Wright County Board Minutes
|BOARD OF WRIGHT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OCTOBER 23, 2018
DATE APPROVED: OCTOBER 30, 2018
The Wright County Board met in regular session at 9:00 A.M. with Husom, Daleiden, Potter, Vetsch and Borrell present.
COUNTY BOARD MINUTES 10-16-18
Husom moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Borrell. The motion carried 5-0.
Bob Hiivala, Auditor/Treasurer, petitioned the following to the Agenda: Aud./Treas. Timed Item B5, “Schedule Ditch Committee Of The Whole Meeting RE: Funding Of 2019 Projects & Ditch Inspector.” Potter moved to approve the Agenda as amended, seconded by Husom. The motion carried 5-0.
Borrell made a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. He then referenced Consent Item E1, “Authorize Signatures On Joint Powers Agreement With MN DOC To Hold 3⁄4 Housing Inmates” and asked for more explanation on what this pertains to. Chief Deputy Todd Hoffman said the program is an attempt by the Department of Corrections (DOC) to solve an issue regarding predatory offenders who are at the point of being released into the community but have no job or place to live. The person is being released to the County where the offense occurred, and offenders will not be taken from other locations. The person will live in the Jail, be GPS monitored, and will be allowed to be released at times to find living arrangements and work. If the person does not find housing or work, they are placed back into the prison system. The average time spent is 90 days but last year they had a person for 6 months. The DOC pays the County the regular stipend of $55/day. Vetsch seconded the motion to approve the Consent Agenda, and it carried 5-0:
1. Authorize Attendance At County Board Area Design Meeting With BKV On November 1, 2018 @ 11:00 A.M., County Board Room
1. Acknowledge Warrants Issued Between October 10, 2018 And October 16, 2018
2. Approve Renewal Of 2019 Tobacco Licenses for:
A. City of Albertville: Don’s Auto Service & Repair, Inc
B. City of Otsego: ARF Enterprises, LLC DBA Riverview Liquorette
C. HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
1. Position Replacement
A. Child Support Officer
D. PLANNING & ZONING
1. Accept The Findings And Recommendation Of The Planning Commission For The Following Rezoning:
A. JOE CHENEY - (Silver Creek Twp.) - A Unanimous Vote Passed To Recommend Rezoning From AG General Agricultural And S-2 Residential-Recreational Shorelands To A/R Agricultural-Residential And S-2 Residential-Recreational Shorelands
E. SHERIFF’S OFFICE, JAIL DIVISION
1. Authorize Signatures On Joint Powers Agreement With MN DOC To Hold 3/4 Housing Inmates
F. SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1. Appoint Commissioner Darek Vetsch To Wright County Water Management Task Force, Eff. 10-01-18 Through 12-31-18, Replacing Commissioner Mark Daleiden
TIMED AGENDA ITEMS
CHIEF DEPUTY TODD HOFFMAN, SHERIFF’S OFFICE
Approval Of The 2019 TZD Grant Along With The Resolution Authorizing The Sheriff’s Office To Administer Said Grant
Hoffman stated this is an annual grant used to assist the Sheriff’s Office in enforcement in the areas of DWI, distracted driving, seatbelt use, and the move over law. The grant amount is $26,745 for the period of 10-01-18 through 9-30-19.
Borrell moved to adopt Resolution #18-73 approving the 2019 TZD Grant and authorizing the Sheriff’s Office to administer the Grant. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
BOB HIIVALA, AUDITOR/TREASURER
Approve Minutes From CD 10 Public Hearing On 10-09-18
On a motion by Vetsch, second by Potter, all voted to approve the 10-09-18 County Ditch 10 Public Hearing Minutes, which follow:
The Wright County Drainage Authority met in session at 1:00 P.M. with Husom, Borrell, Daleiden, Potter and Vetsch present.
Others present; Mark Origer and Frank Spartz from ISG; John Kolb from Rinke Noonan; Greg Kryzer, WC Attorney; Matt Detjen, WC Ditch Coordinator; Andrew Grean and Michael Candler from SWCD.
Daleiden called the Public Hearing to order and read the following statement:
This is a public hearing on the reestablishment and correction of Wright County Ditch 10 drainage system records under statutes section 103E.101, subdivision 4a.
I would like to welcome everyone who has come today. Under consideration at this hearing is the reestablishment and correction of the drainage system record Wright County Ditch 10 including defining the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; and the right-of-way of this public drainage system.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the engineer’s investigation and report of findings and receive comment from those affected by the proposed reestablishment and correction of the public drainage system records.
This is an evidentiary proceeding. The proceedings are being recorded to preserve the record.
The order of business for the hearings will be as follows. First, the Drainage Authority’s legal and engineering consultants will present the procedural and legal requirements followed and the engineering analysis of historical records, physical investigation and other evidence supporting its determinations regarding the drainage system record. Following the staff presentation, I will open the hearing for public comment. The Board would like to hear your comments on the proposed reestablishment and correction of the drainage system record and any information relevant to that purpose.
