[00:00:06] DON'T CRUSH THAT. MICHELLE. GOOD MORNING. WELCOME TO THE SPECIAL DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 3RD, 2025. FIRST ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. [1. Approval of Agenda] MOVE TO APPROVE. SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS PUBLIC APPEARANCES FOR. FOR AN ITEM THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE ON THE AGENDA OR NOT RELATED TO AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA. FURTHER BACK, ANYTHING UNRELATED TO COUNTY DITCH 75. HEARING AND SEEING NONE, WE CAN MOVE ON TO PUBLIC WORKS. [3.a. Consider Action on County Ditch 75 Culvert Repair] SETH. NATHAN. I'M GOING TO LET THE COUNTY ATTORNEY KICK US OFF. OKAY. MICHELLE. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. CAN YOU HEAR ME? OKAY. THE MATTER BEFORE THE BOARD RELATES TO COUNTY DITCH 75 AND AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED AT THE AUGUST 26TH DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MEETING. WHEN AT THAT TIME, THE BOARD WAS CONSIDERING CLEANING REQUESTS OF VARIOUS DITCHES TO KIND OF BRING US TO WHERE WE ARE AT TODAY. AS THE BOARD IS AWARE MNDOT HAS STARTED A RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT ON COUNTY OR EXCUSE ME, ON HIGHWAY 22. AS PART OF THAT RECONSTRUCTION PROCESS IN 2022, THERE WAS A MINOR ALTERATION PETITION THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE BOARD FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION. THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THAT ACTION, AND THERE WAS NO APPEAL FILED AS IT RELATED TO THAT ACTION IN LIKE INDICATED ON AUGUST 26TH, THERE WAS A HEARING HELD BEFORE THE BOARD, THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY FOR CLEANING OF COUNTY DITCH 75. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A CONCERN RAISED AS TO THE CULVERT HEIGHT AND WHETHER THE CULVERT WAS GOING TO BE PUT BACK IN AT THE SAME HEIGHT. THAT WAS FELT TO BE ERRONEOUS. AFTER THAT CONVERSATION, BEFORE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY, THE BOARD DIRECTED BY MOTION THAT STAFF WORK TO ADDRESS THE ERROR, THE ISSUE OR WHAT WAS PERCEIVED TO BE THE ERROR BY CONTACTING MNDOT. THERE HAS BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF MEETINGS, CONFERENCES THAT HAVE HAPPENED BETWEEN LAST TUESDAY AND TODAY WITH VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND ANY POTENTIAL ISSUE THAT MIGHT EXIST WITH RESPECT TO THE HEIGHT OF THE CULVERT. THERE HAVE BEEN MEETINGS HELD WITH MNDOT. THERE HAS BEEN CONVERSATIONS BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS AND HOUSTON ENGINEERING, AND THAT LED US TO THE NEED TO HAVE THIS SPECIAL BOARD MEETING TODAY, BECAUSE MNDOT THIS WEEK WAS PLANNING TO BEGIN WORK ON THAT CULVERT. SO THAT IS WHY THIS MEETING IS BEING SCHEDULED TODAY. TODAY. WHAT IS BEFORE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY IS, IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO TAKE ACTION. AFTER HEARING FROM CHRIS FROM HOUSTON ENGINEERING ABOUT WHAT PROCESSES MIGHT LOOK LIKE. AT LEAST PRELIMINARILY IN LISTENING TO THAT INFORMATION, THE BOARD MAY WISH TO CONSIDER A COUPLE DIFFERENT ACTIONS. THE FIRST WOULD BE TO TAKE NO ACTION TO ALLOW THE RECONSTRUCTION OF HIGHWAY 22 TO MOVE FORWARD AS PLANNED. GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT WAS SCHEDULED, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE ALTERATION. AFTER DULY NOTED HEARING. AND SECOND OPTION WOULD BE TO INITIATE A RECONSTRUCTION OF RECORDS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT FOR THAT CULVERT WAS AT THE TIME OF INSTALLATION AND SHOULD BE ACCORDING TO THE PLANS. AND MR. OTTERNESS IS GOING TO KIND OF DETAIL THAT PROCESS OUT FURTHER. SO I AT THIS POINT WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE OTHERWISE ASK MR. OTTERNESS TO PRESENT HIS INFORMATION. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNTY ATTORNEY? HEARING AND SEEING. NONE. MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD I JUST HAVE A FEW SLIDES. I WAS GOING TO SHOW YOU TO KIND OF WALK YOU THROUGH HOW WE LOOK AT DETERMINING GRADES FOR REPAIRS, SOME OF THE PROCESSES AND HOW THAT MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO THE SITUATION. AND A LOT OF THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PRESENTED ON THE PASS. I HAVEN'T, YOU KNOW, PUT AS MUCH WORK INTO THIS AS IT MIGHT LOOK LIKE ON THE [00:05:05] PRESENTATION HERE. BUT I JUST WANT TO START OFF TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IDENTIFYING WHAT A REPAIR GRADE IS, WHAT IS A REPAIR. AND IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE STATUTE, IT DEFINES THAT REPAIR AS BEING THE AS CONSTRUCTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY IMPROVED CONDITION OF THE DITCH. AND IT'S KEY NOTING ON HERE THAT IT SAYS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED AND NOT ORIGINALLY DESIGNED. YOU KNOW, WE DO CONSIDER THE DESIGN AS PART OF THE REPAIR, BUT ULTIMATELY ENDS UP BEING WHAT WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED WHEN THE SYSTEM WAS CREATED OR WHEN IT WAS IMPROVED LATER. SO IF THE RECORD THAT YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU IS UNCLEAR, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS. AND WE RUN THIS ALL THE TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE AS BUILT FOR EVERY DRAINAGE SYSTEM. A LOT OF TIMES ALL WE'RE LEFT WITH IS THE DESIGN DOCUMENTS, OR EVEN IN SOME CASES, WE DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT. AND SO THIS IS A PROCESS THAT WE WORKED WITH YOU A FEW YEARS AGO ON COUNTY DITCH 48 A, WHERE WE WENT THROUGH THE REESTABLISHMENT OF RECORDS. THAT'S WHAT I'VE SHOWN HERE IS OPTION ONE WHICH INVOLVES A, A STATUTORY PROCEDURE THAT HAS MULTIPLE STEPS. YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A SYSTEM WIDE PERSPECTIVE. YOU DON'T LOOK AT IT JUST FROM A SINGLE LOCATION. YOU LOOK AT THE WHOLE SYSTEM BECAUSE THE WHOLE SYSTEM IS VERY OFTEN RELEVANT AND WHAT THE RECORD WAS AND GIVES CLUES AS TO HOW THE SYSTEM WAS CONSTRUCTED ORIGINALLY. IT DOES HAVE A PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT LASTS SEVERAL MONTHS AND SOMETIMES IT MAY LAST EVEN A YEAR, DEPENDING ON HOW COMPLICATED THINGS ARE. THE ONE VALUE OF THAT OPTION, EVEN WITH THE ADDED PROCEDURE, AND THAT IT DOES ADDRESS POTENTIAL CONTROVERSY OR POTENTIAL DISAGREEMENT IN DATA THAT YOU HAVE. AS YOU'RE LOOKING THROUGH THE SYSTEM, THE OTHER OPTION I KIND OF REFER TO AS, YOU KNOW, R O R LIGHT, IT'S BASICALLY LOOKING AT THE GRADE AT A SINGLE LOCATION. WE HAVE DONE THAT IN THE LOCATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY HAD DRAINAGE AUTHORITY MIGHT ASK US, HEY, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE ORIGINAL GRADE IS HERE? WE JUST, WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD HERE. AND SO WE WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE GRADE A LITTLE WAYS UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM OF THAT PORTION OF THE SYSTEM THAT IS IN QUESTION. WE USE, YOU KNOW, CLUES ON THE LANDSCAPE, INCLUDING CULVERTS, THE DITCH BOTTOM. IT'S A PROCESS THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE PUBLIC INPUT OR REALLY A A SIGNIFICANT OR LAID OUT PROCESS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD OCCUR IN JUST A COUPLE OF WEEKS AND DOING A SURVEY AND THEN PREPARING A REPORT. BUT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT KIND OF SNAPSHOT LOOK AT A SINGLE LOCATION, YOU REALLY HAVE TO HAVE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN WHAT THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IS TELLING YOU, THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE IN ALIGNMENT. THE CULVERT ELEVATION THAT'S OUT THERE OR THE CULVERTS THAT ARE OUT THERE, THE DITCH BOTTOM THAT THERE'S A CONSISTENT DEPTH ALL THE WAY ALONG, SOMETHING THAT CAN PROVIDE YOU CONFIDENCE THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT GOING TO BE IN DISAGREEMENT WITH OTHER PARTS OF THE SYSTEM. WE WOULDN'T ADVISE THAT KIND OF SNAPSHOT LOOK, IN ANY LOCATION WHERE THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR DISAGREEMENT