Loading...
6.1. SR 03-11-2013 Elk REQUEST FOR ACTION River TO ITEM NUMBER Mayor and City Council 6.1 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY General Business March 11, 2013 Rebecca Haug, Environmental Administrator ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Sherburne County Ditch Assessments Suzanne Fischer, Community Operations &Development Director REVIEWED BY Tim Simon, Finance Director Peter Beck, City Attorney ACTION REQUESTED Staff is requesting direction to proceed with a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sherburne County and return the ditch assessment process back to the county as originally established. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION At the October 8, 2012, City Council meeting, staff,along with Sherburne County Auditor Diane Arnold and Sherburne County Ditch Inspector Mike Lindenau, requested direction on whether the city would Eke to continue paying for ongoing ditch maintenance or assess it to the property owners like other cities and townships in the county. The assessments are based on actual drainage issues directly affecting the benefited property. In most cases, the homeowner is experiencing an issue and requires the county to proceed with an emergency repair which will be assessed back. The county has approached this so far on a reactive basis in comparison our street assessments which are on a proactive basis. The City Council requested the county prepare a listing of what the assessed costs to the city and property owners would have been for the past several years. The attached document indicates what the assessed costs would have been. County records indicate that 1992 was the last year the county assessed Elk River residents for county ditch work. In 1996, the City of Elk River started paying ditch assessments for work done on the ditch system within the city limits. Sherburne County Attorney Kathleen Heaney, Sherburne County Auditor Diane Arnold, and Sherburne County Ditch Inspector Mike Lindenau will be present at the meeting to answer any questions. Staff is seeking direction to proceed with drafting an MOU with Sherburne County to return the ditch assessment process back to the county as originally established. ATTACHMENTS • October 8, 2012, staff report • Assessed costs for previous years ditch maintenance POWERED 0 1`4 f U R E i Lver REQUEST FOR ACTION To ITEM NUMBER Nlayor and City- Council 6.1 AGENDA SECTION MEETING DATE PREPARED BY Work Session October 8, 2012 Rebecca Haug,Environmental Administrator and Tim Simon, Finance I]irector ITEM DESCRIPTION REVIEWED By Ditch Agreement Cal Partner,City Administrator REVIEWED BY Peter Beck,City :\ttorne y ACTION REQUESTED Staff is seeking Council direction on Sherburne County Ditch Agreement. BAC KG ROUN DID ISCU SSION The Sherburne County Auditor's office contacted the city questioning why we pay ditch repair costs when other cities in Sherburne County assess it to the property owners. Staff researched the question and determined that the City Council completed a study in the early 1990's regarding charging developers a surface water management fee similar to a park dedication fee. Since most ditches in Flk River abut and benefit single family residential properties, it appears that the city chose to utilise funds from surface water management fees instead of a ditch assessment. As you know,with very little new development,increasing needs for stormwater improvements and anticipated stormwater management mandates, the Stormwater Management Fund is nearly depleted and a larger general property tax levy will be needed to pay for the costs of stormwater management. The Council has discussed a Stormwater UUtihty, but has not taken action. Sherburne County Auditor Diane Arnold will be present to discuss how other Sherburne County cities handle ditch work to determine if the city would like to continue covering all of the costs or assess property owners for work on ditches affecting their property. For the discussion,the Council will want to consider the following issues: 1) Should the city continue to prry for ongoing ditch maintenance thaoargh developerfees:andgenerral popei y taxes? 