCERN ON A FEW PROJECTS WHERE WE'VE HAD, WHERE THE LANDOWNERS, HAVE SAID THEY DON'T NEED THAT WHOLE 100 FEET WITH THE WORK IN.
WHETHER THEY NEEDED THAT OR NOT, THEY HAVE IT TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS SOME WORK AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S ENOUGH OF IT WITH THE CORRIDOR AND WE'RE NOT CONFINING THEM SO MUCH THAT IT MAKES IT HARD TO GET THE JOB DONE.
>> WITH THE FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT, WE HAD A COUPLE ALTERNATIVES THAT HAD TO BE CONSIDERED.
THERE WAS TWO NON IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES.
ONE OF THOSE IS DO NOTHING, WHICH DOES NOT SOLVE THE ISSUE OF THE EXISTING TILE BEING IN DISREPAIR.
THEN THERE IS A REPAIR ALTERNATIVE.
HOWEVER, THIS ADDRESSES THE FAILING TILE, BUT IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT.
THEN FOR THE IMPROVEMENT ALTERNATIVES, THERE WAS A STORAGE ALTERNATIVE THAT WAS CONSIDERED.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO STORAGE AREAS IDENTIFIED ALONG THE TILE THAT WERE FEASIBLE.
THEN THE WASCOB ALTERNATIVES, THOSE CAN BE PURSUED OUTSIDE OF THIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
THEN WITH OUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, THAT IS SIZING THE TILE TO THE HALF INCH DRAINAGE COEFFICIENT.
THE WASCOB ALTERNATIVE IS A WATER AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BASIN THAT CAN BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE IMPROVED TILE.
THIS REQUIRES WILLING LANDOWNERS AND OUTSIDE FUNDING.
THIS IS COMPLETED SEPARATELY FROM THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
THE NEW TILE THAT IS BEING INSTALLED DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MODIFIED AT ALL TO ACCOMMODATE THESE BASINS.
THESE ARE ALONGSIDE OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
>> WE DO RECOMMEND THAT IF ANY LANDOWNERS THAT ARE ALONG THE PROJECT HAVE AN INTEREST IN POTENTIALLY PARTNERING WITH A LOCAL SWCD OFFICE ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WE HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO REACH OUT TO SWCD.
WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE ACTIVELY TRYING TO FIND LANDOWNERS TO WORK WITH TO INSTALL THESE TO HELP CONTROL SEDIMENT ON THE LANDSCAPE AND DECREASE THE SEDIMENT AND THE WATER FLOW GOING DOWNSTREAM.
CERTAINLY THERE'S MONEY OUT THERE.
POTENTIALLY TO BE INSTALLING THIS PRACTICES IT JUST REQUIRES THAT WILLING LANDOWNER AND SOME DILIGENCE ON THEIR PART TO TALK TO THE SWCD.
>> THE PUBLIC BENEFIT AND UTILITY, THERE'S REDUCED MAINTENANCE COST FROM THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT JUST BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING TILE AND THE DEGRADATION OF IT.
THEN THERE'S INCREASED DRAINAGE FUNCTION ON LAND NEAR THE PROJECT OR ALONG THE NEW TILE.
THERE'S REDUCED SEDIMENT DOWNSTREAM IN THE OPEN CHANNEL DITCH.
THEN THERE'S REDUCED DURATION OF CROP FLOODING IN SMALL EVENTS , USUALLY EVENTS SMALLER THAN THE TWO YEAR.
FOR THE FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT, SEVERAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS HAD TO BE ANALYZED, SO ALTERNATIVE MEASURES REQUIRING EASEMENTS OR CHANGING LAND USE THAT REQUIRES
[00:50:05]
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION AND NOT PARTICULARLY APPLICABLE IN THIS PROJECT JUST BECAUSE THE CURRENT AND PROJECTED LAND USE IS AGRICULTURE.THAT HAS THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANS.
THE ADEQUACY OF THE OUTLET HAD TO BE CONSIDERED.
BOTH THE DOWNSTREAM CULVERTS OF BRANCH 1 LATERAL D AND BRANCH 4 WERE ANALYZED.
[NOISE] THERE WAS A SLIGHT INCREASE IN FLOWS FOR BRANCH 1, 0.8% TO 3.4% INCREASE FROM A TWO YEAR TO 100 YEAR EVENT IN LESS THAN AN INCH OF INCREASE IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION.
