The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-02-27PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. [[ AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2001 7,:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: Items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine in nature and will be enacted by a single roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or Citizen so requests: In that event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PAGE 2. APPROVE AGENDA, WITH ANY AMENDMENTS CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: JANUARY 9, 2001 FEBRUARY 13,2001 5730-5737 5738-5743 *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 5744-5755 *C. APPROVE QUASI PUBLIC SIGN PERMIT - WESTONKA 5756-5761 PUBLIC SCHOOLS *D. APPROVE APPLICATION FOR PERFORMANCE EVENTS 5762-5764 FOR BASS TOURNAMENT AT MOUND BAY PARK: 4/13-14 *E. APPROVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 5765-5768 2001 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT *F. WESTEDGE BOULEVARD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT o APPROVE RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION 5769 OF REPORT ON IMPROVEMENT APPROVE RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND 5770 CALLING PUBLIC HEARING ON IMPROVEMENT: 3/27 *G. APPROVE FEBRUARY 2001 LICENSES 5771 *H. APPROVE CASE #01-07: RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR AN EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION O THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4446 5772-5783 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10. *I. DENBIGH ROAD - MARK HANUS APPROVE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WECAN) BE CONTINUED COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) YOUTH REPRESENTATIVES ON SKATE PARK PROJECT DECISION ON COUNCIL REVIEW OF WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NO-LOSS REQUEST - BY PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL FOR TIMOTHY BECKER LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, HARRISON SHORES DEVELOPMENT - XXXX THREE POINTS BOULEVARD 5784-5788 5789-5792 5793 ACTION AMENDING ORDINANCE RELATED TO SEWER CHARGES 5794-5795 REQUEST FROM CITY OF SHOREWOOD FOR RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE AND SALE OF PHOSPHOROUS LAWN FERTIIZERS 5796-5800 ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION 5801 FOR APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax 5802-5805 B. Westonka Schools communication 5806-5808 C. LMCD communication 5809-5812 D. AMM Bill Tracking Report Index 5813-5825 E. AMM Fax News 5826 F. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District correspondence 5827-5874 G. Letter: Reliant Energy 5875-5879 H. Letter: Metropolitan Council 5880-5887 I. EDC meeting minutes: Feb 15, 2001 5888-5890 J. Park & Open Space Commission meeting minutes: Feb 8, 2001 5891-5896 K. Planning Commission meeting minutes: Feb 12, 2001 5897-5901 L. Financial reports: Dec 2000 5902-5904 11. ADJOURN This is a preliminary agenda and subject to change. The Council will set a final agenda at the meeting. More current meeting agendas may be viewed at City Hall or at the City of Mound web site: www. cityofmound, com. COUNCIL BRIEFING February 27, 2001 g Alert! Meeting Alert! - Special City Council Meeting! The HRA meeting was canceled, due to a lack of an agenda. However, it has been replaced by a much-needed bonding workshop with the City Council. We must call for the sale of bonds at the March 13 meeting in order to finance the settlement with the School District in time for our May 1 deadline. Some of the other 2001 projects requiring bonded indebtedness include the well, the liquor store, the Westedge Boulevard project, the storm water projects and the reimbursements to the City for fronting the redevelopment. Other projects will be discussed, as well. The projects proposed for bonding are all no-frills projects and are essential to achieve the 2001 goals and for the financial well-being of the City. Troop #1513 Visit The Mayor is asked to acknowledge Girl Scout Troup # 1513 to the meeting. Add-On to Agenda The attached application for a sign permit was received Friday afternoon following the preparation of the agenda. We will officially add it to the Consent Agenda at the start of the meeting. Including it in your packets will allow you to read it in advance of the meeting. Thanks! #3.D. Bass Tournament Approval There will be conditions on this permit that will prevent them from parking on the grass in the event of wet conditions and that will require them to restore the turf to original if it is damaged in the course of the event. 5.F. Westedg_e_ Boulevard ,rder to assess any portion of the project to the benefiting property owners, these resolutions should have been passed at the time of the related discussions. Plus, we need to set a public hearing for the purpose. These actions are considered a formality, but are a requirement under Chapter 429 - Public Improvements. John Cameron will be present at the next meeting to fully discuss the project and how assessments are proposed to be spread. The earlier Feasibility Study has been amended to limit the financial liability of the 5-6 Mound residents. An even greater portion of the cost will be assessed to Rottlund Homes, who will collect assessments over the next 2-3 years, as they sell off the lots. The City and County will pick up the balance. #6. Becker Case There are efforts being made to reach a compromise on this case. It continues to unfold on a daily basis. A staff recommendation will be made at the meeting. #7. Sewer Charges The current policy has sewer charges based on water use in the winter quarter. That scenario has the City of Mound giving away sewer services. Rather, sewer charges should be based on