Loading...
01-17-1995 Special Workshop MinutesCity of Otsego Special City Council Meeting on Proposed Stormwater Drainage Plan , Public Hearing on Tuesday, January 17, 1995, in the City of Otsego, County of Wright, State of Minnesota. SPECIAL COUNCIL WORKSHIP RE: STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN HEARING JANUARY 17, 1995 7:30 PM Roll Call: Mayor Norman F. Freske, Councilmembers, Larry Fournier, Ron Black, Vern Heidner and Suzanne M. S. Ackerman. City Staff: Engineers Larry Koshak, John Harwood, City Attorney Andy MacArthur, Clerk Elaine Beatty and Deputy Clerk Judy Hudson. 1. Mayor Norman F. Freske will call the Hearing to Order and will turn the Hearing over to John Harwood, Engineer for an explanation of the Proposed Storm water Drainage Plan. Mayor Freske called the Special Council Hearing to order at 7:32 PM. Clerk Beatty stated she did the proper posting and publishing. Mayor Freske introduced Engineer John Harwood. Mr. Harwood explained the Proposed Stormwater Drainage Report dated December, 1994 prepared by Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc. The report and study has three major goals: 1. A Stormwater planning document, 2. The study is intended as an operating tool to guide and direct development with the City. 3. Surface water management plan. The drainage study provided information on the drainage watersheds, districts and subdistricts. There are four major watershed districts: 1. Otsego Creek Watershed, 2. Rice -Foster Lake Watershed, 3. Halls Pond Watershed and 4. Lefebvre Watershed. Mr. Harwood explained the methods of evaluation. Mr. Harwood stressed that this stormwater drainage report has been prepared as a guide and not a solution. Engineers Koshak and Harwood brought up that they had met with Dan Lais, DNR regarding Wetland 4W - DNR is evaluating to have overflow go to the Otsego Creek. This would change part of the Halls Pond Watershed District 2 to go into the Otsego Creek Watershed. STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN HEARING JANUARY 17, 1995. Page 2 3. Questions from residents: Bob Moylan on 89th street - What he doesn't understand is if we are talking about stormwater problems the plan isn't saying anything about pipes and culverts. Mr. Koshak reviewed that if your looking for solutions, this plan would be used as a resource for solving the problem through a feasibility study. Rod Bengtson - 89th Street - We have seen a lot of numbers, a big factor here should be history, and history needs to be taken into consideration. His neighbor, Charlie, for 15 plus years knows about the underground streams. He also brought up that the soils are very porus and the problems of 1994. Mr. Koshak - History is important - there is no information we can relate back to for engineering data (fixed data). There are a lot of other contributing factors that created the problems of 1994. Because of restriction in Otsego Creek down by 83rd, most likely it overflow into this area. Charlie Finch - Brought up his Halls Water Drainage assessment of $600. His watershed didn't even go that way. His land could have a inch of rain everyday and his land could absorb it. Now we are to be responsible for the residents that built in the low land. Mayor Freske said this is a study and not a plan . Charlie Finch - We should be able to stand up for our rights in front of our peers and express our views. Mayor Freske expressed that he is disappointed that several .people who have had the water problems are not here tonight. Rod Bengtson requested to document the people coming here to the meetings. Mayor Freske expressed that the City has spent a lot of time and money for maybe a handful of residents who have problems. 4. Larry Koshak, City Engineer will explain the Policies for Stormwater Drainage. Engineer Koshak - Explained that what is being proposed is establishing a storm water drainage utility. Discussion of the policies, method of implementing and cost allocation policies. Policies, method and a sample ordinance is in the Report. 