[NOISE] THEN DOWNSTREAM OF BRANCH 4, THERE WAS A 1.4% TO 9.2% INCREASE FROM THE TWO YEAR TO 100 YEAR EVENTS WITH LESS THAN A HALF INCH OF INCREASING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION.
FROM THE DNR COMMENTS, WE HAD TO ADDRESS THE DOWNSTREAM END OF CD 38A WHEN IT ENTERS INTO HAYMAN CREEK AND ANALYZE THE ADEQUACY OF THE OUTLET OF THE WHOLE SYSTEM.
HAYMAN CREEK IS APPROXIMATELY 2.6 MILES DOWNSTREAM WITH A 12 SQUARE MILE DRAINAGE AREA.
COMMENTS FROM THE DNR, THEY DEEMED THAT 5% FLOW WAS SIGNIFICANT.
FROM OUR ANALYZING OF THAT DOWNSTREAM OUTLET, WE HAD LESS THAN A 5% FLOW INCREASE, WHICH WITH THE DNR INPUT WAS LITTLE TO NO IMPACT DOWNSTREAM.
THEREFORE, WE CONCLUDED THAT THE OUTLET IS ADEQUATE.
IN THIS TABLE, THIS HAS ALL THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DISCHARGE FLOWS AS WELL AS THE VELOCITIES.
JUST NOTE THAT THESE ARE THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL INCREASES IN FLOW.
THEN ALSO, THE CAPACITY OF THE OPEN CHANNEL IS MUCH GREATER THAN THE NEW TILE.
THE INCREASE IN FLOW FROM THIS IMPROVEMENT WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT ABILITY OF OTHER LANDOWNERS ON CD38 TO DRAIN THEIR LAND.
WITH THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, WE WILL ADD RIP RAP AT THE ENDS OF BOTH OF THE TILE OUTLETS JUST TO HELP WITH EROSIONS AND SCOUR PREVENTION AND HAVE A MORE STABILIZED OUTLET THAN WHAT IS EXISTING.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, WE ANALYZE WETLAND IMPACTS AND THERE WAS CURRENTLY NO WETLANDS IN THE NATIONAL WETLAND INVENTORY ALONG DRAINAGE AREAS THAT WE IDENTIFIED AND JUST NOTE THAT LAND OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE SWAMP BASTER COMPLIANCE.
FOR THEN FOR WATER QUALITY, THERE WILL BE A SWEEP THAT WILL BE PREPARED AND FOLLOWED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THEN ALSO TIS PROJECT WE'LL ALSO FACILITATE FUTURE MAINTENANCE AND REDUCE DOWNSTREAM SETTLEMENT AND NUTRIA LOADING.
IN THIS FIGURE, THE PURPLE OUTLINED FIGURES ARE THE WETLANDS, AND NONE WERE IDENTIFIED IN OUR BLUE DRAINAGE AREAS.
THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO IDENTIFIED WETLANDS THAT WILL BE IMPACTED.
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS.
THERE WAS NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ANTICIPATED FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES.
THERE WAS LITTLE OR NO IMPACT TO GROUNDWATER, AND THEN OVERALL NO LONG TERM ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.
EXTERNAL FUNDING HAD TO BE CONSIDERED, AND THERE ARE FEDERAL AND STATE COST SHARES AVAILABLE FOR WATER QUALITY PRACTICE THROUGH COMPETITIVE PROCESSES.
THEN LOCAL SOIL WATER AND CONSERVATION DISTRICTS HAVE FUNDING WHICH CAN BE APPLIED FOR WASCOBS OR OTHER WATER QUALITY BMPS.
BUT THOSE REQUIRE VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION.
THE OPINION OF THE PROBABLE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WAS ESTIMATED TO BE AROUND 623,000 AND THEN OTHER COSTS INCLUDING
[00:55:04]
LEGAL ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COST HAVE THE TOTAL COSTS BEING AROUND 807,000.TILES SHOULD BE REPLACED REGARDLESS OF THE IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDINGS DUE TO THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THEM.
THE COST TO REPAIR WAS ESTIMATED TO BE AROUND $749,000, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE VIEWERS CONSIDER THIS AS SEPARABLE COST RELATIVE TO THE IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDINGS.
THERE WAS A EARLY COORDINATION MEETING WITH THE DNR RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM THAT THIS PRELIMINARY COORDINATION MEETING WAS TARGETED TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY PROBLEM AREAS OR THINGS THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS REPORT.