Specifically, the Board is interested in:
• Whether it is missing information used to define the public drainage system
• Whether the recommended alignment, grade or configuration of the ditch creates concerns about loss of drainage benefits
• Whether and how your land drains to the public system
• Whether you have concerns or issues associated with any portion of the public systems crossing your property
• Whether the recommended alignment, grade or configuration of the ditch creates other material concerns the Board should consider prior to adopting the engineer’s recommendation
Though information may be presented regarding the current condition of the drainage system, this hearing is not an appropriate time to discuss issues related to possible, future actions such as a repair. If such actions are warranted, the Drainage Authority will initiate separate proceedings to discuss those issues. However, if you have an immediate concern, we invite you to contact our drainage coordinator, Matt Detjen.
The purpose of this hearing is to review the findings and evidence regarding records defining the alignment, cross-section, profile, hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations, or right-of-way of the drainage systems as originally constructed or subsequently improved.
During the public hearing, commissioners may ask questions of staff or consultants making presentations and of commenters, to clarify any testimony.
In addition, if a member of the public asks a question and a commissioner believes that a response from the Drainage Authority staff or a consultant can readily resolve the question or enrich the testimony, the commissioner may ask me to have the appropriate staff member or consultant speak to the question. I will exercise my judgment as to whether to allow such discussion.
However, commissioners’ expression of their positions and general discussion concerning the subject of the public hearing should be avoided during the public comment portion of the public hearing. Board discussion will occur after all members of the public have had a chance to speak and the public comment period has been closed. Board discussion may occur and be concluded at this or a subsequent meeting, as the Board decides.
If a member of the public would like to make a comment, please stand and address the Board when I recognize you. Speak clearly and state your name and address for the record. If you have a specific question concerning the proposed reestablishment and correction of the public drainage system record, we may ask our administrator, engineer, or legal counsel to respond. If you have anything in writing you wish to submit, you can provide it to me before the close of the public comments and I will note its receipt in the record.
To ensure that all wishing to comment on the proposed reestablishment and correction of the public drainage system record have time to speak, I may limit the time any single speaker may comment to three minutes. Please limit redundant or repetitive comments.
Would any of the board members wish to offer any further remarks before we begin?
Commissioner Borrell wanted the public to know that the drainage authority has been in the process for a long time of completing procedures as far as records being reestablished and ordering the redetermination on County Ditch 10. I know we had an informational meeting in Howard Lake about four years ago. Once the redetermination is complete, there will be a sense of fairness within the watershed whereby every acre of land in a watershed that receives benefits pays for that benefit. We have done some maintenance on County Ditch 10 and unlike a lot of the ditch systems in the county, the process of completing redeterminations is necessary.
Daleiden turned the meeting over to Kryzer who providing the background on the proceedings, the procedures followed, and the legal standard for the decision as follows:
This is a public hearing on the reestablishment and correction of Wright County Ditch 10 drainage system records under Minnesota statutes section 103E.101, subdivision 4a.
The drainage system is in Sections 12, 13, 24 and 25 of Stockholm Township, (T118, R28) Sections 5, 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 23 and 29 of Victor Township (T118, R27) and generally flows in an easterly direction with laterals coming from the north and the south. These laterals include Diers, Tuey, Gilmer, Eddy, Hempel and Sieg. In addition to these laterals are the Montogmery, Aritt, McRoberts and Kritzeck branches. The total length the legal ditch is 83,945 feet.
The system outlets into the western portion of Lake Ann. The total drainage area to the public drainage system is approximately 17,000 acres and is in Sections 1, 2, 3, 10-15, 22-27, 35, and 36 of Stockholm Township; Section 35 and 36 of Cokato Township; Section 31, 32, and 33 of Middleville Township; and Sections 4-10, 15-22, and 28-31 of Victor Townships in Wright County. An additional 3,300 acres drains into the CD 10 mainline via the Twelve Mile Creek Public Watercourse near the outlet into Lake Ann. This includes land from Sections 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 34, 35, and 36 of Victor Township and the lakes of Long and Mary.
The Hess lateral located in Section 6 of Victor Township and Section 12 of Stockholm Township is not a legal part of CD 10 and is not included in this proceeding.
The watershed consists primary of agricultural farmland, open ground pasture, and wetland complexes. The topography throughout the watershed is gently rolling with an elevation difference of approximately 70 feet.
Inspection of drainage system by the Drainage Authority’s staff revealed a lack of written documentation describing elevations and grades throughout the system.
The Drainage Authority’s engineer investigated and drafted a historical and technical analysis for the drainage systems which is contained in the Engineer’s Historical Review Memorandum dated August 30, 2018.
