Once again, as if the city’s legal department didn’t learn a lesson when the SD Supreme Court and Open Meetings Commission handed them their asses in three major cases and an open meetings violation, they continue to make crap up as they go along;
City loses access to Tuthill Park Hills drainage project
Oct 5, 2013 • J.L. Atyeo • Argusleader
Residents along a backyard creek in southeast Sioux Falls have halted a drainage project for now by showing the city does not have access to their land.
The city had planned to address an erosion issue in the Otonka channel, where increased flows have cut steep banks and threaten to topple trees. A group of residents in the Otonka Trail area didn’t like that the plans involved removing trees that create a natural oasis in their urban neighborhood.
They had lawyer Mark Meierhenry review the original 1964 plat for the Tuthill Park Hills Addition, and he found the city has no easement rights to develop the drainage channel.
Given that the city has used the channel for drainage for the past 49 years, assistant city attorney Paul Bengford said the city could have developed prescriptive easement. Others argue the channel never was meant to be used for drainage.
To clear things up, the city could ask residents to sign a new easement, but gathering support probably would be a challenge.
“We can’t really do the project without getting everyone on board,†said Andy Berg, the city’s principal drainage engineer.
Jarrod Edelen, who lives along the creek, said he’d rather maintain the channel himself. He’s been talking with neighbors about what they could do to preserve the area.
He doesn’t deny, though, that there is a drainage problem. He and the city disagree on its source.
Some residents say flows increased when land along 49th Street was developed, causing water to be sent downhill toward Otonka.
The city’s Public Works Department is researching the issue. Director Mark Cotter said they plan to update residents next week and hold a follow-up meeting.
“We certainly want to work with the neighborhood,†he said.
The easement issue came up during a meeting the city hosted Sept. 26. Before public works officials could present project plans, Cindy Ahrendt-Sivesind, a resident who has been vocal in her opposition to the project, handed out copies of Meierhenry’s opinion that says the city has no drainage easement.
“They’ve got a problem,†she said.
Some complained it was unnecessary to have two police officers present at the meeting. Cotter said it’s common to have an officer at a public meeting, and there were two at the Otonka Trail meeting because one was a training officer.
Here we go down the same path where when the city wants something they get their ‘crack’ legal team on it. Say what you will about Meierhenry, but I am willing to bet my bottom dollar, a former AG knows a little bit more about city and state law then Mr. Code Enforcement city attorney Bengford, who consistently twists city ordinances so much they look like the nipple of a sow who just had 20 piglets.
As for the coppers at the meeting. WOW. Talk about intimidation. So now we need a police presence when people talk about ‘drainage’? Next time I advise the group to all be brandishing pistols on their hips when they attend a public meeting. Pretty ridiculous? Right? Just as ridiculous as having a couple of pigs attend a meeting about ditches.
Wonder if police officers attend meetings with developers when they are asking for bulkheads and TIF’s from the city? Or if they are just handed a thick envelope and go merrily on their way to a hospital lunch counter or fast food parking lot.