THEN AFTER WE HAD SUBMITTED THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERS REPORT, THE DNR PROVIDED THEIR PRELIMINARY ADVISORY REVIEW WHICH HAD SEVERAL COMMENTS THAT WE ADDRESSED IN THE FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT.
THEN ONCE THE FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE DNR, THE DNR PROVIDED THEIR FINAL ADVISORY REVIEW, AND THAT HAD NO FURTHER COMMENT SO WE HAD TO ADDRESS FOR THIS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THAT THE PROJECT IS NECESSARY, FEASIBLE, AND PRACTICAL AND WE RECOMMEND THE BOARD TO ORDER THE PROJECT.
THEN I GUESS WE ADDED OUR ANTICIPATED TENTATIVE SCHEDULE, POTENTIALLY THIS YEAR AND AUGUST WE COULD FINALIZE THE BID PACKAGE, POTENTIALLY AWARD BIDS AND OPEN BIDS IN SEPTEMBER AND DEPENDING ON IF THOSE BIDS ARE OPENED, WHEN THEY'RE OPEN, WE COULD HAVE AN EARLY CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE THIS FALL.
HOWEVER, BASED ON OR CONTRACTOR AVAILABILITY, POTENTIALLY HAVING CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE NEXT SPRING OR SPRING SUMMER.
>> A LOT OF THE TILE LAYERS THEY ARE VERY BUSY IN THE FALL DOING PRIVATE WORK AND A LOT OF TIMES THE PUBLIC WORK GETS PUT IN THE BACK BURNER WHILE THEY DO THAT AND CERTAINLY THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT THE PRIVATE WORK REALLY CAN ONLY BE DONE WHEN YOU HAVE CROP OP.
MOST OF THE PROJECTS WE HAVE DONE LATELY HAVE BEEN IN THE SUMMER MONTHS JUST BECAUSE OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO GET THE CONTRACTOR OUT THERE.
BUT THERE IS A POTENTIAL OUTSIDE CHANCE IF WE FIND THE RIGHT CONTRACTOR THAT IS EAGER THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY GET IT DONE THIS FALL BUT I'M NOT HOLDING MY BREATH ON THAT.
>> THANK YOU. THEN I GUESS THAT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD OR THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE.
>> BOARD DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT? NONE AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
AT THIS POINT JACKY CAPNER WILL READ THE DNR ADVISORY REPORT WHEN IT'S RE READ VERBATIM INTO THE RECORD.
>> THANK YOU. AS THE ENGINEER TOUCHED ON THE FINAL ADVISORY REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF ACTUAL RESOURCES WAS SUBMITTED AND I WILL READ THAT INTO THE RECORD.
IT'S FROM THE DIVISION OF ECOLOGICAL AND WATER RESOURCES, REGION 4, WHICH WAS SOUTHERN REGION 21371 HIGHWAY 15 SOUTH NEWMAN MINNESOTA 56073 DATED JUNE 30TH.
2025 ADDRESSED TO THE NICOLLET COUNTY DRAINAGE AUTHORITY 501 SOUTH MINNESOTA AVENUE ST. PETER MINNESOTA 56082? THE SUBJECT IS THE FINAL ENGINEERS REPORT FOR IMPROVEMENT OF NICOLLET COUNTY 38 A, BRANCH 1 LATERAL D AND BRANCH 4.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED NICOLLET COUNTY DITCH NUMBER CD38A.
BRANCH LATERAL D AND BRANCH 4 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
THIS LEDGER LETTER CONSTITUTES THE COMMISSIONER'S FINAL ADVISORY REPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MINNESOTA STATUTE 103E.301 ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSIONER OF THE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURSES DNR.
AS REQUIRED UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE 103E.301, THE DNR FINDS NUMBER 1;
[01:00:01]
THE DETAILED SURVEY REPORT IS COMPLETE AND THE OUTLET APPEARS TO BE ADEQUATE.THE PLAN APPEARS TO CONFORM TO THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS OF MINNESOTA STATUE 103E. NUMBER 2.
THE DETAILED SURVEY REPORT IS AN ACCEPTABLE PLAN TO DRAIN THE PROPERTY AFFECTED.
A DNR PUBLIC WATERS WORK PERMIT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. NUMBER 3.
THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THE PLAN.
WE DO RECOMMEND THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY ENSURE THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NICOLLET COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE WATER PLAN.
THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE APPEARS TO BE A PUBLIC BENEFIT OR UTILITY UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE AND MULTI PURPOSE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA IN SECTION 103E.015 SUBDIVISION 1.
THE COMMISSIONER DETERMINES THAT A SOIL SURVEY IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT.
PLEASE SEND THE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER AND/OR REVISED FER MEETING MINUTES, FINDING OF FACTS, AND ANY ORDER ISSUED BY THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY REGARDING THIS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT TO THE DNR WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE.
IN ADDITION, PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR AGENCY CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THE USE OF OFF CHANNEL STORAGE SOLUTIONS SUCH AS WETLAND RESTORATION OR SIMILAR WATER RETENTION BASINS OR IMPOUNDMENTS TO HELP REDUCE FLOODING AND EROSION, AND IN SOME CASES, PROVIDE NATURAL RESOURCE AND ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENTS.
THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY SHOULD CONTINUE TO PURSUE OPPORTUNITIES TO RETAIN SURFACE WATER RUNOFF WITHIN ITS EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEMS WHENEVER AND WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERATION OF THIS REPORT.
PLEASE SUBMIT THE ABOVE NOTED DOCUMENTS OR ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS LETTER TO THE REGIONAL DRAINAGE EMAIL, REGIONAL 4 DRAINAGE DNR AT STATE.MN.US SIGNED BY SINCERELY ETHAN JENSEN EWR, NORTHERN DISTRICT MANAGER WITH ELECTRONIC COPY SENT TO HAILEY BYRON DNR, REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ECOLOGIST, ALAN GLESNER, DNR AREA HYDROLOGIST, JACKIE COPE, NICOLLET COUNTY PROPERTY AND PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR NATHAN HENRY, NICOLLET COUNTY AG, AND COUNTY DRAINAGE SYSTEM INSPECTOR, SETH GREENWOOD, NICOLLET COUNTY, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, CHRIS OTTERNESS, HOUSTON ENGINEERING PROJECT ENGINEER.
CHRIS OTTERNESS DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THE.
>> I'M ONE OF THE WE HAVE FIVE VIEWERS THAT WORK IN AN OFFICE DOWN IN FREEBORN COUNTY AND WE'RE MEMBERS OF THE MINNESOTA VIEWERS ASSOCIATION.
THERE'S FOUR OR FIVE TRAININGS THAT YOU GO TO BECOME CREDITED.
THERE'S ABOUT THREE OR FOUR GROUPS WITHIN THE STATE THAT DO VIEWING SO WHETHER IT'S OUR GROUP OR ANOTHER GROUP THE PROCESS WILL BE SIMILAR.
>> THERE'S FIVE MAIN ITEMS THAT ARE USED TO DETERMINE BENEFITS.
ONE, WE LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF ACRES THAT ARE WITHIN THE WATERSHED, THE SOIL TYPE OF THOSE ACRES, THE LOCATION OF HOW FAR YOUR PROPERTY IS PHYSICALLY AWAY FROM THE COUNTY OPEN DITCH OR COUNTY TILE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE COUNTY TILE ON YOUR PROPERTY, AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE SYSTEM.
THESE FIVE THINGS COME TOGETHER TO DETERMINE A BENEFIT VALUE.
WITH THE BENEFIT VALUE, WE DETERMINE YOUR PERCENT OF TOTAL BENEFITS.
WHEN THERE'S REPAIR OR MAINTENANCE ON THE COUNT SYSTEM, EACH PARCEL PAYS THEIR PERCENT OF TOTAL BENEFITS TIMES THE COST OF REPAIR.
SO WHETHER IT'S A $1,000 OR $100,000 BILL, THE TOTAL BILL NEEDS TO BE PAID, SO YOU JUST PAY YOUR PERCENTAGE.
WE HAVE A LANDOWNER MEETING; A MEETING WITH LANDOWNERS TO EXPLAIN THE PROCESS, ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS, AND WE HELD ONE ON THIS PROJECT ON JUNE 25TH.
ALL OF OUR CONTACT INFORMATION WAS ON THE INFORMATION THAT WAS SENT TO LANDOWNERS AND WE'RE WILLING TO MEET WITH ANYONE THAT WISHES TO RAISE IT WITH US ABOUT THEIR PROPERTY.