actual water use. The exception to that is the outdoor water used for pools, watering, car washing, etc. which, under the revised policy, may be separately metered. There will be no sewer charges for the water passing through the second meter. This is a purely user based policy. #8. Non-Phosphorus Fertilizers This may already be a provision under our storm water management plan. I will get the input of Dan Parks :garding this item in time for the meeting to determine if that is the case. Law Suit The attorney assigned by the LMC is not available for this meeting. He has scheduled himself for the March 13 meeting. Human Resources Report To date 48 applications have gone out for the Public Service Worker: Parks & Docks position! That is in the current job market! We should end up with a very qualified person to assist full time in those You met Bonnie Ritter at the last Council meeting. Her experience as a former City Clerk is really paying off and offering relief to a number of us at City Hall! Say "thanks" to Bonnie for her willingness to come forward and help out under some uncertain conditions. Tom McKaffrey has resigned as Dock Inspector. We will be advertising to replace him shortly. Tom has been with the City part-time for 10 years. With the retirement of John Ewald, we will be going to our pool of candidates from an earlier interview for a replacement. It is our hope to replace with an experienced officer, rather than a rookie officer, this time. Your input regarding the Community Development position is important. Hopefully you have all made your appointments for the upcoming interviews being done by Brimeyer Group. Thanks! CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM February 23, 2001 TO: Kandis Hanson FROM: Jon Sutherland ~ SUBJECT: Quasi-Public Sign Permit Upper Tonka Little League Please note the attached Permit Application from the Upper Tonka Little League for a Quasi-Public Sign. The Sign meets the requirements of the ordinance (pending council approval), and would be located on the site of Rite Away Oil. The approval would require the sign to be kept out of the dght of way. printed on recycled paper SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 ~DR~.ss oF S~G~ LOCATION Co.'~: ~CU,'i~.',~ 1%~'~J"'~- ZONE BUILDING OWNER NAME OF APPLICANT ~ ??~; (if other than APPLICANT'S ADDRESS3~ ~ ,~/,5- ~ 3 Cc---/ SIGN CONTRACTOR PHONE PLEASE INDICATE NUMBER OF SIGNS/APPLYING FOR: (if more than one wall sign is being requested,' ~ ~ack): (O~,~J TYPE OF SIGN: __wall mount ~free standing/ ~emporary __.permanent SIZE OF SIGN REQUESTED: ~ ft high x ~ ft wide = ', /~ : sq ft SEASONAL SIGN: DATES TO BE ERECTED: FRO~,,2 / ~-' /:~(l',O / TO ~3 / / ~ FREE STANDING: HOW HIGH WILL SIGN BE FROM GROUND LEVEL TO THE TOP? ~ / 2oo / SIGN: WALL AREA: ft high x ft wide NUMBER OF EXISTING WALL SIGNS: LIST SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH EXISTING SIGN: sq ft TOTAL SQ. FT. OF ALL EXISTING WALL SIGNS: sq ft PERCENTAGE OF WALL AREA COVERED BY SIGNS: percent DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): ,,"J?~.~ 5-+o/1 ~ /':-ro/,',.,~. L Applicant's Signature )]'"'"- ~ '// IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII//'1111111111111111111111111111111111111 Comments/Conditions: MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES JANUARY 9, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, January 9, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson and Peter Meyer. Councilmembers Absent: None. Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; City Attomey, John Dean; Jim Fackler, Bruce Chamberlain, John Cameron, Loren Gordon, Gino Businaro and the following interested citizens: Frank and Betty Weiland, 6045 Aspen Rd; Marshall Anderson, 5736 Lynwood Blvd; Vern Hanson, MetroPlains; Lorrie Ham, the Laker; Linda Harvett, 5648 Alder Rd; Ken Berres, 5724 Lynwood Blvd; Paul Capol, 1311 Morningview Dr; Andrea Ahrens, 4673 Island View Dr; Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Ln; Carol Senn, 2895 Westedge; Rex Alwyn, 1000 Robin Lane 1. CALL TO ORDER- PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order and the pledge of allegiance was recited. 2. SWEARING IN OF NEW COUNCILMEMBERS City Manager, Kandis Hanson, conducted the swearing in of Pat Meisel as Mayor, and Kim Anderson and Peter Meyer as City Councilmembers. 3. APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA AND REGULAR AGENDA The Mayor asked to have item D pulled - Approval of Resolution designating The Laker as the official newspaper of the City for 2001, and item I - Approval of resolution appointing Councilmembers as Council Representatives for 2001. Hanus asked to have item A-1 pulled - Dec. 4, 2000, meeting minutes, and Item J-5, City of Mound Dock and Commons Program. At the request of the City Manager, a City Manager's report was inserted at 13A. Mound City Council Minutes of January 9, 2001 4. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the agenda and consent agenda with the noted exceptions. All ayes. A. Approve minutes: 1. December 4, 2000 rescheduled regular meeting 2. December 11, 2000, special meeting 3. December 19, 2000, special meeting 4. December 19, 2000, regular meeting 5. December 27, 2000, special meeting with Planning Commission B. Appointing Kandis Hanson, City Manager, Acting City Clerk for 2001 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-01: RESOLUTION APPOINTING KANDIS HANSON, CITY MANAGER, ACTING CITY CLERK FOR 2001. C. Appointing Gino Businaro, Finance Director, Acting City Manager for 2001. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-02: RESOLUTION APPOINTING GINO BUSINAR, FINANCE DIRECTOR, ACTING CITY MANAGER FOR 2001. D. Bond Purchase for City Clerk MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-04: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE ACTING CITY CLERK E. Bond Purchase for City Treasurer/Finance Director MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. Mound City Council Minutes of January 9, 2001 D AFT RESOLUTION NO. 01-05: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF AT LEAST A $20,000 BOND FOR THE CITY TREASURER/FINANCE DIRECTOR F. DESIGNATION OF OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 2001. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-06: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE OFFICIAL DEPOSITORIES FOR 2001. G. APPOINT MARK HANUS AS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2001. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-07: RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS ACTING MAYOR FOR 2001 H. APPROVE MUNICIPAL CERTIFICATION OF LMCD MULTIPLE LOCK LICENSE APPLICATIONS FOR THE FOLLOWING: Seton View Association - Seahorse Condominiums - Pelican Point Homeowners Association - City of Mound Lost Lake Channel - Minnetonka Boat Rental - Lakewinds Association - Harrison Harbor Twinhome Association - Halstead Acres Improvement Association - Driftwood Shores Homeowners Association - Al & Alma's Supper Club - Seton Twin Homes I. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS AMOUNTING TO $262,189.42. J. APPROVE PAYMENT REQUEST #1 TO DIAMOND 5 FOR $19,735.30. $. APPROVE DEC. 4~ 2000 COUNCIL MINUTES Hanus noted that the vote was reversed on the MetroPlains vote for rezoning. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the amended minutes. All ayes. 6. DESIGNATION OF THE LAKER AS OFFICIAL NEVVSPAPER MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. Ayes: Brown, Hanus, Anderson and Meyer. Nayes: none. Abstain: Mayor Meisel. Motion carried. The Mayor stated her reason for abstaining is that the Laker is a tenant in a building that they own. Mound City Council Minutes - January 9, 2001 D , FT RESOLUTION NO. 014)3: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE LAKER AS THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER FOR 2001 7. APPROVAL OF COUNCILMEMBERS AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2001 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01~38: RESOLUTION APPOINTING MARK HANUS TO THE DOCKS AND COMMONS COMMISSION (DCAC); KlM ANDERSON TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION; BOB BROWN TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (EDC); AND PETER MEYER TO THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACES COMMISSION AS COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES FOR 2001. 8. COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS No comments were offered. 9. ENVIRONMENTAL WORKSHEET FOR METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ON THE "OLD SCHOOL" SITE Mound Visions Coordinator, Bruce Chamberlain, of Hoisington Keogler Group, inc., addressed the Council with a review of a citizen's petition for preparation of an environmental assessment worksheet for the MetroPlains Development Project. He stated that based on the review, the project doesn't meet any of the mandatory EAVV or ElS thresholds, that the project does not appear to pose the potential for significant environmental effects, and that many of the concerns raised by the petition are typical issues of typical magnitude, which are worked through and resolved in the development approval process. Staff recommendation is that preparation for an EAW for the project is not warranted and further recommends adoption of the following resolution. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, to adopt the following resolution and have staff notify the appropriate people within five days. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-09: RESOLUTION DETERMINING THAT PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (F_AW) IS NOT WARRANTED FOR THE METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR THE FORMER HIGH SCHOOL SITE Mound City Council Meeting - January 9, 2001 10. PUBLIC HEARING CASE #00-71: STREET/EASEMENT VACATION - METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT - NW CORNER OF LYNWOOD BLVD AND COMMERCE BLVD. Mayor Meisel opened the hearing. City Attorney Dean noted that there was a request from the applicant, MetroPlains Development, that this matter be continued to January 23, 2001, and that the public hearing be continued at that time. Certain details regarding the case will be completed by that time. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to continue the MetroPlains public hearing for rezoning of the NW corner of Lynwood Blvd., and Commerce Blvd., until January 23, 2001. All ayes. 11. PROPOSED PARKING IMPROVEMENTS TO ALDER ROAD Consulting Engineer Cameron addressed the Council regarding the parking improvements to Alder Road, as petitioned by Pond Arena. He stated that currently there is parallel parking on two sides of Alder road between Mound Evangelical Free Church and Pond Arena. The proposal would add about 22 parking spaces. In order to get sufficient pace to do diagonal parking and because of the difference in grade, preliminary study shows that a retaining wall would be required. The plan would double the current parking spaces, would include some islands for landscaping, with an estimated cost of $32,000. Peter Johnson, 3140 Priest Lane, speaks as a Pond Arena Board member, stating that they have looked over the plan and are encouraged by it. Paul Capol, 1311 Morningview Drive, spoke on behalf of the Mound Evangelical Free Church, stating that planning for parking is important because they have approximately 80 cars each Sunday and most of those are Mound residents. Council consensus was to have staff forward the project to the Planning Commission to determine the feasibility of adding the parking on Alder Road. 12. ROAD EXTENSION ON SOUTH WESTEDGE BOULEVARD Consulting Planner Gordon addressed the Council regarding the Langdon Bay Project. He spoke about many components being considered, which include road improvements to Westedge Boulevard, watermain and service installations, a sewer access agreement, and general easements. A water interconnection will provide water to the Cities of Mound and Minnetrista in the event that one city has an emergency. The road improvements will upgrade VVestedge to a collector street, as designated in the Comprehensive Plan. DR FT Mound City Council Minutes - January 9, 2001 MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the Joint Cooperative Agreement between the City of Minnetrista and the City of Mound, as amended, All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the concept plan for the Westedge Boulevard southerly extension, as presented. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, directing the engineer to prepare detailed plans and specs based upon the concept plan that has been approved. These will be considered at the January 23, 2001, meeting. All ayes. Motion carried. 13. STORM SEWER FEES FOR CHURCHES Businaro addressed the Council regarding the staff recommendation to study the request to reduce storm water management fees under the new ordinance, as it pertains to churches. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Anderson, to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-10: RESOLUTION ADOPTING SEWER RATES FOR CHURCHES IN THE CITY OF MOUND, MINNESOTA 14. DNR AGREEMENT FOR BOAT DOCK AT COOK'S BAY Parks Director Fackler reviewed the agreement for installation of a city-owned water access site and ramp. Fackler stated that the City would contribute approximately $400-$500 in materials which could come out of the Parks budget. The dock will be a roll-in style dock. It was determined that there was no need to amend the ordinance. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to approve the city-owned water access site and ramp at Cook's Bay. All ayes. Motion carried. 15. RIP-RAPPING MATERIAL MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution. All ayes. RESOLUTION NO. 01-11: RESOLUTION SETTING A STANDARD FOR RIP- RAP INSTALLATION ON PUBLIC LANDS D, 4rr Mound City Council Minutes - January 9, 2001 16. 2001 DOCK LOCATION MAP MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the Docks and Commons Advisory Commission's recommendation for the 2001 Dock Location Map. All ayes. 17. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT A. City Manager Hanson informed the Council about daily problems they have been having with the copy machine. Members authorized Hanson to take quotes to purchase a replacement copies. Bo Hanson reported on the compromise in public service levels that are now occurring since the discovery that the Planning Commission misses the statutory public requirements for publications by one day unless they publish an additional week in advance. She also discussed fluctuations in workload demands, both on staff and the copies, under the current Council and Planning Commission schedules. Councilmembers affirmed that the purpose of the City is to provide efficient and timely service and that, in order to maintain current service levels, the Planning Commission members should move their meetings to Tuesday or Wednesday, and on the first and third weeks. Doing so will meet the posting requirements in the shortest time period and will eliminate the workload fluctuations. 18. A. B. C. D. E. F. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS Letter: Mediacom on rates Westonka Senior Center Newsletter Letter: Congressman Ramsted on Community Policing Award Letter: Met Council Environmental Services on sewer rates Letter: Hennepin County Sheriff's Office on reduction of service Financial reports through November, 2000 G. Resolution of Fred Johnson fire lane violation H. Westonka Public Schools correspondence I. FYI: Info from League of Minnesota Cities J. Docks & Commons Commission meeting minutes: Dec. 21, 2000 K. Planning Commission meeting minutes: Dec. 11,2000 L. AMM FAX news M. The Ehlers Advisor N. Letter: Hickory Tech User Group on computer support: Businaro summarized the problems they are anticipating with the financial systems software support that Hickory Tech user Group will be discontinuing their tech support, requiring the City to look into converting to a new system. O. Mound Police Department monthly report: Dec, 2000 Mound City Council Minutes - January 9, 2001 DRAFT 19. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adjourn at 11:40 p.m. Motion carried. All ayes. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel MOUND CiTY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 13, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Pat Meisel; Councilmembers: Bob Brown, Mark Hanus, Klm Anderson and Peter Meyer. Also in attendance were City Attorney John Dean, City Manager Kandis Hanson, Interim City Clerk Bonnie Ritter, City Planner Loren Gordon, City Engineer John Cameron, City Building Official Jon Sutherland, Technical Evaluation Panel Member Kelly Bopray. The following interested citizens were also present: Steve Coddon, Pam Myers, James Arndt, Gaylen Thostenson, Leah Weycker, Ron Peterson, R. Kern, and Larry Johnson. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Council Member or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and welcomed the people in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was recited. 2. APPROVE AGENDA MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to approve the agenda, with the exclusion of item 11, the executive session. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Hanus requested that Item B be pulled from the consent agenda for later discussion. A. City Council Minutes of December 12, 2000 and January 23, 2001. B. Approval of Payment of Claims - REMOVED C. RESOLUTION #01-16 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM Mound City Coundl Minutes - February 13, 2001 D. RESOLUTION #431-17 RESOLUTION FAVORING A CONTINUATION OF FUNDING OF SENIOR PROGRAMS THROUGH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FOR 2001 E. Approval Payment Request #2 to Diamond 5 MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown to approve the consent agenda with the removal of Item B. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Pam Myers, Superintendent of Mound Westonka School District, addressed the Council with a public service announcement regarding a bond referendum vote scheduled for March 17, 2001. She outlined the fund uses, etc., for the Council. Gaylen Thostenson also addressed the Council. He encouraged support of the referendum, giving a brief testimonial for the School District. Leah Weycker addressed the Council to be on record that she doesn't believe that Mayor Meisel has a conflict of interest regarding the old community center site, as previously alleged. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - CASE # 01-01 AND CASE #01-04: REZONING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR POST OFFICE - XXX LYNWOOD BOULEVARD - CITY OF MOUNT The public headng was called to order at 7:45 by Mayor Meisel. City Planner Gordon reviewed the Post Office Development, covering rezoning, hardcover and landscaping. Discussion followed regarding the landscaping, as final plans for such were not presented. Hearing no comments from the public, Mayor Meisel closed the hearing at 8:05 p.m. Motion by Hanus, seconded by Brown to adopt the following resolution, with the provision that staff would review and approve the landscaping plan when available, keeping the Council in the loop regarding the landscaping. All ayes. RESOLUTION #01-18: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF MOUND GRANTING APPROVAL FOR REZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OFLYNWOOD BLVD. AND BELMONT LAND FROM B-1 CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT TO DESTINATION DISTRICT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, ADDRESS UNASSIGNED. PID#'S 13-117- 24-33-0085 AND 13-117-24-33-0084. P & Z CASE #01-01 AND #01-04. 6. PASTUCK- 1800 Commerce Boulevard A. CASE #00-67: MINOR SUBDIVISION The Council expressed concern regarding both the lakeshore and driveway easements for this subdivision. The application indicated that he approved the plans as presented. B. CASE #00-59: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT- CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING Mayor Meisel called the continuation hearing to order at 8:17 p.m. Comments were asked for by the public, with none given. Public hearing was recessed from 8:30 to 8:38 for staff to prepare resolution. Council discussed lakeshore and driveway easements, with property owner indicating that these will be noted on the deeds. Mayor Meisel closed the hearing at 8:55 p.m. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus to adopt the following resolution, providing that the lakeshore and driveway easements be reviewed and recorded. All ayes. RESOLUTION #01-19: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, MINOR SUBDIVISION AND ASSOCIATED VARIANCES FOR A TWlNHOME DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1800 COMMERCE BLVD. PID#13-117-24-23-0004. P & D CASE #00-59 AND #00-67. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALDER ROAD PARKING IMPROVMENTS (POND ARENA) City Planner Gordon indicated that the Planning Commission had two concerns regarding this improvement. They would like to see the parking stalls at 9 I/1' width, and have concern over the hardcover. City Engineer Cameron expressed added concem over the narrow right of way (6 feet) from the building to the parking area. The Pond Arena has a metal, sloping roof that faces north. This accommodates a lot of snow and ice buildup. The concern is that this buildup will slide down and end up on the vehicles parked below. After Council discussion, the Mayor directed that this issue go back to the Planning Commission for possible solutions, to be coordinated with the Pond Arena. 8. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL REVIEW OF STAFF DENIAL OF WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NO-LOSS REQUEST, BY PETERSON ENVIRONMENTAL FOR TIMOTHY BECKER- LOTS 5-8, BLOCK 4, HARRISON SHORES DEVELOPMENT - XXXX THREE POINTS BOULEVARD Mark LeFever gave the background of this issue, followed by a slide presentation by Mr. Arndt. This presentation was regarding wetlands' vegetation, soil, and general information. After discussion between Mr. Arndt, Mr. Peterson, Mr. Bopray, of the Technical Evaluation Panel, it was suggested by City Attorney Dean that the Becker Group and the Panel get together, preferably at the site, for further consideration. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Hanus, that the Technical Evaluation Panel meet with the Becker Group for further consideration of this issue. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 9. LEAF DISPOSAL PROGRAM FOR 2001 The Council discussed the three options presented for leaf disposal for 2001. Rob Friend of Southern Minnesota Construction Co. addressed the Council. His company has a disposal site in Minnetrista, and it's use is outlined as Option 3 as presented by staff. Option 3 includes a $10,000 fee be paid to SMC as a gate fee for Mound residents. It was noted that SMC was used last year for disposal by Mound residents. They still have the option to use their own hauler. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to approve Option 3 for leaf disposal in 2001. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. 10. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS Hanus questioned the digital camera purchase. The City Manager explained that the Sewer and Water Department had excess funds, so thus was authorized to purchase the camera. The camera purchase was presented as split between parks, police, street, water, sewer and commons. The laptop computer in question was presented also, as being split between commons, parks, council, and planning. After further department that originally showed budget surplus, and that the laptop expense be divided according to use. MOTION by Hanus, seconded by Brown, to approve the payment of claims as presented, with the laptop expense being allocated according to use, and the digital camera expense being taken from the Water & Sewer Dept., which had the surplus for this purchase. Roll call vote was taken. Those voting in the affirmative: Brown, Hanus, Meyer and Mayor Meisel. Those voting in the negative: Anderson. Motion carried. 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL MA'i-rER Mayor Meisel noted that this item was previously removed from the agenda. 12. CONSIDERATION OF PARK AND OPEN SPACE ADVISORY COMMISSION This item was tabled, allowing for the Planning Commission's further consideration. Mayor Meisel excused herself at 11:50 p.m., and Councilmember Hanus presides over the balance of the meeting. 13. FEE STUDY It was noted that the fee schedule revision is not completed, but the license fees that are up for renewal in the near future, have been revised. INSERT ORDINANCNE 01-2001. (Motion by Meyer, seconded by Brown - all ayes. INSERT RESOLUTION 01-20 - setting fees for 2001. - noting where 2001 rates are not yet noted, 2000 rates will prevail. Motion by Brown, seconded by Meyer - All ayes. 14. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS A. LMC Friday Fax B. Westonka Schools communication C. LMCD communication D. AMM Bill Tracking Report Index E. AMM Fax News F. Westonka Senior Center newsletter G. Letter: Hennepin Conty Housing & Redevelopment Authority H. Communications from Park Commission member, Tom Casey I. Letter from LMCC on studio usage J. Leter from MetroPlains Development on grocer K. Police Report: January 2001 L. Letter from MFRA to Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distdct M. Article: Working with your city attorney effectively and efficiently N. Max Fax 15. ADJOURN MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to adjoum the meeting at 11:55 p.m. The vote was unanimous. Motion carried. Attest: Interim City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel PAYMI,iNI' BILLS DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2001 BI[,I,S ACCOUNTS PAYABLE #1017 #1021 AMOUNT $ 70,578.84 $143,941.26 TOTAl, BII, LS $214,520.10 PAGE 1 AP-C02-O1 PU VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE N~;BR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT A0419 Ol0201 20.00 2/27/01 2/27/01 20.00 ASSOC. OF RECYLIN6 MANAGER VEI<DOR TOTAL 20.00 -~-05~9--3~3~5-67gD· 2/27/01 2/27/01 R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES 70-4270-4110 JRNL-CD 1010 141.47-- H]St'~Z~ NE-OUS ?I ~71-0 D ~'953 0 151.47 JRNL-CD 1010 Z 0~-1~730 0 ...... 972.19--- LI QgOR' 71'-7100~951'0 2/27/01 2/27/01 972.19 JRNL-CD 1010 20-7 ~-2~ 00 1-;-4 g 5' C~ 7-~-Irgl2gl~ 71--~ I~)1~93~10 2/27/01 2/27/01 1,495.37 JRNL-CD 1010 20-'/~0 1~543 2/27/0~ 2/27/01 1,543 -~5-EI~-~RPO~ATI-O~ VEND-OR-~OT-A~ ....... 4152 50600 10077420 3i 31 31 2/27/01 2/27/01 94 10077421 67 2/27/01 2/27/01 67 10077475 78 2/27/01 2/27/01 76 10077348 17 2/27/01 2/27/01 17 .50---LIQUOR .50 JRNL-CD 1010 ;53' .66 01-01 GARBAGE PICKUP CH40120 01-4280-3750 .'66---01~O-i--GARB-A~E--PTCl~P-CM]~O~O 73~30~a3750 .67 01-01 GARBAGE PICKUP CM40120 78-7800-3750 .99 JRNL-CD 101r .01 01-01 GARBAGE PICKUP CH40121 22-4170-3750 .01 JRNL-CD 1010 .90 01-01 GARBAGE PICKUP CMR030$ 01-4340-3750 .90 JRNL-CP 1010 .76 01-01 GARBAGE PICKUP CHPO085 71-7100-3750 .76 JRNL-CD 1010 ~LACKOWIAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 258 .............. 572 2/27/01 2/27/01 572 -" 996 2/27/01 2/27/01 996 160 --5-06'l-l---4Jg'g'77 2/27/01 2/27/01 160 ..................................... 1',178 2/27/01 2/27/01 1,178 .66 .75--01=29;0'1--5%ND .75 JRNL-CD 1010 .59 O1;3I~O-I--SXND 0I~-~2B0-~3~0 .59 JRNL-CD lOlO ,82'-- ~I;31-OI-I~'LI Ol~-£2BO;23Zq)'- .82 JRNL-CD 1010 .6B--'O2~Oi~Oi'-SA~D OlW4~80~23~O .OB JRNL-CD 1010 5OB-VINKL~R ..................... VENDOR TOTAL 50730 010131 479.07 ROCK 2/27/0I- ~727701 ........... 479.07- JRNL~ED ~RYAN ROCK PRODUCTS VENDOE TOTAL 479.07 ..................... B0747 POTHN0271300 630.00 OCT NOV 2/27/01 2/27/01 630.00 JRNL-CD ' 2908.84 .......................................................... 73-7300-2340 DEC 2000 01-4140-3800 101o PAGE 2 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND AP-CO2-OS _ - VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOU~__DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER BUREAU OF CRIMINAL APPREHE VENDOR TOTAL 630.00 C0820 21322290 832.33 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340 2/27/01 2/27/01 832.33 JRNL-CD __1010 2132S640 852.58 BULK ICE 01-4280-2340 : 2/27/01 2/27/01 852.58 JRNL-CD 1010 21324147 1,797.35 ~ULK ICE 73-7300-2340 2/27/01 2/27/01 1,7~7.~5 JRNL-CD lOlO CARGILL SALT DIVISION VENDOR TOTAL 3z~82.26 64.76 ALTERNATOR 73-7300-23~0 64.75 ALTERNATOR 78-7800-2310 2002546 69.05 CIRCUIT BREAKER 01-4280-23~0 ~LSON TRACTOR'S, E~UIP.~ VENDOR TOTAL 263.32 )940 V36Z496 50.00 COFFEE CUPS 01-40Z0-4120 2/Z7/01 Z/ZT/01 50.00 JR~L-CD ~010 - CLARK PRODUCTS VENDOR TOTAL 50.00 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 121.04 JRNL-CD :- cOLA ~OLA ~uI YLiNb-MIUWtb~ V~NDU~ TO~AL ~ Cllll 75394 991.00 INSTALL DOOR ~ CRAWFDRD DOOR VENDOR TOTAL 991.00 Dl172 339280 133.98 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 133.98 - 340874 360.00 HELMET - 2/27/01 2/27/01 360.00 JRNL-CD DANKO EMERGENCY E~UIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 493.98 -- 2/27/01 2/27/01 711.90 JRNL-CD -- 2/27/01 2/27/01 1,150.80 JRNL-CD 2/27/01 2/27/01 1.310.05 JRNL-CD 7-1 _--71~-~-95 ~;-0 .... 