OR THE POTENTIAL THAT ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC OR A ANOTHER INTERESTED PARTY MAY HAVE A DISCREPANCY ON WHAT YOU'RE CALLING THE PROFILE. SO IF WE LOOK AT THAT OTHER OPTION, REESTABLISHING RECORDS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT'S LAID OUT IN STATUTE. AND IT HAS A PROCESS THAT FOLLOWS WHERE YOU LOOK AT THE ALIGNMENT CROSS SECTION PROFILE OF THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND AGAIN, THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE. IT'S BASICALLY A FIVE STEP PROCESS BEGINNING WITH INITIATING A PROCEEDING SO THAT YOU GET IT ESTABLISHED IN THE RECORD. AND YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT YOU APPOINT AN ENGINEER LIKE MOST OTHER OF THESE DRAINAGE PROCEEDINGS. WE DEVELOP AN ENGINEER'S REPORT AND THEN YOU HAVE TO, AFTER THAT, NOTICE ALL OF THE LANDOWNERS THAT ARE BENEFITING ON THE SYSTEM HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THEIR INPUT INTO IT. AND THEN AN ORDER THAT ESTABLISHES A RECORD. AND AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST VALUES OF THAT PROCESS IS THAT IT GETS IT OUT IN THE OPEN, AND YOU LAY OUT THAT CLEAR RECORD OF WHY YOU, AS A BOARD MADE YOUR DECISION ON THAT ITEM. AND THEN AS PART OF OUR PROCESS, WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, WE LOOK AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS. WE TAKE A LOOK AT THE HISTORIC RECORDS ON THE SYSTEM. THAT'S ONE OF THE VERY FIRST THINGS THAT WE DO. AND SOMETIMES THAT HISTORIC RECORD IS EVEN LOOKING AT AREAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ALIGNMENT CORRECTLY ON THERE. DOING A FIELD SURVEY GETTING THE BOTTOM ELEVATION OF THE DITCH. PROBING DOWN, MAKE SURE WE CAN SEE IF WE CAN FIND EVIDENCE OF THAT ORIGINAL CHANNEL BOTTOM. AND THEN DOING CROSS SECTIONS AND ALL THAT GOES INTO ESSENTIALLY AN INTERNAL [00:10:05] PROCESS WHERE WE TAKE ALL THOSE CLUES AND TRY TO FIND THE BEST FIT SOLUTION THAT FITS ALL THAT DATA. AND THAT DATA ISN'T ALWAYS GOING TO ALIGN TOGETHER ON THERE. WE FIND WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY THE MOST DEFENSIBLE SOLUTION. AND THEN THAT'S WHAT WE CALL THE AS CONSTRUCTED, SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED CONDITION. AND ALONG WITH THAT, WE WILL ALSO DESCRIBE RIGHT AWAY ALONG THE SYSTEM AS PART OF THAT PROCESS. SO AGAIN, WE LOOK AT THESE PAPER DOCUMENTS. WE LOOK AT AERIAL PHOTOS. AND THEN THE BIG THING IS WE DO BORINGS OR PROBES DOWN THE CHANNEL BOTTOM. AND THAT CAN GIVE YOU A CLUE IF THE CHANNEL BOTTOM HASN'T BEEN EXCAVATED. IT WILL GIVE YOU A CLUE AS TO WHAT THAT ORIGINAL BOTTOM WAS. BECAUSE YOU CAN OFTENTIMES IF THERE'S A LOT OF SEDIMENT IN THE SYSTEM, WE CAN FIND THE ORGANICS THAT ARE ON TOP. YOU HIT THE KIND OF HARDPAN CLAY OR SAND, AND THEN THAT KIND OF SETS WHERE THAT ORIGINAL BOTTOM WAS AGAIN. IF IT HADN'T BEEN OVER EXCAVATED. THEN WE TAKE ALL THAT INFORMATION. WE LOOK AT THE THE OLD DESIGN DRAWINGS, AND A LOT OF TIMES THOSE DESIGN DRAWINGS WEREN'T ACTUALLY SET AT A SEA LEVEL ELEVATION. A LOT OF TIMES THEY PUT A NAIL IN A TREE, SAID, THIS IS ELEVATION 100. AND THEN THEY WORKED OFF OF THAT. WORKING BACKWARDS. AND IF YOU'RE TEN FEET BELOW THAT NAIL IN A TREE, THEY CALL THAT ELEVATION 90. AND SO I MEAN THAT'S VERY OFTEN WHAT WE DO. AND SO WE HAVE TO TAKE WHAT WE FIND THOSE ELEVATIONS AND THE GRADES ARE ON ORIGINAL PLANS AND TRY TO LEVEL IT UP SO THAT WE'RE NOW AT A SEA LEVEL DATUM, SO THAT IF SOMEBODY GOES OUT THERE WITH SURVEY EQUIPMENT, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, DETERMINE WHAT THAT ELEVATION IS BECAUSE THAT NAIL IN THE TREE HAS BEEN GONE FOR DECADES. AND SOMETIMES THOSE DESIGN GRADES, THEY DON'T FIT. WE CAN LOOK AT THE PLANS ON THERE. SOMETIMES THEY HAD TO MODIFY THINGS FROM THE PLAN. THEY, THEY CHANGED THINGS. AND SO WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CLUES OF WHAT WAS DONE OUT THERE. HOW DOES THAT FIT AND DOES THAT? IS IT SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE? DO WE HAVE A GRADE WORKING FROM TOP TO BOTTOM? OR ARE WE, YOU KNOW, GETTING SOMETHING THAT'S GOING UP AND DOWN, UP AND DOWN? YOU KNOW, THAT TYPICALLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE EITHER AND PERHAPS WAS NOT LIKELY WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED. ONE THING WE GET ASKED A LOT COMES UP ALL THE TIME WHENEVER YOU WOULD DO THIS PROCESS IS WHY ARE THERE SO MANY CULVERTS THAT ARE HIGHER THAN THAT ORIGINAL DITCH BOTTOM, OR WHAT WAS OBSERVED ON THE FIELD AS BEING THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH? AND THERE'S A COUPLE REASONS FOR THAT. IN SOME CASES IF THE DITCH HASN'T BEEN MAINTAINED, YOU DEVELOP A, YOU KNOW, A FOOT, TWO FEET OF SEDIMENT IN THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH. AND WHEN THE ROAD AUTHORITY COMES THROUGH THERE TO REPLACE THE CULVERT IT'S NOT TYPICAL FOR THEM TO PLACE THAT CULVERT ALL THE WAY BACK DOWN BELOW THAT SEDIMENT DEPTH, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT BEING MAINTAINED, THE CULVERT IS JUST LIKELY TO FILL IN. SO OFTENTIMES THOSE ROAD AUTHORITIES WOULD JUST PUT THE CULVERT RIGHT AT THE ELEVATION OF, OF OBSERVED CHANNEL THAT WAS THERE. AND, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY LEFT IT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT OR IT COULD BE THAT THE DITCH WAS OVER EXCAVATED AT SOME TIME OR HAS SCOURED OUT AT SOME TIME. WE'VE SEEN BOTH THOSE CASES. AND SOME OF THAT DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW, HOW CLOSE THAT LOWER ELEVATION IS TO THE CULVERT. IF IT POPS OUT RIGHT AWAY OR IF IT'S AN EXTENDED AMOUNT. AGAIN, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT A DITCH WAS OVER DUG FOR WHATEVER REASON OR THE OTHER. SO I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE FOUND FOR COUNTY DITCH 75. AND WHAT I SHOW ON THE SCREEN HERE NOW IS THE CURRENT PLAN HERE. AGAIN, THEY ARE PLANNING TO REPLACE THAT CULVERT THAT IS OUT THERE, 72 INCH CONCRETE PIPE WITH ANOTHER ONE OF THE SAME SIZE AT ESSENTIALLY THE SAME ELEVATION THAT'S THERE NOW. WE DID LOOK AT A PLAN FROM THE 1950S THAT WAS A COUNTY HIGHWAY PLAN, I BELIEVE. THIS PLAN WAS ONE WHERE THEY WERE MOVING THE ROADWAY OVER A BIT. AND AT THAT TIME, THEY DID NOT REPLACE THE CULVERT THAT WAS THERE. IT SHOWED CLEARLY ON THE PLANS THAT THEY WERE LEAVING IN PLACE, THE CULVERT THAT WAS THERE, AND THEY INSTEAD TOOK PART OF THE PIPE TOOK AND MOVED IT FROM ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER TO AID IN THAT REALIGNMENT OF THE ROADWAY. SO THIS EVIDENCE THAT I'M SEEING HERE TELLS ME THAT THAT CURRENT PIPE THAT'S OUT THERE IS LIKELY THE ORIGINAL ONE FROM WHEN THEY ESTABLISHED THE DITCH BACK IN, [00:15:01] I BELIEVE, 1949. WE HAVE THE 1949 PLAN HERE WHERE THEY CALL OUT TO INSTALL A STRUCTURE MINIMUM SIZE 72IN AGAIN, WHICH IS WHAT IS OUT THERE. SO THIS EVIDENCE KIND OF POINTS TO ME THAT THE CULVERT THAT IS OUT THERE RIGHT NOW IS THE SAME ONE THAT WAS PLACED AT THE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE DITCH. AND AGAIN, THESE PLANS ARE ON THAT ASSUMED DATE. AND I TALKED ABOUT THAT NAIL SET AT ELEVATION 100 AND A TREE SOMEWHERE. SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THOUGHT PROCESS THAT DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES GO THROUGH OF, YOU KNOW, IS IT A WISE INVESTMENT AT THIS TIME TO REESTABLISH THE RECORDS? AND SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT YOU MIGHT MAKE ON THIS ARE WHETHER THERE ARE MISSING OR CRITICAL DOCUMENTS IN THE RECORD. A LOT OF CASES AND THIS IS ONE OF THE CASES FOR CD48, WHETHER THERE'S A DNR, PUBLIC WATERS ALONG THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THE DNR PUBLIC WATERS, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY OR NOT. THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME COORDINATION YOU NEED TO HAVE WITH THE DNR ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THE, THE DITCH. AND THEY PROBABLY ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENT WITH YOU ON THAT ELEVATION UNLESS YOU GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. THE OTHER THING THAT MIGHT CAUSE YOU TO DO THAT IS A LACK