2) Should the county assess ongoing ditch maintenance costs to abutting, benefiting piope7ties, consistent aith other Sher bume County cities? 3) Should ongograg ditch maintenance costs be/not he managed as an activity of the stoinw ater maintenance piogrrarm? P 0 W I H 1 0 0 N: Public Bodies\City Council\Council RCA`Agenda Packet`•,10-0 8-2012\Ditch jgreenent Discussion-tiiial.doci [NAWREJ FINANCIAL IMPACT Ditch work is currently funded out of Surface Water Management and the following is a break--dawn for the past few years: 2010 - $0 2011 - $19,737 2012 - $49,938 to-date ATTACHMENTS Nome Action Motion by Second by Vote Follow Up N:\Puhlic Bodies\City Council\Council RCr\Agenda Packet\10-08-2012\Ditch Agreement Discussion-finaI.docx 36 31 32 + + u+ r f+J � O r w w 227TH AVE Q Branch.t 0 if Ditch t 25TH AVE 1 B 5 r , city =?� a a 0 lj�. 223RD AVE Ditc 067 gr wP,�y© 0f�7iTCh.1 21 ST AVE 7 2� O $ 217TH AVE T2 !�' H RD T y Of 215TH CT Branch 13 +o�' Of Ditcft 33 � r branch 13 Branch 13! .� of Ditch 1 of pitch •• 1g A r U `�r 81�r�wo '� 212TH AVE cetera}16 a �afe� � 2r ±tch 31 orD�f� 212TH c v 32 Q- �a`it�ra/ {I P� �pitc/y TS_ r I 211TH E tNGtR O `�T 211rkAvE 91{ X44 =0y o D�re'"3I w 21 TH AVE k C17 s- s�, 49TH AVE T8 17 'b' 13 TH AVE t 4ate1���CLi 3 2 h o 1rai 10 oEp o CO pitch 31 a�etsl U M of U am ME m .:U gSal'� 2pgTH AVE 9 m P (}ile�31 Ditch off pitch-28• VM+16R LN / } Cetera!6 �©'t 00, // of Ditch ,/` �A , weadmmr Latef I T'dds par. 22 ' AVE 23 24 l ,4rn,AVe LK � ■ htY S' 3 t oCCc f 6 im7n 1'F F ran'{L'E eo- wwv P&* - eYaTlr 194 AVE 1455M OR a n 1�RO1� ■ 27 E42HD LX 1` 28 25C i V r4aHDL/, y V t5w 145ST. E ait�'xP itcl 2 t l4!iR LA Ea01tI kYE r Vaft '$3 � liv7r � her f� 6K LN p� r a^ S UR 9CIIOLY.ST NTH T ,am,AVE -- _ msr ST yTH BT 'b 34 ST"a 35 sa 36 16 5T a m 'u 1u1VS � /Vaq'PMil1." re'�N�` 7 ST Dq 19 STUN a � aoTH z 179r AVE �� 1fy1YY P Low Raft rra,R AVE T�,Ly,. rs �GL Cr � lryf t 3 o wC"t Z _ f ,78TH ? al+, rrara�NVe 10 ' a:¢h naTHLh 101 l y0 rrSTH CT 175 4 s rY C7 ' vE ��—Ditch•1p lily t ,� Ditch Assessments Billed to City of Elk River (does not include roads) Ditch No. 28 Pt 2 (Subd Total for the Ditch No. 1 Ditch No. 10 Ditch No. 28 Sery Dist Ditch No. 31 Yea r 1996 0.00 288.00 21469.61 0.00 430.18 31187.79 1997 0.00 719.91 61166.52 0.00 0.00 61886.43 1998 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11043.17 11043.17 1999 0.00 0.00 11250.66 0.00 0.00 11250.66 2000 0.00 634.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 634.29 2001 11549.41 0.00 11671.70 0.00 0.00 31221.11 2002 11925.20 11466.16 181009.63 0.00 0.00 211400.99 2003 21029.29 0.00 221687.09 0.00 11282.17 251998.55 *2004 41113.82 61371.52 81279.07 0.00 601926.69 791691.10 **2005 0.00 0.00 141781.69 0.00 0.00 141781.69 2006 41834.45 81598.28 111485.35 111579.08 351638.77 721135.93 2007 0.00 0.00 81287.73 0.00 101059.19 181346.92 2008 81733.82 101083.19 101469.87 167.88 151785.44 451240.20 2009 0.00 0.00 91284.60 0.00 51871.28 151155.88 2010 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2011 0.00 0.00 161456.98 0.00 21961.96 191418.94 2012 0.00 0.00 48,944.45 0.00 0.00 481944.45 Totals 231185.99 281161.35 1801244.95 111746.96 1331998.85 3771338.10 * Min Billing Amt Increased to 10.00 ** Subd Service Dist established 377,338.10 History: Last year the County Billed the Elk River Residents for County Ditch work was 1992 In 1996-City of Elk River started paying Ditch Assessments that were billed for work done on the Ditch System within City of Elk River for Ditch#1,#10,#28#28 part 2 and#31. By Sherburne County Auditor/Treasurer H:\Data\Ditches\City Elk River Billing History LU W//Lu) U) LU 6R/7 U) U) ro N N N 'r 'N LU W//Lu) U) LU 6R/7 0'CO4 C� 0 N 69 69 69 69 Mill - zz w W//Lu) U) 6R/7'� O ° U)LU CO CO N i O .0 N N 'o C-4 Q7W o J IF- LL