WE BUILT THE [INAUDIBLE] SYSTEM,
[01:05:01]
AND THERE'S ALL THE PARCEL INFORMATION IN IT.ANY LAND OWNER THAT WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT HOW WE BROKE OUT THEIR PARCEL OR EVEN THEIR NEIGHBORS PARCEL, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO SHOW THEM HOW WE DID IT.
WE DON'T SHOW PRIVATE TITLE MAP THAT ARE SHARED WITH US.
WE DO NOT SHARE THOSE WITH ANYONE ELSE.
WE HAVE A STANDARD WAY OF HOW WE BREAK OUT EACH PARCEL, AND THEN WE ADJUST OUR NUMBERS UP OR DOWN ACCORDING TO WHAT WE LEARNED FROM LANDOWNERS ON ANYTHING THAT MIGHT BE UNIQUE ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL PARCEL.
LOOKING AT THE NICOLLET COUNTY CD38A IMPROVEMENT, IT WAS INSTRUCTED BACK IN 1904.
CD38A WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1954 AND REPLACED ALL OF CD38.
THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN 1954 WAS $159,000.
RE-DETERMINATION WAS RECENTLY COMPLETED ON THIS SYSTEM IN JANUARY 23RD, 2018.
WE LOOKED AT THE 2018 BENEFIT NUMBERS AND WE UPDATED THOSE TO CURRENT VALUES TO REFLECT CURRENT NUMBERS.
THERE'S ABOUT 67,000 FEET OF COUNTY OPEN DITCH OR 12.7 MILES ON THIS SYSTEM, AND ABOUT 46,950 FEET OF COUNTY TILE OR 8.9 MILES.
THERE'S ABOUT 7,430 ACRES OF FARMLAND AND BUILDING SITES, AND 143 ACRES OF STATE, COUNTY, AND TOWNSHIP ROADS, FOR A TOTAL 7,574 ACRES.
THERE'S $16,578,000 WORTH OF BENEFITS, WE LOOK AT THAT OVER 25-YEAR PERIOD.
THIS WAS PRIOR TO THE IMPROVEMENT.
NICOLLET COUNTY CD38A ALSO HAS A 47% OUTLET BENEFIT INTO COUNTY DITCH 83.
COUNTY DITCH 38A WILL PAY FOR ALL IT'S OWN REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE PLUS 47% OF ANY REPAIRS OR MAINTENANCE IN COUNTY DITCH 83 BECAUSE THEY'RE SENDING THEM ADDITIONAL WATER, THESE NEED TO BE CLEANED MORE OFTEN.
ON THE IMPROVEMENT WATERSHED ACRES, THERE'S 261 ACRES IN BRANCH 1 AND THERE'S 225 ACRES IN BRANCH 4 IMPROVEMENT WATERSHEDS.
THE TOTAL PROJECT COST IS LIKE 807,285, IS THE ESTIMATED PROJECT COST, WITH 748,000 BEING THE ESTIMATED REPAIR PORTION OF THE PROJECT AND 58,000 IS THE ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT.
THERE'S 16,578,000 WORTH OF BENEFITS BEFORE THE IMPROVEMENT AND 16,789,000 WORTH OF BENEFITS AFTER THE IMPROVEMENT FOR INCREASED BENEFITS OF $210,000.
WITH THE ESTIMATED IMPROVEMENT PORTION OF THE PROJECT BEING $58,000, THERE'S $151,000 WORTH OF BENEFITS BEYOND THE IMPROVEMENT COST OF THE PROJECT.
THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SO I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM.
>> DOES THE BOARD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE VIEWERS?
>> THANK YOU. HEARING AND SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR TESTIMONY AND GENERALLY WE START WITH THE ATTORNEY.
>> GOOD MORNING. I SEE YOU ALL AGAIN SO SOON. I WAS JUST HERE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
DEAN ZIMMERLI, FROM GISLASON & HUNTER, I'M THE PETITIONER'S ATTORNEY ON THIS MATTER AND I THINK THANKFULLY THE CD38A IS A RELATIVELY UNCONTROVERSIAL AS LEAST FROM I SEE IT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
THE LANDOWNERS HERE CAME TO ME BECAUSE THEY WERE EXPERIENCING SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH THEIR PROPERTY AND WANTED TO INCREASE THESE COUPLE OF TILE-LINES IN CD38A TO GET SOME BETTER DRAINAGE AND I ASSISTED THEM WITH THIS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT PROCESS.
WHERE THE BOARD SITS TODAY, WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE PRELIMINARY HEARING TO ASSESS WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT INITIALLY LOOKS FEASIBLE.