OF CONSENSUS ON WHAT THE EXTENT OF THE SYSTEM IS, WHERE IT IS, OR EVEN ELEVATION IT IS, AND WHETHER THE SYSTEM IS ACTUALLY IN NEED OF REPAIR. MOST OF THE TIME, DRAINAGE AUTHORITIES DON'T MOVE FORWARD WITH REESTABLISHMENT OF RECORDS UNLESS THEY'RE INTENDING TO DO A SIGNIFICANT REPAIR ALONG A DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE VALUE OF THIS CERTAINTY THAT YOU'RE GETTING FROM THAT VERSUS THE COST OF DOING THAT REESTABLISHMENT OF RECORDS. AND I QUICKLY DID A CALCULATION. THIS IS JUST A ROUGH ESTIMATE OF WHAT THE COST WOULD BE FOR THIS SYSTEM. WITH THE AMOUNT OF MILES OF THE SYSTEM THAT ARE THERE. IT'D BE ABOUT A $30,000, GIVE OR TAKE COST FOR DOING THAT WHOLE PROCESS, BEGINNING THE END OF REESTABLISHING THE RECORDS. SO WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT IS OUT THERE ON THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SEEING SOMETHING WHERE I'M FINDING A REAL GREAT LIKELIHOOD THAT IF WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS REESTABLISHING THE RECORD, THAT I'M GOING TO COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT ELEVATION OR CONCLUSION OTHER THAN THE CULVERT THAT IS OUT THERE NOW. IT'S POSSIBLE I MIGHT COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION. I'D HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, LOOK AT IT, DO THE SURVEY FOR MANY MILES OF DRAINAGE SYSTEM ALONG THERE TO SEE HOW THE REST OF THE SYSTEM FITS WITH THE ORIGINAL DESIGN GRADES. BUT ULTIMATELY, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE A GREAT CONFIDENCE THAT I WOULD PROBABLY COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT ANSWER THAN WHAT THAT CULVERT ELEVATION IS. I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT JUST TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, IN WEIGHING THAT DECISION OF WHETHER TO INVEST THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO SOMETHING LIKE THIS OR WHETHER I THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO WHETHER YOU PROCEED. SO AND WITH THAT, THAT'S ALL I HAD. I CAN ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. DOES ANYONE ON THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION FOR CHRIS AT THIS TIME? MADAM CHAIR, I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. JUST TO BE CLEAR. WHAT THE RECORD THAT YOU FLIP BACK TO YOUR SLIDES WHERE YOU SHOWED THE ORIGINAL CULVERT. MAYBE ONE MORE. IS IT THIS ONE HERE? YEAH. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS YOU THINK THAT THAT THAT LARGER SECTION OF CULVERT IS WHAT I'M SEEING THERE WAS THE ORIGINAL CULVERT AND THAT THAT SHORTER SECTION WAS ADDED AT SOME TIME LATER TO WIDEN THE ROAD. YEAH. ACCORDING TO THE PLAN HERE THEY SHOW IT BEING REMOVED ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ROADWAY AND BEING REPLACED OR RELAID ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. SO THEY MOVED IT FROM ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD TO THE, A PART OF THE, THE CULVERT, ABOUT 24FT OF THAT CULVERT. OH, OKAY. GOT YOU THERE. YEAH. BUT THAT CENTER SECTION NEVER WAS MOVED. CORRECT. AND THEY HAVE VERY SIMILAR OR IDENTICAL ELEVATIONS TO WHAT YOU KNOW, I GUESS WHAT WAS THERE AT THE TIME AND THEN WHAT IS BEING SHOWN NOW AS A REPLACEMENT ELEVATION BY MNDOT. SO IF THAT THAT SMALLER PIECE OF CULVERT ON THE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF MY SCREEN, ANYWAY WAS SET A LITTLE LOWER. THAT COULD EXPLAIN WHY THEY THINK THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SUCH A HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN. THE CULVERT FLOW, BECAUSE I'M ASSUMING THE LEFT SIDE IS THE HIGH SIDE. THE RIGHT SIDE IS THE LOW SIDE. IT'S YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY ON THIS DRAWING HERE ABOUT 2/10 OF A FOOT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN [00:20:06] ONE SIDE AND THE OTHER. SO I BELIEVE THEY ACTUALLY TOOK OFF FROM THE HIGH SIDE AND PUT IT ON THE LOW SIDE. SO IF ANYTHING, IT POSSIBLY COULD HAVE MADE THE, YOU KNOW, ELEVATION 2/10 OF A FOOT LOWER THAN WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO THAT. OKAY, I GUESS I WAS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION FROM THE LAST CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD IN THIS MEETING, THAT THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SLOPE IN THAT THAT PIPE WASN'T LAID FLAT. WELL, IT'S NOT LAID FLAT, BUT YOU SAID IT'S 2/10 OF IT. 2/10 OF AN INCH OF GRADE ON THAT PIPE. YEAH. AND CURRENTLY THEY HAVE THE ELEVATION BEING ABOUT 5/10 OF A FOOT GOING FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER AS THE CURRENT ELEVATION. MAY I, MADAM CHAIR? YES. I'M SORRY. SO JUST TO, I GUESS, REPEAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO US IS THAT IF WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS, IT WOULD REESTABLISH WHAT THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THIS CULVERT WAS, WHICH WOULDN'T ADDRESS THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING WHERE THE FARMERS CAME AND SAID THAT THIS CULVERT IS JUST SIMPLY TOO HIGH TO DRAIN THEIR WATER. YEAH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BASICALLY GO TO DETERMINING THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE SYSTEM AND THEN WHERE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE I GUESS THE BOTTOM LIMIT OF WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE A REPAIR. AND SO IF IT WAS DETERMINED THAT A CULVERT ELEVATION RIGHT NOW IS WHERE THE REPAIR ELEVATION IS, THEN THE COST OF LOWERING THAT CULVERT TO HELPING OUT THOSE LANDLORDS, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE AS AN IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT PROCEEDING. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. BUT IF WE WENT WITH YOUR YOUR PROCESS WHERE YOU'RE SHOOTING JUST THE ELEVATIONS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE AFFECTED CULVERT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE PUBLIC INPUT, DOESN'T TAKE A YEAR LONG PROCESS THAT'S JUST TO GO OUT THERE, SNAP A SNAP TO THE SURVEY AND THEN AND COME UP WITH THE CORRECTED ELEVATION THAT WOULD THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS. TYPICALLY, YES, IF YOU'RE HAVING CONFIDENCE IN THE ELEVATION MATCHING. BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE I COULD IN GOOD CONSCIENCE DO THAT HERE AT THIS LOCATION BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE LOWER IN THE DITCH COMPARED TO WHERE THIS CULVERT IS, THERE'S ENOUGH OF A DISPUTE IN THE ELEVATIONS THAT I DON'T THINK THAT YOU COULD TAKE THAT SNAPSHOT AND COME UP WITH A DETERMINATION FOR THAT LOCATION JUST BASED ON, YOU KNOW, A HALF MILE WORTH OF DATA ON EITHER SIDE OF THE CULVERT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT, IN MY OPINION, IF, IF YOU WANTED TO INVESTIGATE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SYSTEM WIDE. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ELEVATIONS OF THAT PIPE ARE RIGHT NOW. THIS IS AS DRAWN AND AS MIN DOT IS PROPOSING, BUT THEY COULD BE DIFFERENT. THEY DO HAVE THE ELEVATIONS SHOT. NOW THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. HERE IS THE EXISTING ELEVATIONS OF THE CULVERT. MADAM CHAIR, IF I MAY. SO BUT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, IF YOU WENT OUT THERE AND DID THE STUDY AND KIND OF CAME UP WITH WHAT YOU BELIEVED WAS THE AS BUILT OF THE OF THE HOLE WHERE THAT PIPE SHOULD BE, YOU DON'T HAVE VERY GOOD CONFIDENCE THAT IT WOULD BE LOWER THAN WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. IT'S VERY LIKELY. WOULD YOU COULD YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD GO THROUGH THE ADDED EXPENSE OF THIS AND COME UP WITH THE WITH THE SAME CONCLUSION OF THE PIPE IS WHERE IT BELONGS, AND IT WOULD. AND THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE. AND THEREFORE YOU WOULD HAVE WENT THROUGH THE EXERCISE FOR DETERMINING THAT THE PIPE IS IN THE CORRECT SPOT, CORRECT AS PER THE. AND. AND THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT. AND YOU CAN'T USE THE. FOR MY CLARITY, YOU CAN'T USE THE, YOU KNOW, THE IMMEDIATE DITCH ON EITHER SIDE OF IT BECAUSE THROUGH CLEANINGS OVER