As part of her analysis of the drainage system, the engineer has identified the existing functional alignment, dimension and grade of the drainage system as it provides beneficial public drainage. This functional alignment, dimension, and grade match the basic functional efficiency of the system as designed and established to provide beneficial public drainage.
The engineer has also identified the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage system in its as constructed and subsequently improved state.
The engineer’s study included evaluation of existing records and evidence, including, but not limited to, applicable aerial photographs, soil borings or test pits, culvert dimensions and invert elevations, and bridge design records.
To properly manage the drainage system in a way that recognizes its intended, beneficial public functions, the Drainage Authority initiated proceedings to identify the extent of its jurisdiction over the system as currently existing and providing beneficial public drainage. The Board initiated the records correction process by resolution adopting findings and an order dated July 25, 2017 and assigned number 17-34.
Resolution 17-34 directed the engineer to investigate and report findings defining the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations; materials; dimensions; elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage system.
Pursuant to the requirements of 103E.101, subdivision 4(c), the Board mailed notice of this final hearing to the commissioner of natural resources, the executive director of the Board of Water and Soil Resources, and all property owners benefited or damaged by the drainage systems. Other interested parties were provided notice by publication in the Herald Journal. Evidence of all notices is on file with the Drainage Authority.
Substantive comments received during today’s hearing, if any, will be incorporated into the final findings for the Board.
Evidence of all actions in this matter, including preliminary orders, appointments, oaths, affidavits of mailing, publication or posting as well as hearing agendas and presentation materials shall be considered the record of proceedings in this matter.
At this hearing, the engineer will present his report. The engineer will also provide an explanation of the process and information used to determine the alignment; cross- section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage system.
The intent of this proceeding is to reconcile the historical record of the drainage system with the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage systems as determined by analyzing existing records and evidence, including, but not limited to, applicable aerial photographs, soil borings or test pits, culvert dimensions and invert elevations, field investigation and bridge design records.
Future work on the drainage system will utilize the as-constructed and subsequently improved condition established in these proceedings, as a baseline for determining repair or improvement of the system.
Based on your comments and testimony today, the Drainage Authority may make one or more of the following decisions:
Adopt an order affecting reestablishment and correction of the drainage system records as described in the engineer’s Historical Review Memoranda and Addendum.
Direct the engineer to further review the area or portions of the drainage systems and determine if adjustments should be made to the proposed drainage system records.
Adopt an order rejecting the engineer’s report and directing a new report be conducted.
Direct the engineer to adjust and submit a revised report.
As requested by the Drainage Authority, please limit your comments to the reestablishment and correction of the drainage system records. Comments related to repair of the drainage system are not germane to this public hearing.
The decision standard for the Board is whether, based on the proceedings herein, the evidence presented at this hearing and the testimony of the consulting engineer and the public, the Board finds that the existing and reestablished records together define the alignment; cross-section; profile; hydraulic structure locations, materials, dimensions, and elevations; and right-of-way of the drainage system.
Since there were no questions from the Board members, Kryzer turned the meeting over to Mark Origer, from ISG to present the engineer’s report for the re-establishment of records for County Ditch 10.
Origer began by giving an overview of what he will present today:
• Re-Establishment of Records Process
• Watershed and History
• Ditch Alignment
• Ditch Grade
• Ditch Cross Section
• Right of Way
• Conclusion and
• Address DNR comments submitted in writing
Re-Establishment of Records Process
The process through MN Statue 103E.101 subd 4a allows Drainage Authority to adopt corrected drainage system records.
The original as-built records were non-existent or incomplete-and the legal ditch system was not identifiable.
To re-establish the legal ditch system ISG examined available design records, system meeting notes, soil borings, topographic survey and hydraulic calculations.
To re-establish records ISG examined alignment, grade and cross sections. Also, I want to mention that this is not what the final repairs to CD 10 will be. Additional repair proceedings will follow in the future.
Some of the documentation we went through was the original petition which stated the dates and who the petitioners were, where the laterals were at, and other documentation of the direction and alignments of the system. We also had a long list of what summarizes the list of Commissioners minutes, which give a good background of what happened overtime. However, nothing with technical details on the actual system and how it functioned were found.
We also had design profiles of the entire mainline off original grid paper. Essentially this told us of where the existing ground elevation was and where the legal or established grade was at. This was design and not as-built documentation for the entire mainline.
We did have some as-built documentation for a small section of the mainline between Grass Lake and the Grass Lake WMA in section 18 and 17 of Victor Township. It identified the stationing, the depth of cut and width of cut, and bottom. Again, this was just for a small stretch of the mainline. We also had design documentation of Hess Lateral. That entire Hess lateral was designed but it was not accepted by the Drainage Authority as part of the system in 1908.
In 1944 there was improvements called the Corcoran-Kritzeck Drainage Improvement. That occurred in Hempel Lateral in Victor Township and had full design documentation, profiles cross sections, but again no as-built documentation.