5. Questions taken from the residents Mike LuConic - What is meant by a benefited property - Both Larry Koshak and Attorney Andy MacArthur explained. Rod Bengtson brought up Statute 29. Mr. MacArthur explained we are going under 444. Engineer Koshak went over - Construction of facility, Goals of Financing, Types of Storm Water Improvement to be Financed and possible funding sources. If you develop a Stormwater Utility you do not need a taxing district. Attorney MacArthur explained Statutes 429 and 444. A 444 is a tax rather than an assessment. STORMWATER DRAINGE PLAN HEARING, JANUARY 17,1995. Page 3 Liz Wilder commented if a problem is determined in a certain watershed it should be looked at before getting into assessments and taxing. Mr. Koshak reviewed that policies are being set up to address these problems. Charlie Finch explained that he paid that tax in another city and it was a sewer tax and that this sounds unfair and that some people won't benefit from a storm sewer. Liz Wilder wants some remedies and that an assessment has already been paid. Mayor Freske explained that we are trying to coordinate everything to be able to start solving some of these problems. Attorney MacArthur explained that a framework is being established. Whenever a project is to be done, a feasibility study and at least 2 public hearings are done. Engineer Koshak explained that before a feasibility study is ordered a petition (35% of property owners) has to be done and then must be approved by the City Council. Rod Bengtson wondered about the rumor of City Water and Sewer. Mayor Freske explained that City Water and Sewer is being looked at for Industrial/Commercial along 101 and maybe new developments along 101. Bob Moylan wondered if both water and sewer would come in at same time Engineer Koshak commented that water and sewer going in at the same time is the most efficient way. Mayor Freske pointed out that the PCA could come in and dictate Sewer and Water if therewas a pollution problem. Engineer Koshak went over and explained different ways to collect. 1. The developers fees, 2. Assessments, 3. Stormwater unity fees, 4. Storm sewer taxing districts, 5. General budget. Councilmember Heidner pointed out the school with big parking lots and that they aren't in the taxing district. Councilmember Black - Can there be a maintenance cost difference because a district can be more expensive with greater facilities with pipes being more expensive to maintain than ditches. Attorney MacArthur thought there could be a difference. Councilmember Black brought up that people who aren't creating problems shouldn't have to pay for the maintenance. Councilmember Heidner thought that all non taxable sources can pay too. Engineer Koshak pointed out that the report includes all methods of financing. Engineer Koshak reviewed the Storm Water Policy Standard Unity Measurement of runoff. Councilmember Heidner feels that the maximum impervious allowance shouldn't decrease that much with the larger lots. Engineer Koshak said we would go through examples before final approval. Engineer Koshak went over the Implementation of Storm Water Policies STORMWATER DRAINAGE PLAN HEARING, JANUARY 17, 1995. Page 4 Resident questions: Mike LuConic questioned impervious surface - How will taxing districts respond to benefit AG land. Engineer Koshak replied that the intent is to address surface runoff from a hard surface basis and that all proposed projects must go through the City and drainage plans have to be approved etc. Sharon Moylan wondered if they would get taxed again on a driveway that has already been taxed. Engineer Koshak responded that we are talking about stormwater drainage and yes you would. Ron Bengtson was concerned about publicity. Mayor Freske explained how notices are published in the legal section of the Elk River Star News. Councilmember Black explained about the near city wide distribution of the Star News. Attorney MacArthur explained our current procedure of notifying individuals of hearings Lu LuConic was concerned about property on 85th street that drains into her pond. Engineer Koshak explained that we can't address that situation right now, but we have direction on the flow. Councilmember Black brought up that this shows us why we needed this plan and the maps. We can now study and analyze the problems and who is contributing. 6. Hearing Closed. Councilmember Fournier motioned to close the Hearing. Councilmember Ackerman seconded. All in favor. Motioned carried. Discussion: Councilmember Fournier feels the council should meet to discuss this repor Council agreed. Hearing adjourned. 7. Any other Council Business There was none. Councilmember Black motioned to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Heidner seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. Meeting adjoned at 9:45 PM. Mayor Norman F. Freske 7/-1,d Ronald G. Black, Council Suzanne M. S. Ackerman, Council urnier, Council • t. Vern Heidner, Council 1 ,tiA)\n/A • 10EST: sy Hudson, Deputy Clerk Seal)