THE YEAR COULD HAVE OVER DUG THAT DITCH AND MADE THAT LOWER IS WHAT'S MAKING IT LOOK LIKE THAT. THERE'S WATER HOLDING ON IN FRONT OF THAT, THAT CULVERT, BECAUSE IT WAS JUST LIKELY CLEANED OVER, CUT, CLEANED AT SOME POINT IN TIME, MAYBE. CORRECT? YEAH. AND I MEAN, AGAIN, WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE FULL RECORD, I DON'T KNOW. I COULDN'T CONCLUSIVELY SAY ON THAT OR BUT I WOULD SAY THE EVIDENCE I'VE SEEN SO FAR WOULD LEND ME TO SAY THAT. YEAH, YOU'RE CORRECT ON ALL THAT, THAT MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THE ELEVATION AT THE CULVERT WAS SET IS THE AS CONSTRUCTED ELEVATION. [00:25:04] MADAM CHAIR, MAY I THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT TODAY. THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO SATISFY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE SITTING BEHIND YOU. I WOULD GUESS. BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS IF WE WERE TO TAKE THE RAW LIGHT OPTION, WOULD EVERYONE ON THE SYSTEM HAVE TO AGREE THAT THAT IMPROVEMENT NEEDS TO BE MADE? I WOULD SAY AGAIN THAT I WOULDN'T BE PERSONALLY COMFORTABLE WITH PROVIDING A REPORT THAT WOULD BE THE RAW LIGHT ONE IN THIS CASE. AND YOU KNOW, I GUESS YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK TO YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL AS TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD NEED IN ORDER TO, TO HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THAT WITH POTENTIALLY DISAGREEMENT AMONGST LANDOWNERS. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ASK THAT QUESTION OF YOU, MICHEL. SO DOES IT MAKE SENSE THAT EVERYONE ON THE SYSTEM WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO HAVE THIS STUDY DONE BEFORE WE WOULD ACT ON IT? MR. CHAIR, THE. THE JOB OF THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY IS TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED UPON THE THE THE NEEDS OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. AND SO THE BOARD, BASED UPON THE PRESENTATION TODAY, WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THAT DECISION. WE GENERALLY DON'T SURVEY AND TAKE VOTES FROM THE INDIVIDUAL LANDOWNERS. THE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION IN THE PROCESS. SO IF YOU WERE GOING IF AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN, IF YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE STUDY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE GRADES WOULD BE BY STUDYING, YOU KNOW, MORE OF THE DITCH CULVERTS ABOVE AND BELOW IT AND DETERMINE WHAT YOU THINK THAT FLOW LINE SHOULD BE. AS YOU SAID, THAT'S AN ESTIMATED $30,000 COST PERHAPS, WHICH HOW DOES THAT HOW WOULD THAT PLAY OUT IN TERMS OF WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING OUT THERE RIGHT NOW? I'M ASSUMING THAT MNDOT, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT WOULD TAKE TO DO THAT. AND THEN WOULD MNDOT HOLD OFF ON PLACING THIS CULVERT IN THIS SPOT UNTIL WE GATHERED THAT INFORMATION OR I GUESS SETH OR WHOEVER? DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING AT? WHAT HAPPENS HERE AND HOW DOES IT HAPPEN? FROM OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH MNDOT, MNDOT DOES NOT WANT A CULVERT TO GO IN AT A WRONG ELEVATION. THEY HAVE SUSPENDED INSTALLATION OF THIS CULVERT. BUT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY ON WHAT IS THIS ELEVATION TO BE? I MEAN, WE GOT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THEY HAVE A SIGNED ORDER BY THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY, AND THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS TO ESTABLISH THAT, AND THEY'VE DEVELOPED THEIR PLANS. THEY'VE AWARDED TO A CONTRACTOR, AND THE CONTRACT IS IS UNDERWAY TO GO THROUGH THE EXTENSIVE PROCESS TO REESTABLISH THE RECORDS AND DETERMINE THIS. THIS ESSENTIALLY, MNDOT WOULD COMPLETELY DELAY INSTALLATION OF THIS CULVERT UNTIL WHENEVER AN ORDER WOULD COME FROM THE BOARD TELLING THEM WHAT TO PUT THIS, WHAT ELEVATION PUT THIS CULVERT IN. THAT'S GOING TO. WE DON'T KNOW THIS. THEY HAVEN'T ASKED IT, BUT I'D. I'M 99.9% SURE THAT THEY WOULD COME BACK AND ASK THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY OR REQUIRE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY TO PAY THE DELAY COSTS OF THIS CULVERT INSTALLATION. AND SO THEY NEED TO FINISH THEIR PROJECT THIS YEAR IF THE PROJECT'S COMPLETELY HELD OFF. THERE'S BOX CULVERT SECTIONS SITTING OUT THERE TO BE INSTALLED. THOSE WOULD HAVE TO BE PICKED UP, HAULED, STORED. THE DOT ISN'T QUITE SURE IF THEY WOULD KEEP THEIR CONTRACT OPEN TO INSTALL THIS LATER NEXT YEAR USING THE SAME CONTRACTOR, WHICH THERE WOULD BE I'M SURE CLAIMS AND NEGOTIATED CHANGES FOR THE DELAY. OR THEY WOULD COMPLETELY REBID A SMALL PROJECT TO INSTALL THIS CULVERT, ALL THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEY HAVE A CONTRACT FOR NOW, I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD COME BACK TO THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY TO PAY THOSE COSTS. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE DRAINAGE SOCIETY NEEDS TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. IT'S NOT ONLY THE APPROXIMATELY $30,000 TO REESTABLISH THE RECORD, [00:30:06] IT WOULD BE THOSE POTENTIAL CLAIMS AND DELAY COSTS THAT GO ALONG WITH WITH THE CONSTRUCTION. AND JUST TO CLARIFY THAT ULTIMATELY BE PAID BY THE LANDOWNERS ON THE AFFECTED DITCH. OKAY. SETH OR CHRIS, HAVE YOU HAD OCCASION TO OBSERVE WITH THE IMPACT OF THIS CULVERT HEIGHT HAS BEEN WHEN IT COMES TO POOLING WATER, BACKING UP WATER INTO FARMERS FIELDS. AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD A LANDOWNER DISCUSS HOW THE STANDING WATER HAS IMPACTED HIS YIELD AND JUST THINKING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF WATER WE'VE BEEN GETTING AND HOW MUCH WATER WE'RE ALREADY MOVING AND FORECASTING INTO THE NEXT FEW YEARS, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? WE CAN EXPECT THIS PARTICULAR CULVERT. I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT. SO YOU KNOW, PART OF THAT WOULD DEPEND ON WHAT IS OUT THERE FOR DRAIN TILE OUTLETS AND OTHER ITEMS THAT LANDOWNERS MAY HAVE PUT IN TO PUT THEIR WATER OUT INTO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF THIS CULVERT. AND PRESUMABLY IF THIS CULVERT HAS BEEN THERE NOW FOR 70, YOU KNOW, PLUS YEARS I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF TILE OUTLETS THAT WOULD BE PUT IN LOWER THAN WHAT THIS CULVERT IS RIGHT NOW. I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, LOWERING THE CULVERT COULD POSSIBLY RELIEVE SOME YOU KNOW, DRAINAGE ISSUES OF WATER BACKING UP INTO THOSE TILES OR THE PERFORMANCE OF THOSE TO SOME FRACTIONAL AMOUNT. HOW MUCH THAT IS, I DON'T KNOW. AND I WOULDN'T KNOW UNLESS I ACTUALLY SAW THAT OUT THERE, BUT I SUSPECT THAT LOWERING THE CULVERT PROBABLY ISN'T GOING TO HAVE AS GREAT OF EFFECT AS PEOPLE MAY THINK IT DOES. AGAIN, BECAUSE OF HOW LONG IT'S BEEN THERE AND BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY THE WATER THAT'S UNDERNEATH THE CULVERT IS A DEAD SINK THAT REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT FLOW AT ALL. AND SO IT'S NEITHER GOING TO CREATE MORE WATER DOWNSTREAM, NOR IS IT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S COMING FROM UPSTREAM. IT JUST MIGHT POTENTIALLY RELIEVE SOME OF THAT ELEVATION AT VARIOUS STORM EVENTS, BACKING UP INTO TILE OUTLETS THAT WERE INSTALLED, KNOWING THAT THIS CULVERT WAS THERE ALREADY. SO AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN A KNOWN CONDITION FOR 70 YEARS. I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT LOWERING IT IS GOING TO MAKE A BIG CHANGE. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE. SO JUST TO REITERATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THAT DITCH HAS HELD WATER FOR 70 YEARS AND IT CAN STILL HOLD WATER WITHOUT A MAJOR IMPACT ON LANDOWNERS. CORRECT. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? WELL, THE LAST COMMENT I MAKE IS I THINK IF I RECALL RIGHT, WHAT THEY WERE REALLY LOOKING FOR IN TERMS OF NOT I MEAN, I DON'T THINK THEIR INTENT WAS TO LOWER THE CULVERT PER SE. IT WAS JUST TO PUT IT IN LEVEL AT THE HEIGHT OF THE LOWER END, WHICH IS KIND OF LIKE IN IN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME, THE LOWER END IS 5/10 LOWER THAN THE HIGHER END. SO IT WOULD BE JUST LOWERING ONE SIDE SIX INCHES. CORRECT. JUST I'M NOT TAKING AWAY THE SLANT. CORRECT. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY TALKING ABOUT. JUST, YOU KNOW, THEY YOU KNOW, IT WAS PUT IN, AS I RECALL, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THEY THOUGHT, WELL, IT EITHER SETTLED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND IT COULD HAVE LIKELY ENDED UP A LITTLE LOWER JUST BECAUSE OF THE WORK THEY DID BY MOVING ONE FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER. BUT IF THEY NEVER MOVED THE CENTER SECTION, THEN I'M ASSUMING THAT THE CENTER SECTION NEVER REALLY MOVED, BUT THE LOWER SECTION COULD HAVE GOT SET A LITTLE LOWER, WHICH COULD HAVE ENDED UP WITH THAT SIX INCH LOWER END. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THIS IN TERMS OF BUT IT'S GOT TO COME KURT FROM 962 TO 954, WHICHEVER DIRECTION THAT IS. RIGHT. OR DOES IT GO? THE WATER IS FLOWING. THE BOTTOM ONE. I'M SORRY. THE 962 IS THE UPPER END OF THE TILE. THE 954 IS THE BOTTOM RIGHT 4.7 TO 950 4.2. [00:35:05] I'M READING NINE 60. OKAY. PROPOSED TO THE HEADWATER. I'M SORRY. THAT'S WHERE YOU GET YOUR HALF. HALF A FOOT 9.5427 TO 9 950 477. SO IT'S COMING FROM THIS SIDE TO DRAIN THAT WAY. THE DIFFICULT PART WOULD BE IS AGAIN, GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS. AND WHAT COULD POSSIBLY BE THE COST THAT COULD BE INCURRED TO END UP AT THE EXACT SAME ELEVATION? CORRECT. IS THE TOUGH DECISION PART. AND I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING FROM CHRIS IS, IS HE'S NOT CONFIDENT THAT HE WOULD SEE THAT MUCH OF A CHANGE AND OR, OR ANY CHANGE IN ELEVATION. AND HEAVEN FORBID THAT IT WAS FOUND THAT IT WOULD GO IN AN INCH HIGHER. SO AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE TO DECIDE TO DO NOTHING OR MOVE FORWARD. CAN WE HEAR FROM LANDOWNERS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR THEIR RESPONSE TO WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE TODAY? SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP AND AND PUT YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS INTO THE MICROPHONE SO WE HAVE YOU ON RECORD. SO IS THERE ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME? TOM EKBERG. TOM EKBERG TILING, LLC. YOU. MANY OF THESE FOLKS ARE MY CUSTOMERS. I'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF REPAIRS ON THEIR SYSTEMS UPSTREAM. CONLON'S HERZBERG'S ANNEXED ED'S AND WE CAN GO RIGHT DOWN THE PLAT BOOK. THEY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DITCH BEING THE LEVEL IT IS IN SOME OF THEIR LOWLANDS, BECAUSE THE TILE CAN ONLY BE PUT IN VERY SHALLOW TWO FEET OR LESS. OPTIMUM WOULD BE FOUR FEET IN THOSE LOW AREAS. AND WE WOULD NEED, WE WOULD NEED THAT CULVERT TO BE LOWERED. AND THERE'S, THERE'S ALL THIS THE LEGALITIES, BUT IT'S A SIMPLE PROCESS. MY CREW COULD DO IT IN ONE DAY. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT SET UP TO DO IT, BUT WE'RE MAKING A MOUNTAIN OUT OF SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T BE SUCH A BIG DEAL. AND THE $30,000 COST TO TO GET THINGS REASSESSED. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY YOU PROBABLY HAVE ONE FARMER UPSTREAM THAT MAYBE LOSE $30,000 IN A YEAR, LET ALONE 70 YEARS. SO I THINK YOU, YOU PROBABLY NEED TO HEAR FROM FROM THESE FARMERS THAT ARE AFFECTED. THEY PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE DITCH SYSTEM. THEY NEED THE BENEFIT. THEY PAY THE TAXES. I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME INPUT AS FAR AS ELEVATIONS WITH GPS. WHY CAN'T YOU GO DOWN TO COUNTY ROAD 20 OR COUNTY ROAD? IS IT 75? GET THE ELEVATION THERE. GO UP TO HIGHWAY 22. LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL PLAN. AND IF IT SAYS IT'S AT A HALF A 10TH GRADE OR WHATEVER IT IS, DO THE MATH. YOU DON'T HAVE TO REEVALUATE OR RESURVEY EVERYTHING. I WOULD THINK IT COULD BE DONE IN TWO HOURS. YOU WOULD HAVE THE THE ELEVATIONS. IT DOESN'T TAKE WEEKS AND YEARS. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. SO I'M JUST THAT'S MY INPUT FOR MY CUSTOMERS. AND LET'S SEE WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. FRED MILLER. I AM ON THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THAT, AND MY THINKING IS THAT IT'S BEEN WRONG FOR 76 YEARS. [00:40:06] HOW HARD IS IT TO GO TO THE VERY POINT OF UPSTREAM? FIND THE BOTTOM. IT DOESN'T TAKE VERY LONG TO DO THAT. GO TO THE OUTPUT SIDE OR ON THE LOWER END WHERE IT DRAINS IN. GET THAT ELEVATION AND THEN START DOING THE MATH BACKWARDS. JUST COME TO THIS CULVERT. YOU SAY THAT THIS THING HASN'T BEEN MOVED ON THE CENTER LINE SINCE 1949. WHO KNOWS? BECAUSE OF TECHNOLOGY TODAY, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT CENTER LINE DRAINAGE POINT WAS AT THE RIGHT POINT. NOW WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. AND PUT IT BACK IN AGAIN. AND I'M THINKING IT'S AT THE WRONG POINT WITH ELEVATION. GO FROM THE START OF IT TO THE END OF IT. FIGURE OUT YOUR GRADE, YOUR FLOW LINE. AND THAT PIPE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE BOTTOM OF THAT PIPE. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH. IT WORKS BETTER IF IT'S BELOW THAT SO THE WATER FLOW CAN GO THROUGH. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. THAT PIPE IS BIG ENOUGH. IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE FULL WHERE IT'S GOING TO OVERFLOW. WOULD YOU AGREE? THIS PIPE RIGHT HERE ON THE SIZE OF THAT PIPE. I GUESS IN ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, THEY DID CREATE A ELEVATION 100 YEAR ELEVATION THAT IS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER THE TOP OF THE PIPE. SO YEAH, IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE ROAD WILL OVERFLOW. YEAH. I THINK WE NEED TO. THERE'S PEOPLE IN HERE THAT HAVE GOT A WHOLE LOT OF MORE SMARTS ON TECHNOLOGY THAN I DO, BUT COMMON SENSE JUST EXACTLY. LIKE I SAID. FIND OUT THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH FROM THE BEGINNING, WHAT WAS DESIGNED TO DRAIN OUR LAND AND GO FROM THERE. AND IT'S ALMOST A FLAT GRADE. IT'S WHAT, 10TH, WHICH IS PRETTY FLAT, BUT BEYOND THAT, TO THE NORTH, IT SPEEDS UP, IT'S GOT A LOT MORE FLOW, SO IT WOULDN'T TAKE MUCH. AND IT CERTAINLY DON'T TAKE RE-ENGINEERING TO ME TO EXCAVATE IT AND LOWER THE PIPE. NOW WHEN IT'S IN THE PROCESS OF BEING CHANGED. OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO BE SITTING HERE HAVING THE SAME PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR QUITE SOME TIME. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF HAVING THE DITCH CLEANED TO HELP US GET BETTER DRAINAGE. BUT IF WE RESTRICT THAT WATER FLOW, WE'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT BACK AT THE SAME THING. AS WE ARE TODAY. SO LET'S DO IT RIGHT. OTHERWISE EVERYBODY UPSTREAM SHOULD COME BACK TO THIS WATER DRAINAGE BOARD AND SAY WE WANT DAMAGES. WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY FOR 76 YEARS. OUR TAXES PER ACRE ARE THE SAME DAMN THING AS IT IS WHEN THE DITCH WOULD WORK. THAT'S WRONG. WE NEED TO WRITE IT AND NOW'S THE TIME TO DO IT. ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. MAY I. FRED? MAY I. MADAM CHAIR. THANKS, FRED. COULD YOU JUST BRIEFLY SPEAK TO ANY RECENT EXPERIENCES YOU HAVE HAD WITH THIS WATER NOT DRAINING? THE WAY THAT YOU WANT IT TO. ANY BACKUP, ANY STANDING WATER IN YOUR FIELDS THAT HAVE REDUCED YIELDS, ETC.. WELL, I COULD TAKE SNAPSHOTS FROM THE FSA OFFICE THAT SHOW BLACK HOLES OUT IN THE FIELDS. I DON'T GO OUT THERE. I FARM AND I, I IN PRODUCTION AGRICULTURE. I TAKE WHAT I GET. BUT WHEN MOTHER NATURE DROWNS IT OUT, I GET NOTHING. I'VE GOT A THOUSAND PLUS DOLLARS AN ACRE TO PUT THE CROP IN, AND I GET NOTHING OUT OF IT. THAT'S WHY WE ESTABLISHED DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND WE NEED THEM TO WORK. AND TO MAKE IT WORK. WE NEED IT TO BE CORRECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. [00:45:07] ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK? MY NAME IS GARY MILLER. I'M A LANDOWNER IN THE AREA AND I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY OPINIONS. THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY IS CHARGED WITH THE AUTHORITY AND HAS A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE FOR THE LAND. THE PURPOSE IS TO MAKE THE LAND MORE PRODUCTIVE. THE LANDOWNERS WANT TO PAY TAXES. THE TAXES PAY FOR THE POLICEMEN. THEY PAY FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION. WE WANT TO GET THIS LAND PRODUCTIVE. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY, THE DITCH SHOULD BE LOWERED. IT NEEDS TO PROVIDE DRAINAGE FOR THE LAND. WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT PAYING $30,000 TO DO A STUDY ON THE ODD 10% CHANCE THAT IT IS LOWERED TOO FAR. $30,000 COULD PUT IN A DAM TO BRING IT BACK TO WHERE YOU WANT IT TO BE. I THINK GOING THROUGH A YEAR WORTH OF STUDIES WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME. I THINK THERE'S OTHER OPTIONS TO BE DONE WITH THIS, BUT THE DITCH AUTHORITY IS CHARGED WITH DRAINING THE LAND. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE DITCH AUTHORITY. AND I BELIEVE THAT THIS DITCH SHOULD BE LOWERED. IT HASN'T WORKED FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? MATT HERBERG, WE FARM IN THE JUST RIGHT AROUND THIS CULVERT HERE. YOUR QUESTION BEFORE WAS THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE IS DONE. LAST YEAR WE HAD 30 ACRES OUT OF 80 THAT WAS COMPLETELY ZEROED BECAUSE THE WATER COULDN'T DRAIN. AND THAT WAS JUST ONE FIELD. AND THERE WAS OTHER FIELDS THAT WERE HAD SIMILAR RESULTS BECAUSE OF IT. SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT NOTE. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS GRANT, A SAINT PETER ADDRESS. LAKE PRAIRIE TOWNSHIP IS WHERE WE RESIDE. AND THE SPEAKER JUST UP HERE WAS MATT HERBERG. AND WE FARM IN THAT AREA AROUND THAT DITCH TOO. WE OWN LAND IN THERE, AND WE ALSO RENT LAND. IT'S ABOUT 535 ACRES ARE COMBINED BETWEEN RENTED AND OWNED IN THAT AREA. AND I BELIEVE LAST YEAR WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 55 ACRES DROWNED OUT. THIS YEAR WE HAD A 4.5IN RAIN HERE, KIND OF TOWARDS THE END OF MAY. PROBABLY GOT ABOUT 30 ACRES ROUNDED OUT THIS YEAR. SO IT'S THE FLOW, GETTING THE WATER AWAY QUICKER RATHER THAN HAVING IT BACK UP. SO AND BY THE WAY, FRED MILLER IS A GOOD SPOKESMAN FOR US. HE'S BEEN AROUND THAT AREA FOR A LONG TIME. HE PROBABLY HE WAS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT SMALLER WHEN THE 1949, YOU KNOW, SO HE PROBABLY SAW THE ORIGINAL CULVERT INSTALLED. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK. HEARING AND SEEING NONE. WE CAN MOVE ON TO OUR ORIGINAL TASK. OUR CHOICES. MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MICHELLE OR FOR FOR CHRIS OR WHOEVER, BUT. SO WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE NUMBER? I MEAN, WHAT WHAT LEVEL? I MEAN, IS IT ARE YOU LOOKING. ARE THEY LOOKING FOR SIX INCHES LOWER ON THE ONE END OF THE PIPE? SO IT'S SO IT'S SO IT'S LEVEL. I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS OR THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT WAS FROM THE FIRST MEETING. LOWERING THE, THE ONE END SIX INCHES TO MATCH THE, THE OUTLET SIDE OR IS IT ASKING FOR IT TO GO LOWER THAN SIX INCHES? AND CAN WE, CAN WE JUST ARBITRARILY MAKE THAT DECISION OR IS IT A FULL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE SYSTEM? YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, I'M ASKING WHAT WE CAN DO. I'M. CAN WE JUST SAY SIX INCHES LOWER AND THAT, YOU KNOW, LOWER THE ONE INCH, SIX INCHES AND THAT SOLVES EVERYBODY'S PROBLEM. WE DON'T EVEN DO A $30,000 STUDY. AND AND IT GOES IN AND WE MOVE ON. CHRIS. MADAM CHAIR. SO I HEARD THE COMMENT FROM THE LANDOWNERS AND I CAN DEFINITELY EMPATHIZE WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING. I THINK THAT IF THIS WAS A, YOU KNOW, A FIELD CROSSING SOMEWHERE ALONG [00:50:05] THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, I THINK THAT IT PROBABLY WOULD BE OR COULD BE ALMOST AS EASY AS THAT. WHERE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY WOULD SAY, WELL, THIS, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE HERE. YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROBLEM AGAIN, HERE IS THE A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE IS, YOU KNOW, THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE SHOWING HERE OF WHERE THE ORIGINAL CULVERT ELEVATION WAS INSTALLED. BUT THE OTHER THING IS THAT THIS IS MNDOT'S CULVERT. THIS ISN'T THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY'S CULVERT, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALONG THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND SO MNDOT IS TAKING, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE TAKING UPON THEMSELVES TO REPLACE THIS FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES RIGHT NOW. FOR THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY TO SAY TO MNDOT, THIS NEEDS TO BE LOWER. YOU NEED TO PAY FOR THE COST OF DOING THAT. AND YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRES THE AUTHORITY TO SAY THIS IS AN OBSTRUCTION COMPARED TO THE ORIGINALLY DESIGNED CONDITION. I THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH HURDLE TO GET PAST. I THINK THAT WHAT THE LANDOWNERS ARE ASKING FOR AND HAVING THE CULVERT LOWER PROBABLY WOULD BE FITTING UNDERNEATH AN IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDING, WHICH IS SOMETHING THAT THE LANDOWNERS COULD PETITION FOR IF THEY WANTED TO, AS TO IMPROVE THE SYSTEM BY LOWERING THE CULVERT, LOWERING THE DITCH BOTTOM, GOING DOWNSTREAM, MAKING PROVIDING ESSENTIALLY LOWER AND BETTER DRAINAGE ALL THE WAY THROUGH THERE, BUT IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A AN IMPROVEMENT PROCEEDING, WHICH IS SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT, HAS TO BE INITIATED BY THE LANDOWNERS THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM IT AND WOULD HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST 26% OF THE LANDOWNERS THAT WOULD GET BENEFIT FROM IT. SO WE OFTEN FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE WE TALK ABOUT WHAT'S COMMON SENSE AND JUST DO IT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? AND JUST, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE EASY, YOU KNOW, AND THEN WE, WE ALWAYS FIND OURSELVES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT. WELL, WE KNOW IT SHOULD BE EASY, BUT THEN THERE'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS WE CAN DO. YOU KNOW WHAT THE DOT SAYS WE CAN DO. IT'S WHAT THE DNR SAYS WE CAN DO. AND THEN WHEN WE WHEN WE FIND OURSELVES ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THAT, THEN HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET SUED? HOW ARE THE LANDOWNERS GOING TO GET SUED? I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST AS I MEAN, I'M PREACHING A LITTLE BIT. I MEAN, IT'S NOT JUST AS EASY AS US COMING UP HERE AND SAYING, YEAH, I MEAN, I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO IT. I'M ASKING WHAT WE CAN DO. I MEAN, IF IT'S JUST AS EASY AS SAYING WE CAN LOWER IT, THAT ONE AND SIX INCHES AND AND EVERYTHING GOES AWAY. I'LL I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. BUT I, I MEAN, IN TERMS OF THE RAMIFICATIONS FOR THIS BOARD, THIS COUNTY AND FOR YOU LANDOWNERS, WHEN WE GET WHEN WE GET SUED, WE NEED TO TALK THROUGH ALL THOSE SCENARIOS BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE DON'T PAY FOR THIS. THE LANDOWNERS PAY FOR THIS. SO IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT MAKING THE BEST DECISION FOR THE LANDOWNER. WHETHER THEY LIKE THE DECISION OR NOT, YOU KNOW. SO IT YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS WE ALWAYS FIND OURSELVES IN THIS IMPOSSIBLE DECISION OF MAKING THE DECISION THAT YOU WANT BASED ON WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T DO. AND UNFORTUNATELY, THE 103 E STATUTES WERE ALSO CONSTRUCTED IN 1949 AND HAVE NOT CHANGED. THEY DON'T ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY. THEY'RE NOT. MODERNIZED, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM. WE ARE PRETTY MUCH