Watershed and History:
The watershed is in Victor, Stockholm, Cokato, and Middleville Townships. There is approximately 3,330 acres that drains in the public watercourse but not through the public drainage system, from Victor Township near Long Lake and Mary Lake.
County Ditch 10 History:
The original petition was filed on September 12, 1904. The engineers and viewers were appointed and finalized their reports in January of 1906. The actual construction of CD 10 began in 1906 and was finalized in 1908. In 1908 there were some landowners that were objecting the construction of the ditch. The as-built was finalized and re-verified in 1908 by the engineer.
In 1944 there was a major improvement titled the Corcoran-Kritzeck Drainage Improvement. This improvement was in section 20 and 29 of Victor Township. This included Hempel Lateral, Aritt, McRoberts, Montgomery, and Kritzeck branches. We had full design documentation of this improvement but did not have the as-built.
In the late 50’s there were repairs to the mainline to remove trees and clean the mainline open ditch. Again, no documentation of repair profiles of what that repair depth or cross section was. There were statements in the Commissioners minutes that said they used a dragline to clean the open ditch to original grade.
In 2006 Howard Lake-Waverly-Winsted School District petitioned the Drainage Authority for an outlet into Kuhlman Lateral. A cleaning of Kuhlman Lateral was done in 2008.
In the original petition we did have a description of the 40-acre tracts of land that were affected by the ditch. It did describe the beginning and end of the mainline open ditch and we were able to use that to piece together approximately where the original alignment of this ditch system was constructed. We used historical aerials from the 1930’s to verify the original open ditch alignment. The Hess Lateral was not included on the 40-40 tracts. The Stith Lateral that was in the public water basin, that was brought up by the DNR, was shown in the original document, but we could not find evidence of it being constructed. Kuhlman Lateral near the outlet did not have a 40-tract shown on the north side of the highway.
Legal Ditch Alignment:
Hess Lateral was rejected in 1905 and not part of the system. Kuhlman Lateral we are recommending that it be adopted as part of the system, although no original documentation exists. There were references throughout the Commissioner minutes describing repairs, alternative alignments and other petitions to that lateral. The Stith Lateral we are not recommending being adopted as original construction could not be verified. It does lie entirely within the public water basin in section 18 of Victor Township. Again, there was an improvement in 1944 which we have the documentation for showing those branches being added in.
With the ditch grade we did perform a lot of field work investigation to come up with where this ditch was originally constructed. We had a full topographic survey of the ditch system which included the center line, the base of the ditch, the tops of the ditch and were able to develop that actual channel shape in geometry. We did soil borings about every 500 feet along the ditch system. This included the mainline, laterals and the branches. What the soil borings consisted of was auguring through the center line of the channel depicting what was accumulated sediment, what was loose organic materials verses what was the firm clay bottom. It was very evident where we found that original design channel.
The original design profile, again no as-built of these grid lines, but we did take the actual profile grade. The original profile did not have any grades labeled on it, but we were able to scale those off the paper and come up with the original legal grade level on that. The 1944 project did have legal grades listed.
The Culverts design plans had no reference to legal grade. Many of the culverts do not line up with the legal grade. Most of them are in poor condition with multiple replacements throughout the years with no documentation. Therefore, we did use these as the primary focus for establishing legal grades.
Example of a Profile:
There are 45 profiles of the entire ditch system that were included with the full report. There is stationing along the mainline of the open ditch showing every 100 feet where the profile matches up. It goes from 0+00 at the outlet to working its way upstream to where it begins. We took the entire profile of the mainline from the design and we drew in the grade breaks that we found and put that up against the whole profile of the ditch. Then we adjusted that profile up and down trying to match as many of the soil boring points that we could and find the line of best fit. We also used this method for the 1944 improvement sections located in Victor Township in section 29.
The other areas of laterals did not have any documentation. Again, we performed the soil borings but, in this case, needed to do a lot more guessing and checking trying to figure out which grade works best where. We looked at how many soil borings we could line up and try to piece together what was originally constructed. We also used the existing topography of the ground and started with that as the base line. Again, trying to find the line of best fit compared to what was originally constructed.
Legal Ditch Grade Summary:
Along the open ditch segments, we have stations every 100 feet along the mainline of the channel where we take an elevation point. At each one of these points we have existing and legal ground grade. Stations start at 0+00 at Lake Ann and extends all the way up into the two to three hundred as it works its way up stream. Same thing for the laterals they start at 0+00 at the mainline, and at the intersection for the lateral when it intersects the mainline the new station starts at 0+00 and goes up as it works its way up stream.
The mainline, where I showed you our line of best fit previously, we had the design profile and went through and found that the mainline had a design grade that nearly matched everything with the soil borings. Except for a small stretch near the outlets into Lake Ann, that was about 12,000 feet at the bottom end of the system. The design grade showed a grade of 0.05%. When we lined that up with the soil borings it went well below our soil borings between 2 and 3 feet and carried that grade from that point to the outlet into Lake Ann it would be about 3 feet below bottom. So, we adjusted that length to a 0.02% grade based on land slope upstream, which matched all the soil borings.