THAT MOVED ON TO THIS FINAL HEARING WHERE WE FINALIZED THE ENGINEERING PLANS, GOT AN ESTIMATE OF THE FINAL COSTS.
YOU JUST HEARD FROM THE VIEWERS, ONE OF THE BENEFITS FROM THIS PROJECT, AND AT LEAST FROM WHERE THE BOARD NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY IS I'M LOOKING AT 103E.341.
THIS IS THE STATUTE THAT DEALS WITH THE FINAL HEARING ON AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND WHETHER OR NOT TO ESTABLISH THAT.
HERE, THE BOARD IS LOOKING AT BASICALLY SIX ITEMS, AND IF IT FINDS THOSE SIX ITEMS HAVE BEEN MET, IT SHOULD GO FORWARD WITH ESTABLISHING THAT PROJECT AND ALLOW THAT BID TO TAKE PLACE AND ACTUALLY GET THE CONTRACTORS MOVING ON AND ACTUALLY GOING.
I'LL JUST RUN THROUGH THESE BRIEFLY.
THE FIRST IS THE SURVEY REPORT, THE ENGINEERS REPORT, AND THE VIEWERS REPORT,
[01:10:01]
HAVE THEY BEEN MADE AND THE PROCEEDINGS BEEN COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAINAGE CODE? YOU HEARD FROM MS. COPET EARLIER GOING THROUGH THE PROCEDURE THAT GOT HERE, THE NOTICES THAT WENT OUT, THE APPOINTMENT OF THE ENGINEERS AND THE VIEWERS, AND THAT IS ALL CONSISTENT WITH THE DRAINAGE CODE AT 103E.NUMBER 2 IS, ARE THE REPORTS FROM THE ENGINEER AS MADE OR AMENDED, ARE THEY COMPLETE AND CORRECT? YOU HEARD FROM THE FOLKS AT HOUSTON HERE GOING THROUGH THEIR EXTENT OF ANALYSIS HERE THAT COVERS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF IT, PLUS ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED, THAT'S ALSO CONTAINED IN THAT REPORT.
THOSE ARE COMPLETE AND CORRECT.
NUMBER 3, HAVE THE BENEFITS AND DAMAGES BEEN PROPERLY DETERMINED? WE JUST HEARD FROM MR. DAHL GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF DETERMINING THE BENEFITS FROM THIS PROJECT AND THAT SEEMS CONSISTENT WITH HOW BENEFIT AMOUNTS ARE CALCULATED IN THE STATE, AND I THINK THAT IS PROPERLY DETERMINED.
NUMBER 4, WHETHER THE ESTIMATED BENEFITS ARE GREATER THAN THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS, INCLUDING DAMAGES, AND JUST FOR NOTE HERE, THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION HERE IS $807,000 APPROXIMATELY.
HOWEVER, A LARGE CHUNK OF THAT IS WHAT WE CONSIDER SEPARABLE MAINTENANCE, AND I'M SURE THE BOARD KNOWS, WHEN YOU HAVE AN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON A SYSTEM THAT NEEDS REPAIR, WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY DOING IS WE'RE SAYING, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO REPAIR THIS SYSTEM THAT'S 100 YEARS OLD AND IT'S FAILING WITH THE SAME SIZE TILE.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS JUST GOING TO BE REPLACING WITH SOME SLIGHTLY BIGGER TILE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER.
IT COSTS A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR THE PIPE, BUT REALLY, WE'RE AVOIDING ALL OF THAT COST OF DOING THE REPAIR BECAUSE WE'RE DOING THIS IMPROVEMENT.
ALL OF THOSE COSTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED ANYWAYS, THOSE WE COUNT AS A REPAIR COST, AND THOSE ARE SPREAD OUT OVER THE ENTIRETY OF THE CD38A SYSTEM, AND REALLY WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT ADDITIONAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT.
HOW MUCH MORE DOES IT COST TO GET THAT BIT BIGGER OF A SYSTEM? THAT'S REALLY THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT HERE.
THAT AMOUNT, AS I DID THE MATH, IS LIKE $50,437.
THAT'S THE ACTUAL COST WHICH IS WELL BELOW THE TOTAL BENEFITS OF ABOUT $210,000.
I THINK WE'VE DEFINITELY GOT THE BENEFITS EXCEEDING THE COST.
THE PROJECT WILL BE OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AND PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH.
