9.d) Staff Report-Watershed Easement RequestsSCANDIA
Staff Repovt
Date of Meeting: August 18, 2015
To: City Council
From: Kristina Handt, Administrator
Re: Easement Language for 197th St Ravine and Sand Lake Irion Filter
Background:
At the May 2013 work session, on the May 21, 2013 road tour, and at the July 2013 work session the
Council discussed with the Car -Mar Watershed District the possibility of completing some improvements
on 197' St (aka dinosaur hill) to address erosion issues. At the July 2013 work session the Council
reviewed a memo from Wenk Associations and voted to approve option 2 of the report that had the new
pipe and overflow structure in the public right of way. Since 2013, the Car Mar Watershed District has
changed the plan due to cost concerns and plans to put the improvements on private property rather than
in the public right of way. Wetland permits have been completed and a grading permit is under review.
Also, at the May 2013 work session, the Council learned the Car Mar Watershed was exploring a sand
iron filter near 197' St and Sand Lake. Since then the watershed has applied for permits to review the
wetland impacts and a grading permit.
Issue:
Would the Council like to have the City added to the easement documents?
Proposal Details:
It has been anticipated all along that there would be very little City involvement in these projects. The
watershed just shared info as part of our annual joint meetings. Copies of the site plans are included in
your packet.
However, recently Jim Shaver has asked to have the City and the Watershed named in the easement
agreements with the private property owners where these projects will be located. He has offered a
maintenance agreement as well that states the watershed will maintain the improvements but thinks both
entities should be listed.
Staff (myself and the City Engineer) would recommend not having the City named. These are watershed
projects, not City projects. The City should not expose itself to possible future liability and costs for a
watershed project. The City would not need permission to go on to a private property for a project
completed by the watershed. This responsibility should remain with the watershed as it is exclusively
their project.
Fiscal Impact:
Since discussions began on these projects two years ago, they have been presented as watershed projects
with no cost sharing from the City.
Options:
1) Agree to have the City listed on the easement agreements
2) Do not agree to have the City listed on the easement agreements.
Recommendation:
Option 2.