1010 22-4170-3830 FIRE BOOTS 73-7300-2310 JRNL-CD 1010 22-4170-0220 1010 71;'7100';953D ....... 1010 71 ;7 IO O; 953 0 1010 7'1-;'? 100; 95'30 .... PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUHBER DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY --E VENDOR TOTAL 3172.75 74~571 751687 - EA51 5IDE BEVERAGE - F1560 71164 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2-,320~85 .... BEER 2,320.85 JRNL-CD 3;104.10--'BEER 3,104.10 JRNL-CD 250.O0---BEER 250.00 JRNL-CD -1~192'~8~---BEE~ 1,192.80 JRNL-CD VENDOR TOT A~ ...... ~867~75 ,"/Z fl01 2/~?/01 - FIRE CONTROL EXTINGOISHER VENDOR TOTAL F1638 7385 238.54 RECHARGE AND POWDER ~ 38.5~- .... 2R'Nqi-~ CD 23&.54 2/27/01 2/27/0~ FITZCO, INCORPORATED VENDOR TOTAL -- 2/27/01 2/27/01 . FUTRi-LL f-iN~. CONSULI E DE* V~NDO-R--TO%AL ~ G1750 550986 127.00 EVIDENCE/PROPERTY BAGS 127.00 JRNL-CD 127.00 300'~O~--~i-='~OY--DOCUMENT--REMTE~ 300.00 JRNL-CD 300.00 24.76 01-23-01 UNIFORMS 24.76 01-23-01 UNIFORMS 22.44 01-23-01 MATS 22.44-~Ol~23~'Oy'~A~S 22.44 01-23-01 MATS 2/27/01 2/27/01 141.60 JRNL-CD 550985 38.79 02-06-01 HATS 2/27/01 2/27/01 38.79 JRNL-CD 39.95 01-23-01 MATS 39.95 JRNL-CD 109.51 02-13-01 HATS 109.51 JRNL-CD 71~7i00'~9'530 1010 1010 71~-7f0.0;-~5.3-0 1010 71-7['-0-0----93'30 1010 22-4170-2200 '%01~ .... 01-4140-2200 1010 1010 538329 2/27/01 2/27/01 557287 2/27/01 2/27/01 550986-A 2/27/01 2/27/01 544623 01-4280-2240 ZS-f3ITD-~-22~O 78-7800-2240 01-4280-2250 --73----/30'0~5-0 78-7800-2250 1010 22-4170-2230 1010 01-4340-2330 1010 01-4320-4210 1010 32.15 02-06-01 MATS 32.15 JRNL-CD 24.76 01-30-01 UNIFORMS 24.76 01-30-01 UNIFORMS 24.76-- 01~O~'I--]3'N]FORM5 12.97 01-30-01 MATS 12.97 01-30-01 HATS 71-7100-4210 1010 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 7B_TBOD=~24D ...... 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 PAGE 4 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND -- VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD - NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 12.97 01-30-01 MATS 78-7800-2250 2/27/01 2/27/01 113.i9 JRNL-CD 1010 - 550984 41.84 02-06-01 MATS 01-4340-2330 ~ 2/27/01 2/27/01 41.84 JRNL-CD lOlO 563560 32.15 02-20-01 MATS 71-7100-4210 ~ 2/27/01 2/27/01. 32.25 JRNL-CD 1010 G & K SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 549.18 ,7-G-1752 5~505990101 %64-;97---SP~E-A]k~_R 2Z-41~o-2zuu ~ 2/27/01 2/27/01 464.97 JRNL-CD 1010 ~ GALLS INS VENI)D~-'TOT~ 46-4~97 Gl800 50219 2.91 CONNECTOR 73-7300-3810 ZIZ?/UZ ZIZ71U~ 50428 17.73 TANK KITS 73-7300-38~0 50486 GARY'S DIESEL 2-/Y7701~7-0/ SERVICE VENDOR TOTAL G1890 010131 2/27/01 2/27/01 GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL ~lVZ~ uu2~uo~ 2/27/01 2/27/01 ~OV~NMENT Fi~A~L'-E-Oh~I~c~ VE'NIIOR-~O'I-A[ H20ol DM53131 z/27/u~ Z/Z~TOI HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOTAL H2100 010208 2/27/01 2/27/01 53.98 BREAK SWITCH ETC 78-7800-3810 53~gB----3RNU-CD 74.62 42.18 01-01 WATER 22-4170-2200 42.18 JRNL-CD 1010 42.18 130.0 O -' O 5~'0 i~I)I--'T H'~Z;-~3'O-~ 02--DUES 130.00 JRNL-CD 130 .OD 25.00 CONTAINER DEMURRAGE 25.00-- J~ NL-~CD 25.00 01~-4-09-0-~%- 1-3 O-- -- I010 73-7300-2260 ~O-l-O .... 35.00 REIMBURSE EYE GLASSES 73-7300-3140 35.00 JRNL-CD lOlO MENKE, GERALD VENDOR TOTAL 35.00 :---H~Z~35 21017028 ....... 31.00 2/27/01 2/27/01 31.00 ~----HENNEPiN C~ ~'~F'O~I'EC'H -VE-T',,rDOR--'TOTA~- 31.00 : H2230 010131 1,241.49 f~T/~]72UO% ...... 1,241.49 TECH VENDOR TOTAL 1241.4g -OI--OT-NYTW OR1C~'ERVI'CE5 JPNL-CD -0 i"~-41) 95 '~-38 O~ -- 1010 A.P. AND PAYROLL CHECKS 01-4095-2200 - JRNE;CD ............................................. I010 .... PAGE 5 AP-C02-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS I2309 23863600 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ~2-/27)-O-L-- 2 / 27/01-- - IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS I 2384 40 VENDOR TOTAL 333.20 02-10-01 THRU 03-10-01 llAH58 01-4320-3800 333,20--'JR'~-CD .................. --10%~- .... 2/27/01 2127101 INTERSTATE BATTERIES VENDOR TOTAL 2/27/01 2/27/01 12400 6975 7049 ~gSO 7030 70o8 333.20 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/0i 2/27/01 2/27/01 43.61 BATTERY #2 73-7300-2310 43.61 JRNL-CD 1010 249.25 ~-~ %-[-T~-O-"~'-~C 01-4340-3810 2~9.25 JRNL-CD 1010 2/27/01 2/27/0i 2/27/01 2/27/01 ~-O---R'ER%~R~-$--~-S~i~--~TC 940.40 JRNL-CD 01-4340-3810 1010 33.00 JRNL-CD 1010 91.55--~ITTER~'-- 91.55 JRNL-CD - iOlO BoLgs'-'--T~ES u1--~%-23~3~8-1~- 80.95 JRNL-CD 10. 2~427,09'- ~E~MA~-TR'AN$-'ASSY 73;73-00;38-~0' 2,427.09 JRNL-CD 1010 4 ~100 .... AB5 2/27/0i 2/27/0i 48.00 ~ K2731 72343R1 4,530.00 27~771)~727/gl ......... ~-;'53 0 .gO ~ KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 4530.00 L281i 11717 98.14 -- 2/27/01 2/27/01 98.i4 73 --7300---3l~1-0'-- LARSON PRINTING F. GRAPHICS VENDOR TOTAL 98.14 ,: 9.70 JRNL-CD !010 OUTFIT SQUAD 01-4140-5000 --JRNU-CD LETTERHEAD 22-4170-3500 JRNL-CD 1010 "SIgNAL--STAT ~G~A19S SIGNAL STAT PIGTAIL 73-7300-2250 2 T277~72770~ 1464673 2/27/01 2/27/01 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 9.71 SIGNAL STAT PIGTAIL 78-7800-2250 29.11 --JRNE';CD i~1-~-- 97.17 FUSES, COUPLERS, ETC Oi-42~O-Z~lO 97.i7 FUSES~-'COUP~R~-ETC '73-7300;~310 97.17 FUSES, COUPLERS, ETC 78-7800-2310 291.51 JPNL-CD 1010 320.62 PAGE 6 P U R C H A 5 E J O U R N A L AP-C02-0i CITY OF HOUND - VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NH~R DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION L285i 0i0227 2/27/01 2/27/01 LEAGUE OF MN-~IT1-E~S~NS-T~TR~OT~-[ ..... L2930 5-311215 5-311426 2 / 2 7 / 0-1----27277-01 2/27/01 2/27/01 5-311633 59.91 1ST ~TR WORKERS COMP 48.31 1ST ~TR WORKERS COMP 133.35-- 1ST--@TR~ORK'ERS-"C~HP 1,546.05-1ST ~TR WORKERS COMP 154.61 1ST eTR WORKERS COMP 579~77---1-ST-~TR--~'0RK-ER~--~0h~ 135.28 1ST ~TR WORKERS COMP 3,700.87 iST QTR WORKERS COMP 53~.