I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY HERE, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR THAT INCREASED DRAINAGE AND THAT INCREASED PRODUCTIVITY IN THIS AREA.
FINALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE PROJECT PRACTICABLE.
THAT'S LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE THE ADEQUACY, THE OUTLET, SOME OF THESE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, AND ALL OF THOSE ARE SATISFIED HERE.
I JUST MAKE A NOTE HERE THAT I MAYBE HAVEN BEEN DOING THIS AS LONG AS SOME MORE GRAY-HAIRED ATTORNEYS IN THE DRAINAGE WORLD, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME EVER IN DOZENS OF THESE PROJECTS THAT I'VE DONE WHERE I'VE SEEN A DNR'S REPORT THAT'S BASICALLY, NO COMMENT.
ALMOST EVERY ONE OF THESE HAS SOME OBJECTION OR SOME COMPLAINT ABOUT THE PROJECT.
THIS WAS THE MOST TAME AND UNOBJECTIONABLE RESPONSE THAT I'VE EVER SEEN FROM A DNR, SO I THINK THAT IS JUST AN INDICATION THAT THIS PROJECT REALLY DOESN'T HAVE ANY RED FLAGS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT OR OTHER STANDPOINT THAT I SEE.
WITH THAT, I THINK THIS PROJECT ABSOLUTELY OUGHT TO BE APPROVED.
WE SHOULD GET THIS OUT FOR BID, SO WE CAN GET WORKING ON THIS AS SOON AS WE'VE GOT A CONTRACTOR AVAILABLE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. NEXT, IS THERE ANY PUBLIC TESTIMONY AT THIS POINT OR ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISH TO SPEAK? PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
IS THERE ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? AT THIS POINT WE CAN CLOSE
[01:15:02]
THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND BRING IT BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.DISCUSSION. OUR TASK IS THE SIX ITEMS MENTIONED BY MR. ZIMMERLI.
>> THAT'S CORRECT, MADAM CHAIR.
THOSE ARE ALSO LISTED IN YOUR DATA LOG FOR CONSIDERATION, ON PAGE 2 OF THAT PRINTOUT, SO IF THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER EACH OF THOSE IN THEIR DISCUSSION, AND ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS YES OR NO, AND THEN THE ANTICIPATION WOULD BE THEN TO TAKE IF THE BOARD APPROVES THE PROJECT OR REJECTS THE PROJECT, WE WILL THEN PREPARE THOSE FINDINGS FOR THE NEXT BOARD MEETING.
>. FIRST ON OUR LIST IS THE DETAILS SURVEY REPORT AND VIEWERS REPORT MADE IN OTHER PROCEEDINGS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER THIS CHAPTER, YES?
>> NUMBER 2, WHETHER THE REPORTS MADE OR AMENDED ARE COMPLETE AND CORRECT.
>> WHETHER THE DAMAGES AND BENEFITS HAVE PROPERLY BEEN DETERMINED.
>> WHETHER THE ESTIMATED BENEFITS ARE GREATER THAN THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST INCLUDING THE DAMAGES?
>> WHETHER THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE PROJECT WILL BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AND BENEFIT AND PUBLIC HEALTH.
>> THAT BEING SAID, WHETHER THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS PRACTICAL AFTER CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL LAND USE AND MULTI-PURPOSE WATER MANAGEMENT CRITERIA IN SECTION 103E.0157, DIVISION 1.
>> THAT BEING SAID, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
MAYBE WE NEED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THEN WE NEED A MOTION TO ORDER AND ADOPT THE ENGINEER'S REPORT, ORDER AND ADOPT THE VIEWER'S REPORT, ADOPT THE ALLOCATIONS, SEPARABLE MAINTENANCE, AND ORDER THE PROJECTS AS REPORTED.
>> MADAM CHAIR, I'LL MAKE THOSE MOTIONS.
>> IS THERE FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE.
>> NOW WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL ENGINEER'S REPORT.
>> ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE YOU JUST DID THAT.
I WOULD NEED ONE MORE MOTION NOTE TO DIRECT MYSELF TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS IN ORDER FOR THE NEXT SCHEDULED DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING.
[LAUGHTER] WE NEED A MOTION TO PREPARE THE FINDINGS IN ORDER FOR THE NEXT DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING.
>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING AND SEEING NONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
>> THEN AT THIS TIME WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> WE CAN ADJOURN THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.