There were other laterals, like I mentioned that relayed solely on the soil borings and we also used the intersection point at the mainline open ditch. Assuming when the ditch was dug, they dug the mainline and then went to that legal or established grade and started digging up along the lateral. So, that was another reference point we used to match up the legal grade on the laterals. On one section along Sieg Lateral that was recently cleaned, it was all fresh clay in that area and we just went to that grade line for the re-established profile.
Other laterals, doing the line of best fit, there was one section on Tuey Lateral that was over dug at the beginning for the stretch of about 100 feet, and we assumed a 0.02% grade based on land slope upstream of 70th Street.
Again, we did have the full design of the Circirab-Kritzeck improvement in 1944 which showed legal grades for the profile. We used that as the baseline for this area and most of the grade lined up perfectly with the soil borings. So, we confirmed the design was correct. There was one area in the upper end of section 29 where Hempel Lateral was shown to be 0.022% grade, however this would put it about 8 feet below the existing ground level through a wetland for which we didn’t find feasible. We did have soil borings that showed it closer to 0.2% and therefore made that correction from the original design. Similar on Aritt Branch, at the upstream end, there is another section that we adjusted from 0.07% to 0.20%.
Ditch Cross Section:
We did have a small area along the mainline that had an as-built that showed this information. It did show the channel bottom, side slope, and cut depths, but everything else did not have this information. We looked at topography survey and historical aerials to determine the cross sections. We have a typical trapezoid ditch section that follows this line area of what was originally constructed. Overtime when you accumulate the sediment you do have a change in the shape of that ditch. So, the actual topography that we shot out there now may not line up with the actual topography from the original design that was dug. As sediment raises up that channel bottom narrows.
What we did for the areas that did not have any information, we completed a cross section analysis. We took a cross section about every 500 feet and were able to line up where the existing side slopes were and extend those down. We are extending those down until we hit the junction where the legal grade elevation was determined. We calculated the average against every grade change to come up with that bottom width.
Right of Way:
No right-of-way documentation was provided in the original as-built documents for the entire system. Based on the previously determined alignments, depth, grade and cross section of the drainage system, the physical area the original ditch occupies, was estimated. The adjacent areas for the original construction could not be identified as no consistent spoil piles or leveling areas were identified along the open ditches.
It should be noted that the legal right-of-way will be updated after the re-determination of benefits and repair construction is complete. This will further identify the legal right-of-way occupied by the open channel, ditch buffer, and construction easement for repair.
This re-establishment of records report outlines the determination of the legal drainage system of County Ditch 10. This report and all attachments shall be kept in the drainage system records and used for reference when any drainage projects are slated to CD 10. While this document clearly identifies the legal drainage system, other repair alternatives may be included into the repair to reduce erosion, sediment, and nutrient loading to the ditch system. Additional permitting or mitigation for wetland impacts may be required through other agencies prior to repairs being completed.
Comments or questions from the Drainage Authority were requested at this time.
Potter commented that if you establish the mainline and the laterals mostly match within the mainline this is where it all ties together and you would have a good foundation. This is what the DNR and Soil and Water state that you must have first. Since we now have the re-establishment report it should not be as contentious going forward as it has been in the past.
Daleiden opened the meeting for public comment or questions.
Eugene Lorentz-12423 75th St. SW, Howard Lake MN 55349
Mr. Lorentz questioned why the Hess Lateral was rejected in the 1900’s?
Origer explained that it was explicitly stated in the Commissioner minutes from December 13, 1905 that the report be accepted as returned by the engineer, except as to the Hess Lateral which was rejected. The motion carried.
Also included in those minutes it noted several objections by landowners and a couple of the Commissioners not to add the Hess Lateral. Full plan and profile designs were created for Hess Lateral in the original engineering documents, but it was rejected. We did not find this documentation until after we had completed some of the field work and Hess Lateral was certainly constructed and dug but not legally accepted by the system. Technically it is a private ditch now.
Borrell questioned whether the landowners on the Hess Lateral could now request to legally petition for its inclusion as part of CD 10?
Lorentz added that he felt the Hess Lateral must be part of the system because it encompasses all the way to the Twin Lakes and goes straight into Grass Lake. It should be part of the system.
Origer stated that Spring Lake is currently using Hess Lateral as the outlet. Borrell added that the DNR may be supportive in having it as a lateral also. Lorentz added that at some point Hess Lateral was cleaned out.