HANDCUFFED. WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHEN WE CAN DO IT. LET ME ASK THIS SCENARIO. YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY EVERYBODY'S TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SITUATION WHERE WE'RE WORKING ON THIS RIGHT NOW AND NOT GOING THROUGH EXTENDED COST AND EVERYTHING, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE MAKING LOWERING THIS OR POSSIBLY SOUNDS LIKE IT NEEDS TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT PETITION. CORRECT. IT NEEDS TO BE. IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT, NOT A REPAIR. I MEAN, I, I EMPATHIZE WITH FRED AND HE MIGHT BE RIGHT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED WRONG, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW? I MEAN, HOW DO WE PROVE IT AND HOW DO WE GET THERE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH AGAIN? IT'D BE GREAT IF YOU JUST TOOK A MEASUREMENT ON THE CULVERT ABOVE, AND TOOK A MEASUREMENT ON THE CULVERT BELOW AND SNAPPED A LINE, AND WHERE IT WENT THROUGH IT WOULD BE GREAT. I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW. BUT SO THINKING THROUGH HOW THIS WOULD HAVE TO HAPPEN IN ORDER FOR US NOT TO GET SUED BY THE STATE OF MINNESOTA FOR HOLDING UP THEIR ROAD PROJECT OR PAYING FOR THAT COST MEANS PUTTING IT IN THE WAY IT IS GOING THROUGH THROUGH THE PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT PROCESS, AND THEN TRYING TO IMPROVE THAT CULVERT ONCE IT'S INSTALLED WITHOUT WITHOUT TAKING THE ROAD OUT, WHICH YOU CAN DO BE DIFFICULT. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, YOU CAN, YOU CAN REPLACE A CULVERT AND LOWER IT IN A [00:55:01] ROAD WHILE THE ROAD'S STILL THERE, YOU KNOW, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S LESS THAN IDEAL. YEAH. AND TO THAT END IN CASES LIKE THIS WHERE WE'VE HAD OVERSIZE LARGE CULVERTS UNDER A A HIGHWAY WHERE IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE PRACTICABLE TO OPEN THE HIGHWAY UP. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE DONE CULVERTS THAT HAVE BEEN LOWER WHERE WE'VE BORED THE CULVERT, A SMALLER ONE THROUGH THE ROADWAY AT A LOWER ELEVATION TO GET THAT RELIEF THROUGH THERE. AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS THE BEST SOLUTION, BUT IT IS A SOLUTION. IT'S BEEN DONE. SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DONE HERE. BUT AGAIN LOOKING AT WHAT I CAN SEE HERE, LIKELY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A PETITION FROM THE LANDOWNERS FOR IMPROVEMENT TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IF THEY WERE TO PETITION FOR AN IMPROVEMENT, WE'D STILL HAVE TO RECREATE THE RECORDS. NO, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU NECESSARILY WOULD. NO, REALLY. IT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY TO REESTABLISH REESTABLISHED RECORDS, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT DECREASES RISK THAT SOMEBODY WOULD CHALLENGE THE ELEVATION OR THE ALIGNMENT. MADAM CHAIR, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER DEHEN HAS TO LEAVE. COULD I JUST GET A QUICK REVIEW OF WHEN THIS TOPIC FIRST CAME UP FOR CONVERSATION, FOR DEBATE? BECAUSE THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME LANDOWNERS HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THEIR CONCERNS BEFORE THE BOARD. RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ENTIRE HISTORY OF WHEN THIS SYSTEM WOULD HAVE COME BEFORE THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY. FOR OTHER CLEANINGS OR OTHER ACTION, THERE WAS THE PETITION THAT THE D O T BROUGHT IN 2022. AND THEN SO THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY THEN. AND THEN THE NEXT THAT I THINK IT'S COME BEFORE THIS BOARD. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS LAST TUESDAY. I DON'T THINK THERE WERE ANY PROCEEDINGS BETWEEN 2022 AND LAST WEEK IN 2022. WOULD THE LANDOWNERS WHO WOULD BE IMPACTED WERE THEY ALERTED TO THEIR OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THIS PROJECT? THERE WERE NOTICE. I DON'T KNOW WHO IT ALL WENT TO, BUT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICE OF THAT PROCEEDING. CORRECT. AND THAT PROCEEDING WAS EVERY CULVERT ON EVERY DITCH ON HIGHWAY 22. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS EVERY CULVERT, BUT IT WAS THIS CULVERT ON HIGHWAY 22. I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE OF PETITIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT AT THAT TIME FOR THIS PROJECT. I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS EVERY. I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT 62 WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT. JACKIE. YES, I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH MR. MILLER A MONTH OR SO AGO ABOUT THIS AS WELL. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT MEETING AND THERE WERE SEVERAL DITCHES ON THE ONE PETITION. AND THAT WE HAVE THE LANDOWNERS THAT, THAT CAME TO THE MEETING. WE, WE WATCHED THE MEETING. I LISTENED TO IT OVER THERE. IT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP ABOUT THIS CONCERN. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO, MADAM CHAIR, GOING DOWN. WHAT COMMISSIONER ZINS SAID, IF THE MNDOT GOES AHEAD AND INSTALLS THIS CULVERT OR DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO THE LEVEL OF THE CULVERT, FIXES THE ROAD, LANDOWNERS CAN GO AHEAD AND PETITION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT. CORRECT. AND IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE A SYSTEM WIDE. OR WOULD IT HAVE TO BE SYSTEM WIDE? PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THIS OR WHO HAVE LAND ON THIS KNOW. I'M LOOKING AT THE COUNTY ATTORNEY JUST TO VERIFY. AN IMPROVEMENT PETITION HAS TO BE SIGNED BY 26% OF LANDOWNERS THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THE IMPROVEMENT. AND THERE'S THERE'S FOUR DIFFERENT CRITERIA THAT HAVE TO BE MET IN ORDER TO MEET THE CRITERIA TO HAVE A PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT MOVE FORWARD. OKAY. SO DOES IT HAVE TO BE EVERYBODY ON THE SYSTEM THAT SIGNS OFF ON IT? NO, BUT IT HAS TO BE A SPECIFIC PERCENTAGE OF LANDOWNERS THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THE IMPROVEMENT. WELL, JUDGING BY THE FOLKS WHO ARE ATTENDING TODAY, THAT SEEMS LIKE THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE ATTAINED. [01:00:03] AND THEN AS KURT SAID, THAT IF IT WAS FOUND THAT THAT CULVERT IS CATTYWAMPUS OR SLANTED THE WRONG WAY AND IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED AND PAID FOR BY THE LANDOWNER'S RIGHT TO INSTALL THIS NEW CULVERT. EVEN THOUGH IT'S A MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CULVERT. YES. YEAH. IT'S A CULVERT THAT IS REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED BY MNDOT, MAINTAINED BY MNDOT. SO IT'S THEIR CULVERT IN THESE FOLKS DITCH SYSTEM. CORRECT. SO THERE WOULD BE EXPENSE TO THAT KURT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN CERTAINLY. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT WEEK. RIGHT. THE WHOLE PROCESS OF ASKING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, PETITIONING FOR THE IMPROVEMENT, IF THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WE USE. CORRECT. WELL, MY ONLY THOUGHT, ONE OF MY THOUGHT PROCESSES HERE IS ALL THE. AGAIN, I KNOW THAT'S AN ADDED EXPENSE AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST TO, TO, TO BORE THAT ROAD, WHICH WAS, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING AFTER THE FACT, YOU WOULD BE COMING BACK THERE. AND AS CHRIS SAID, PUTTING ANOTHER, ANOTHER CULVERT IN LIKE A RELIEF CULVERT IN ALONGSIDE OF IT TO PICK UP SOME OF THE FLOW AND SOME OF THE LOWER WATER. THE QUESTION IS, OKAY, I KNOW THAT, AGAIN, LANDOWNERS THINK THAT WE COULD COME UP WITH A A LEVEL FOR THAT PIPE CROSSING TO BE PUT IN INSTALLED AT LESS THAN $30,000 THAT COULD OR COULD OR COULD NOT. BUT WHAT ABOUT ALL THE OTHER ASSOCIATED COSTS THAT WE COULD BE FACED WITH HERE BY HOLDING THIS UP, THE COST OF THE DAILY? WHAT'S NOT GOING TO CHARGE US FOR THE OVERRUN? IF THEY CAN'T? IT'S GOING TO BE WAY MORE THAN $30,000. AND IT MIGHT BE IT MIGHT BE THE SAME OR LESS THAN WHAT IT WOULD COST TO JUST DRILL ANOTHER PIPE IN ALONGSIDE THE ROAD AT A LATER DATE. IN OTHER WORDS, GO AHEAD AND FINISH THIS AS IT'S DONE BECAUSE IT'S SO LATE IN THE DAY TO TRY TO GET THIS AND THEN GO DOWN THE PROPER PROCEDURE OF AN IMPROVEMENT THAT PUTS ANOTHER RELIEF CULVERT IN THERE. IT KIND OF GIVES EVERYBODY WHAT THEY WANT. I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT MORE MONEY THAN EASILY SAYING, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN MAKE THE CALL ON JUST SAY, DROP IT SIX INCHES AND PUT IT IN. THAT'S WHAT WE SAY BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO COME AND REAR THEIR UGLY HEAD AND SAY, NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT. YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S THE DNR, THE D O T, YOU KNOW, I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT THE SOLUTION THAT GETS US ALL WHAT WE WANT AT THE THE LEAST PAINFUL WAY, YOU KNOW, TO THE COUNTY AND TO THE TO THE LANDOWNERS. AND IF THAT'S IF THAT'S AN OPTION, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE A CHOICE OTHERWISE WISE, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN. COULD YOU DIAL BACK TO THE FIRST OPTION THAT WE HAVE OR THE OPTIONS THAT ARE BEFORE US? MADAM ATTORNEY, CAN YOU STATE AGAIN WHAT YOU LISTED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING FOR THE OPTIONS THAT WERE BEFORE US? BASED UPON ALL OF THE CONVERSATION THAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED LAST WEEK, YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF TAKING A VOTE TO DO NOTHING AND ALLOW THE PROJECT TO PROCEED. YOU HAVE THE OPTION OF THE REESTABLISHMENT OF RECORDS WHICH IS IDENTIFIED AS OPTION ONE. I THINK OPTION TWO THAT'S IDENTIFIED ON THE SCREEN IS ONLY IN THEORY, BECAUSE I'M HEARING MR. OTTERNESS INDICATE THAT HE WOULD NOT DO THAT WORK FOR US. AND SO THAT WOULD LEAD US TO NEED TO FIND AN ENGINEER THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO DO OPTION TWO. I'M IF I'M MISSPEAKING I, PLEASE CORRECT ME. YEAH, I MEAN, I, IF I DID OPTION TWO, BASICALLY WHAT OPTION TWO WOULD BE, WOULD BE ME PROVIDING A MEMO TO YOU STATING THAT THE CORRECT ELEVATION IS THE ELEVATION OF THE CULVERT, BECAUSE THE PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE IN THAT AREA WOULD BE THE CULVERT BEING AT THE ELEVATION IT'S AT. AND FOR THOSE FOLKS WHO ARE IN ATTENDANCE, I'VE BEEN AROUND HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW, SOME SAY TOO LONG, THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT THE FIRST OPTION, [01:05:04] THAT'S THE ONE THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST. IT MAY NOT ANSWER YOUR NEEDS, BUT IT MAY BE THE BEST. THE DO NOTHING OPTION IS WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. IF I MIGHT ADD, THOUGH, THE DO NOTHING OPTION RIGHT NOW SAYS BASICALLY WE'RE DOING NOTHING RIGHT NOW SO THAT THE ROAD CAN CONTINUE TO. YOU KNOW, 22 CAN STILL BE DONE. THIS PIPE IS GOING TO BE PUT IN. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE'S NOT AN OPTION FOR FOR THE LANDOWNERS TO DO SOMETHING. EXACTLY. THIS PROBLEM. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. WELL, I'M JUST TRYING, YOU KNOW, FOR MY OWN CLARIFICATION TO. AND THEN BUT BACK TO YOUR POINT ABOUT OPTION ONE AND OPTION, YOU KNOW, OPTION ONE ON HERE, REESTABLISHMENT OF THE RECORD, AS YOU SAID, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME WHICH IS GOING TO INCUR ALL THOSE WHAT I CALL PENALTY COSTS. YEAH. AND THEN I WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S STILL THE OPTION. YOU KNOW, THE THREE IS WE WE VOTE TO HAVE IT LOWERED SIX INCHES AND GO IN. BUT THEN I'M LOOKING BACK TO THE. I'M LOOKING BACK TO OUR LEGAL COUNSEL AND OUR EXPERTS FROM HOUSTON. CAN WE EVEN DO THAT? CAN WE SAY THAT? I MEAN, I MEAN, CAN WE DO IT? AND WHAT ARE THE RAMIFICATIONS IF WE DO. AND AND SOMEBODY ELSE COMES BACK AND SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT OR, YOU KNOW, I MEAN. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LEGAL QUESTION. THE EVIDENCE BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW IS THAT YOU ARE PICKING SIX INCHES. IT IS JUST A PICK VERSUS BASED UPON RECORDS THAT ARE ESTABLISHED UNDER 103 E. DID FOLKS HEAR THAT? COULD YOU SAY IT AGAIN, MICHELLE? I'M SORRY. YOU WERE ADDRESSING STRAIGHT TO KURT. 103E PRESCRIBES THE PROCESSES THAT THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY FOLLOWS WHEN ADDRESSING DRAINAGE MATTERS. THEY ARE ANTIQUATED. THEY HAVEN'T KEPT UP WITH MODERN SCIENCE, BUT THAT IS THE STATUTE THAT THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY EXISTS UNDER. IF YOU WERE TO JUST SIMPLY PICK SIX INCHES, YOU ARE PICKING SIX INCHES. IT'S NOT BASED ON A PROCESS IN 103 E. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE THE DUE PROCESS PIECES OF GIVING NOTICE TO ALL LANDOWNERS. AND IT'S NOT A SPECIFIC STATUTORY VEHICLE THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER 103 E. I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER PRACTICAL QUESTION, AT LEAST IN OUR MEETINGS WITH MNDOT. I'M NOT CERTAIN WHAT MNDOT MIGHT DO WITH AN ORDER OR A DIRECTION FROM THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY TO PUT THE CULVERT IN BY WITH A SIX INCH DIFFERENCE. I DIDN'T HEAR THEM SAY THAT THEY NECESSARILY WOULD EMBRACE THAT DECISION FROM THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY. I DOUBT VERY MUCH THAT THEY WOULD JUST EMBRACE THAT. IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A LOT, BUT A HALF A FOOT MAKES AN ENORMOUS DIFFERENCE ALL THE WAY UP TO THE TOP OF THAT ROAD. AND WE CAN'T PREDICT, YOU KNOW, THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF MAKING SUCH A DECISION TODAY. I REALLY EMPATHIZE WITH THE LANDOWNERS AND NOTHING CRUSHES MY SOUL MORE THAN SEEING STANDING WATER OUT THERE. I DON'T LIKE IT EITHER. BUT I THINK WE JUST, WE CAME AT THIS WAY TOO LATE. AND MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO GET TOGETHER AND GET YOUR 23, 26% OF YOU WHO WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT AND COME BACK WITH THAT. LAST QUESTION FROM MICHELLE. JUST BECAUSE I'M SLOW AND I NEED CLARIFICATION, BUT. SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS IF I MADE THE. MADE A MOTION OR A RECOMMENDATION TO LOWER IT SIX INCHES, I WOULD BE. OR THIS BOARD WOULD POTENTIALLY BE IN VIOLATION OF STATUTE 103 E. MY OPINION IS THERE ISN'T A MECHANISM UNDER 103 E FOR THE BOARD JUST TO PICK A SIX INCH NUMBER. THE SECONDARY PRACTICAL PIECE OF THAT WOULD BE THE RESPONSE OF MNDOT TO THAT DECISION. IS THIS AN OPEN DITCH THE ENTIRE SYSTEM? I BELIEVE THERE'S ONE BRANCH THAT IS TILE, IF I'M CORRECT, BUT MOST OF IT IS OPEN CHANNEL AND DURING HEAVY RAIN AMOUNTS IS WHEN YOU GET THIS BOUNCE AND THIS BACKUP. I'M. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE. [01:10:01] I I DON'T KNOW HOW THE SYSTEM PERFORMS. OKAY. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DO SOMETHING OR NOTHING? MADAM CHAIR, I THINK WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE DO NOTHING. THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? THE DISCUSSION THAT I'D LIKE TO HAVE IS TO THANK FRED AND YOUR FELLOW LANDOWNERS FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DITCH AUTHORITY TODAY. I WANT TO THANK OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS FOLKS FOR BEING IN TOUCH WITH THE STATE OF MINNESOTA WITH MNDOT SO THAT THIS CONVERSATION COULD BE HELD WITHIN A WEEK. RIGHT? WAS IT LAST TUESDAY WHEN THIS FIRST CAME TO US? SO THANK YOU FOLKS FOR DOING THAT. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M SORRY THAT WE COULDN'T ACT ON YOUR BEHALF ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE OR HAMSTRUNG BY THE STATUTE. IF YOU UNDERSTAND, I THINK YOU DO. AND I'M SORRY, BUT AS COMMISSIONER ZINS HAS POINTED OUT, COMMISSIONER HELGET AS WELL, YOU DO HAVE SOME CHOICES DOWN THE ROAD IF YOU'D LIKE THEM. YOU'D HAVE TO ASK FOR A PETITION FOR IMPROVEMENT. CORRECT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE THE BOARD? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE CAN ADJOURN THE DRAINAGE AUTHORITY. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.