3.01 SR 07-27-2016 EOty1� ,.,�� Request for Action
River
To Item Number
Mayor and City Council/Sherburne County Board 3.01
Agenda Section Meeting Date Prepared by
joint Meetin July 27, 2016 Cal Portner, City Administrator
Item Description Reviewed by
County Ditches Steve Taylor, County Administrator,
Mike Lindenau, County Ditch Inspector
Reviewed by
Justin Femrite, City Engineer
Action Requested
Information update,board/council discussion.
Background/Discussion
Following the wet winter and spring of 2013-14, a number of Elk River residents experienced flooding or
near flooding of their properties. Many of these properties were served by county ditches for storm
water control,in particular County Ditch 28.
In the cases under the county's purview,residents were encouraged to call the county ditch inspector or
their county commissioner. Due to the very rare wet winter and spring and as a recent result of a change
to the county/city process of paying for county ditch maintenance through county property tax
assessments, the concerns were brought to the attention of Commissioner Bruce Anderson.
A meeting between city and county officials was called by city staff to discuss the issue. Commissioner
Anderson and County Attorney Heaney were also in attendance. Concerns expressed by the county
included:
1) The inundation of calls was a result of a recent policy change and an extremely wet winter. Prior
to 2013, the City of Elk River paid all county ditch maintenance costs. At the request of the
county,repairs were to be assessed directly to the property owners as in other cities and townships
within Sherburne County.
2) City development had increased impervious surface coverage in housing developments did not
account for the storm water capacity changes taken on by the ditches.
The city engineer, city administrator, county administrator, and the county ditch inspector met to further
explore a resolution. From this discussion a few points were agreed upon.
1) The very rare wet season accounted for precipitation levels not seen in this area in generations.
2) The county ditch maintenance program is re-active to ditch problems.
3) While development may have contributed to a flow increase a true determination cannot be made
without a professional hydrological study. By law, this study is eligible for assessment back to the
property owners. Historically,before any assessment would be done for a system-wide study, a
redetermination of benefits is needed for Ditch 28.
4) The city would provide public service announcements regarding the ditch assessment process to
inform residents.
POWERED 6T
AR
5) The City Council could consider adjusting the Storm Water Utility Fee rate for residents served by
ditches to account for special projects
Financial Impact
N/A
Attachments
■ N/A
N:APublic Bodies\Agenda Packets\07-27-2016\Loserfiche\3.01 SR County Ditches.docx