John Kolb from Rinke Noonan clarified that Eugene’s comments regarding Hess Lateral are well taken. Although there is no evidence in the drainage system records, that the engineer was able to find, the drainage system itself was never expended funds to maintain the Hess Lateral. The statue for a petition is 103E.225 which states any person who owns property in the vicinity of an existing drainage system may petition for a lateral that connect their property with the drainage system. The petition must be signed by at least 26 percent of the owners of the property that the lateral passes over. So, to initiate proceedings to establish the Hess Lateral as part of or an extension of County Ditch 10, 26 percent of those owners of property that Hess Lateral currently passes over would have to petition for that establishment. As part of that establishment we would have to go through proceedings, just like we were establishing a new ditch. There would have to be an engineer’s report and the DNR would be issuing an advisory report. This specific issue was mentioned in the DNR’s comments to the board, that if in fact it were to be established as part of the public drainage system they would then have their comments regarding its establishment. Because it is not a repair of existing but an establishment of new, the DNR may have some permitting requirements attached to it. Our typical experience with the DNR in these matters where there is an established draining system is they would allow them to be maintained. Notwithstanding the public waters inventory. However, as this board knows that is not a given in any case. The DNR would be evaluating that at the time this board were to initiate proceedings for an establishment of a lateral.
Ryan Bakeberg- 6804 County Road 30 SW, Waverly MN 55390
Mr. Bakeberg was inquiring about the timing of the re-determination and how much longer it would be before completed.
Detjen stated that a lot of the field work was already done regarding the re-determination. To complete the process, the viewers need to know what condition the system can be repaired to, in order to determine the percentage of benefits for each landowner. So, now that we have the records re-established for this area, the viewers can revise their report. I estimate the re-determination will be completed in the next 2-3 months.
Bakeberg was concerned about future repairs that will or will not be completed if the private ditch is not included and repairs stop at Lake Ann, which would flood his property.
Borrell stated that when looking at repairs in the past, we have talked about doing something with the outlet at the twelve mile and possibly doing something between the two lakes as well.
Kryzer said he appreciated Bakeberg’s comments regarding the repairs but reminded the board that this is the proceeding for re-establishing the records. It is the first step in a long line of steps that must be taken. The next step that the Drainage Authority will be taking will be a re-determination of benefits, which will come after this process is completed. Then eventually Mark Origer will come back to us with a repair report.
Roxy Tenoff 7975 Kraft Avenue SW, Howard Lake MN 55349
There are 3 culverts that drain onto our land and since we are at the tip of Eddy Lateral I am wondering are there plans to rebuild or repair this area anytime soon where it will be dug down to the original design?
Detjen commented that the purpose of this hearing is to determine where we can legally complete work or repairs on the ditch system. Right now, we cannot follow 103E for the laterals that are not part of the ditch system. The Eddie Lateral is part of the system, so when we get to the repair step in these proceedings we would sit down with the agencies to discuss permitting or mitigation for wetland impacts to determine what repairs can be completed.
As there were no further questions or comments from the public, a motion was made by Commissioner Husom to close the public hearing, second by Commissioner Potter. Motion carried 5-0.
Kryzer at this time wanted to read the official response that was sent to the DNR regarding the comments they addressed and sent to the board regarding County Ditch 10 re-establishment of records.
Attorney comments to the DNR letter dated October 8, 2018
1. Staff agrees with the DNR that proper notice was provided pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103E.101 and 103E.715. Staff appreciates the DNR’s comments that we did follow the correct procedure outline in the drainage code.
2. Staff agrees with the DNR that the report is accurate. We acknowledge the DNR’s comments that they were included in early in the records reestablishment process and that they were on site while soil borings were being obtained.
3. The DNR’s comments related to the Hess and Stith laterals are noted by staff. Staff would direct the board’s attention to the engineer’s report on these issues and the engineer’s comments and conclusion are consistent with the DNR’s position.
a. The Hess lateral is described in detail on page 17 of the report. The engineer states the Hess lateral is not a part of this records reestablishment process but was included in the report in anticipation that a landowner may petition this lateral into the CD 10 system. The survey information for this lateral was included in the report for informational purposes only.
b. The DNR in a conclusory fashion, without providing any specific evidence in paragraph 4 of their report references an unnamed lateral running through an unnamed basin. Staff has reviewed this conclusory statement and after completing some detective work to figure out what the DNR was referencing determined the DNR was referring to the Stith Lateral.
The Engineer on page 19 references this lateral and determined: “The weight of the evidence does not support inclusion of the Stith Lateral as part of the re-establishment CD 10 system”.
4. Staff agree with the DNR that this is not a repair proceeding but rather is only a record reestablishment process. Any potential repair report will be completed later and the drainage authority to the extent necessary will notify the DNR pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103E.701.
5. Staff would note for the record that the DNR’s reliance on Minn. Stat. § 103E.011 is misplaced and without any legal or factual basis in this record. Staff would note that the drainage authority as part of any future repair process may elect to restore the public bodies of water on this drainage system to the pre-existing rights controlled and maintained by the benefited landowners on CD 10 as codified under Minn. Stat. § 103A.201 and that we will notify the DNR of this election if when it occurs pursuant to Minn. Stat. 103E.701.
Kryzer requested from the board how they would like to proceed.
Commissioner Vetsch made a motion that we direct staff to prepare findings and an order consistent with the proceedings, including responses to all comments received through the public comment process; that the draft findings and order be written to affect the reestablishment and correction of the public drainage system records consistent with the engineer’s findings and recommendation; direct recording of the order to reflect the reestablishment and correction of the public drainage system record; and that we recess this hearing to the Board’s regular meeting on October 23, 2018, at which meeting we will consider findings and an order for the proposed reestablishment and correction of the public drainage system records. Second by Commissioner Borrell. Motion carried 5-0.
Public Hearing was adjourned at 2:11 P.M.
County Ditch 10 Public Hearing Minutes submitted by Jan Edmonson
(End of 10-09-18 County Ditch 10 Public Hearing Minutes)
Approve Ditch Assessments To Be Levied Against The Benefited Landowners For Expenses Incurred From October 2017 To September 2018
Hiivala said expenses incurred on ditch systems can be levied against benefited landowners. He provided a list of assessments to be levied against benefited landowners on various ditch systems from October, 2017 through September, 2018. MN Statute 103E.611 states the annualized interest rate charged for ditch assessments may not exceed the rate established by the Court Administrator which is currently 4%. The interest is to be calculated only to August 15 of each year, meaning the County can charge a prorated rate. He suggested an interest rate for ditch assessments at 2.33%. Assessments can be paid or applied against property taxes. Assessments over $500 can be spread over three years. The following correction was made to page 2, Systems with No Assessment for 2019, CD 02, should read, “checking if system was ever constructed” (Borrell). Hiivala said with approval, a letter will be sent reflecting the assessment and interest, along with an explanation of what the bill relates to.
Borrell moved to approve the recommended assessments for landowners on the County ditches as listed. The motion was seconded by Vetsch and carried 5-0.
Approve Interest Rate And The Number Of Years Payable For Assessments Over $500 By Parcel
Vetsch moved to approve the interest rate at 2.33%, seconded by Borrell. The motion carried 5-0.
Approve The Findings And Order Correcting The Drainage System Records For County Ditch #10
Vetsch moved to adopt Resolution #18-74 approving the Findings and Order correcting the drainage system records for County Ditch 10. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Schedule Ditch Committee Of The Whole Meeting RE: Funding Of 2019 Projects & Ditch Inspector
On a motion by Husom, second by Potter, all voted to schedule a Ditch Committee Of The Whole Meeting on 10-30-18 at 10:30 A.M.
SEAN RILEY, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Accept The Findings And recommendation Of The Planning Commission And Adopt Ordinance Amendment Number 18-6, An Amendment To Section 155.110 Public Schools In The AG General Agriculture District
Riley stated that last year, the County Board adopted a zoning amendment to allow schools in the ag zoning district by conditional use permit (CUP). At that meeting, it was also passed to include an interim use with a sunset clause in the amendment. The applicant came back to the Planning Commission with a request to amend the Ordinance not to include a sunset clause. Riley thought the main motivation was for planning for the future and improvements. Parents of the students wanted assurance that the school would continue in the future.
The Planning Commission is recommending the County Board remove the sunset clause in the Ordinance amendment. Borrell said another consideration is that it is hard for the school to obtain financing for something with no certainty. He said it has been proven over the last year that this is not something that is upsetting to the community. Vetsch said most of his concerns have been addressed over this past year and he is comfortable with where it is at. He asked whether the school will need to obtain a new CUP or operate under the existing CUP if the sunset clause is lifted. Riley explained that the CUP is obtained through Corinna Township, not the County. It will be up to the Township whether it will need to be amended.
Borrell moved to adopt Ordinance Amendment #18-6, an Amendment to Section 155.110 Public Schools in the AG General Agriculture District and striking paragraph (C) Interim Use. The motion was seconded by Husom and carried 5-0.
Ordinance Amendment Number 18-6
The County Board of Wright County Hereby Ordains:
Article 1 Amendment to Chapter 155 Zoning
§ 155.110 Public Schools
(A) Standards. The following standards shall apply to all public schools:
(1) The school is supported in whole or in part with funds from the State of Minnesota;
(2) The school is regulated or licensed by the Commissioner of Education;
(3) The school is located on a parcel of land that is at least 80 acres in size, has lake shoreline features, and has a significant portion of its land that is wooded or wetland;
(4) Has an enrollment capacity of 150 pupils or less;
(5) Has as an essential part of its mission, purpose, or vision an educational component that is significantly related to the environment or nature;
(6) Is an accessory use to an existing non-profit organization that provides camp and education experiences.
(B) Conditions. As part of any conditional use permit the Planning Commission shall adopt conditions which address the following criteria:
(1) Must not create an excessive demand upon existing services or amenities.
(2) Must be screened or able to be screened adequately, or are sufficiently separated from adjacent residences to prevent negative impacts to nearby properties.
(3) Must have an appearance that is consistent and compatible with the surrounding area and land uses.
(4) Must not cause traffic hazards or undue congestion.
(5) Must not negatively impact surrounding residences and neighbors by the intrusion of noise, glare, odor, or other adverse effects
(C) Interim Use. Public Schools are considered an interim use and shall immediately terminate in the event the Public School no longer meets the standards articulated in Section (A) or is found to be in violation of its permit. Any interim Public School use shall terminate on June 30, 2020.
The repealer in Ordinance 17-3, Sec. 4 is repealed.
These ordinance amendments shall be effective upon passage and publication.
(End of Ordinance Amendment 16-1)
ALICIA O’HARE, WATER RESOURCE SPECIALIST-SOIL & WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT (SWCD)
North Fork Crow 1W1P (One Watershed One Plan) Adoption Resolution
O’Hare explained that the One Watershed One Plan was adopted by the County Board on 7-24-18. Since that time, BWSR (Board of Soil & Water Resources) has clarified that they would like a resolution adopted.
Potter moved to adopt Resolution #18-75 adopting the North Fork Crow One Watershed One Plan. The motion was seconded by Vetsch and carried 5-0 on a roll call vote.
Schedule Committee Of The Whole (COTW) Meeting To Review 2018 Regional AIS (Aquatic Invasive Species) Inspection Program
O’Hare said the Program runs to 10-31-18. A report to the DNR (Department of Natural Resources) is due by the end of the year. Her goal is to finish the report by the end of November and make it publicly available thereafter. She requested a COTW Meeting prior to submittal to the DNR.
Borrell made a motion to schedule a COTW Meeting on 12-11-18 at 10:30 A.M. to review the 2018 Regional AIS Inspection Program with the SWCD, seconded by Husom. The motion and second were amended to change the time to 11:00 A.M. The motion carried 5-0.
ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION
SCHEDULE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING RE: ELECTED OFFICIALS SALARIES
On a motion by Potter, second by Husom, all voted to schedule a Personnel COTW Meeting on 11-27-18 at 10:30 A.M. to discuss salaries of elected officials.
ADVISORY COMMITTEE / ADVISORY BOARD UPDATES
1. Owners Committee, Justice Center. Potter attended a meeting last week. There have been 15 days lost to inclement weather on the project and State changes that affected plumbing. A tour of the building occurred. The project is on schedule and under budget.
2. Wright County Economic Development Partnership. Potter attended a recent meeting in Hanover where discussion occurred on business retention and the struggle to find daycare in smaller cities. Kim Zipoy, Central MN Jobs & Training (CMJTS), said they continue to hold seminars and workshops. Those looking for employment should contact CMJTS for assistance including learning additional skills when necessary.
3. Joint State Transit Conference. Vetsch attended last week in Lacrosse, Wisconsin. MnDOT (MN Department of Transportation) will have another $4 to $7 million available in local funding. Discussion included having local entities present for discussions. Vetsch was one of four that attended. Possible funding next year will be $100,000-$110,000 which is about half of what is budgeted. Vetsch was able to have in-depth conversations with those present on such things as goals, how funding will be spent, etc.
4. Trailblazer Transit. Vetsch attended a meeting on 10-18-18 where the 2019 budget was approved and includes 32 buses between Glencoe and Buffalo.
5. Association of MN Counties District 5 Meeting. All Commissioners attended the District 5 Meeting in Morrison County on 10-22-18. Discussion included counties experiencing issues with the MNLARS System and long lines at the DMV’s (Department of Motor Vehicles). Daleiden hopes to get that problem addressed by legislators in January. Potter said other counties are experiencing higher than normal levy increases as well, partially due to cost shifts to counties by the State. Husom said other factors include health insurance increases, employee costs, mental health issues, and out-of-home placements. Substance abuse and mental health issues can go together. She appreciated the presentation on the Regional Sustainable Development Partnership by the University of Minnesota Extension and transporting groceries to rural areas. They are working with 268 communities on 167 projects. There are 280 stores in rural Minnesota with city populations of under 2,500. It is something that many don’t think about as there are local grocery stores available. At the meeting, commissioners were able to vote on what the top priorities are to bring forward to the legislature at their next session.
6. Otsego City Council Meeting. Daleiden attended the meeting on 10-22-18. A couple more housing developments are planned close to Otsego.
7. Borrell said DeWayne Mareck, Stearns County Commissioner, will be retiring. Borrell recognized the guidance provided by Mareck when Borrell was a new Commissioner. He wished him well in his retirement. Husom said she appreciates his service on Central MN Mental Health Center Board and Central MN Emergency Medical Services Board.
The meeting adjourned at 9:44 A.M.
County Board Minutes Submitted by: Susan Backes, Clerk to the County Board
Published in the Herald Journal Nov. 9, 2018.