~--Z~"T~'T~ER5 COMP 769.16 1ST GTR ~ORKERS COHP 1,136.35 1ST ~TR WORKERS COMP 164.27--1ST--~q-R-~ORKE-R~--C~HP 8,963.25 JRNL-CD '8963.25 190.12 ALTERNATOR 190;1-2---gRNL~Cg 35.71 BLADES, ETC 35-;71--3RNL~D 8.51 BEAMS ~ ~ 51- -'~A M S' 8.51 BEAMS 25.53 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4020-3600 01-4040-3600 0 f-~-O-9-O-; 3'60-0 01-4140-3600 01-4190-3600 01-4340-3600 22-4170-3600 71-7100-3~q) 0 73-7300-3600 78-7800-3600 B'I~-435I' ;-3-600 1010 01-4280-2310 ~010 73-7300-2310 10lO 01-4280-2250 78-7800-2250 1010 ' LOWELL'S AOTOMOTIVE/ZITCO* VENDOR TOTAL ~016 8~31 2/27/01 2/27/01 25i .36 79.10~- 79.i0 JRNL-CD 1010 2/27/01 2/27/01 '10~--~;~1 DELIvtRY EMANGL 10.50 JRNL-CD ~l-F1UO-g6UU 1010 2/27/01 2/27/01 93.80 .... 0~';0~01~L~VERY CHANGE 93.80 JPNL-CD 1010 2/27/01 2/27/01 9.80 02--~I~;I~--D ~-EL-~¥E-RT--CH% k G k 9.80 JRNL-CD 2/27/01 2127101 ..... 79.80 JRNL-CD 1010 1010 '- MARLI~'$ Ti~OCT~TN15 VENDD R TOTAI~ .... 273.00 M3030 24~769 2 Z~Z 77~T~ 7277D1 1,355.55 BEER 1,355.55 - JR,~CD 71-7100-9510 I01-0-- MARK VII DISTRIBUTOR VENDOR TOTAL M3170 0000717000 2/27/01 2/27/01 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI* VENDOR TOTAL 1355.55 30,050.67 03-0i WASTEWATER 30,050.67 JRNL-CD 30050.67 78-7800-&230 1010 PAGE 7 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NNBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER PRE' AP ~3206 16831MB 592.83 ~INTER NIX 01-4280-2340 2/27/0i 2/27/01 592.83 JRNL-C~ 1010 592.83 ~3.3-4---2-O~I-MElqBb-IRSI~I~P-DRUG~ESTS 83.33 2001 MEMBERSHIP DRUG TESTS 83.33 2001 MEMBERSHIP DRUG TESTS 250.'00-----jRNL-~L~D MIDWEST ASPHALT CORP VENDOR TOTAL 272~0[---2727~0~ MN COUNTIES INSURANCE TRUS VENDOR TOTAL 250.00 01--;-42~0-~I30'-- 73-7300-4130 78-7800-4130 ............... ~'01'0 M3350 020701 25.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4340-4130 2/27/01 2/27/01 25.00 JRNL-CD lOlO MN PARK SUPERVISORS ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 25.00 -~3-5~0~y--0-1-0~-2-8~ ~;823.33--~-~'~-~--RE-~-~I~F 2/27/0i 2/27/01 8,823.33 JRNL-CD ~O13-N~ ~1~ RELIE~ A$$N VkNDDR 1U~-[----------8823~33 N3680 1009411 115.00 THRU 01-31-02 MEMBERSHIP DUES 27~-~77-0-1-~27-2-77-0~ I~5-.~O-'--JR~L-CD NATL FIRE PROTECTION ASSN VENDOR TOTAL 115.00 95;-95U0~-1~0"~ 1010 22-4170-4130 N3810 3050578 1,515.56 GASKET, COUPLINGS, ETC 73-7300-2310 2/27/01 2/27/01 1,515.56 JRNL-CD 1010 3050213 3~9.15 WATER METER GILLESPIE CENTER 73-7300-2310 2/27/01 2/27/01 389.15 JRNL-CD 1010 NORTHERN WATER WORKS ~UPPL VENDOR TOTAL -038S-5--D-4-6'-6729~' 03895 3938-40632 OWENS SERVICE ONE P394B 010208 1904.71 2/27/01 2/27/01 59.82 JRNL-CD 1010 VElk~I)OR-~TOT i~-E ......... 59.82 '- 1,587.00 INSTALL UNIT HEATER 22-4170-3830 2i27/0A 2i27i01 1,587; O D ---2P, NL---C-D I~I-O------ VENDOR TOTAL 1587.00 125.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4140-4130 2/27/01 2/27/01 125.00 JRNL-CD 1010 PERF VENDOR TOTAL 2/27/01 2/27/01 --FrE-p S-I-~E-A--E lyMp-A- k~f P4010 24697 125.00 148. BB--- MInX 71~?100 -'95'40 .......... 146 .SB JRNL-CD 1010 ~rElq'DO'R-'TOT/~E- ...... ~ 8 , BB' 294.62 REPAIR PLOW TRUCK 01-4280-3810 PAGE 8 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-C02-01 CITY OF HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NMSR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 2/27/01 2/27/01 294.62 JRNL-CD 1010 24763 83165"- CE~TE~-F-[~-k]'T ...... 2/27/01 2/27/01 83.65 JRNL-CD 1010 PERRY'S TRUCK REPAIR VENDOR TOTAL 378.27 D4038 39328 834.81 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 -.~ 39329 87.75 CIGARS 71-7100-9550 39541 39542 39743 2 / 27~/72770-1 2/2T/01 2/~7/01 2/2f/gl z/27/01 NNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 34171 908135-00 2/27/01 2/27/01 31.95 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 -31-95--JRNL~'CD ~'~'1~ 802.22 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 '802~2~----2R~C~ 10~-0--------- 834.81 CIGARETTES 71-7100-9550 2591.54 10.75 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 10.75 JRNL-CD 1010 929626-00 2/27/01 2/27/01 929947-00 2/27/01 2/27/01 1,605.88 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 1,605.~8 JRNL-CD 1010 1,202.06 WINE 71-7100-9520 1,202.06 JRNL-CD 1010 931496-00 2/27/01 2127/01 931598-00 2/27/01 2/27/01 931962-00 2/27/01 2/27/01 @UALITY ~INE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL 2/27/01 2/27/01 RELIANT ENERGY VENDOR TOTAL 1,379.31 LISUOR 71-7100-9510 1,379.31 JRNL-CD 1010 1,343.27 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 1,343.27 JRNL-CD 1010 226.17 UINE 71-7100-9520 226.17 JRNL-CD 1010 5767.44 6B6%J9--Ui~-IS~DI-~DI--B-A~TEt-TT--BL-VD. 01~-4J~0.---372-0 1,294.55 01-15-01 4812 CUMBERLAND 01-4340-3720 730.30 01-15-01 LIU~OR STORE 71-7100-3720 2,203.33 01-15-01 5341 MAY~OOD ROAD 01-4320-3720 1,364.40 01-15-01 PUBLIC WORKS STREETS 01-4280-3720 -775.23 Oi~IS;~I-]~]2B]_qC-~ORKS-W-ATER 73~730'0%-372~ 961.28 01-15-01 PUBLIC WORK5 5E~ER 7~-7800-3720 10,678.24 JRNL-CD 1010 10678.24 PAGE 9 AP-C02-O1 7 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD ~ NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS Z S4385 010212 = 2/27/01 2/27/01 - SHOREWOOD, CITY OF VENDOR TOTAL ~ 2/27/01 2/27/01 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L CITY OF MOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER 6,059.25 REIMBURSE FIRE CONTRACT 22-3569-0000 6,059.25 JRNL-CD 1010 6059.25 2,63~.~9 JRNL-CD 1010 ~ S4448 010301 ~-~ SPORTING BREED KENNELS V~E},TD~-R~TOT~KL- 2638.~9 325.00 03-01 DOG KENNEL FEE -- -- ~ T/~[---27~ 7-Z-O1 325 .-0 O---JR - S4648 010221 VENDOR TOTAL 325.00 2/27/01 2/27/01 01-4140-4280 400.00 REIMBURSE CLOTHING ALLOgANCE 01-4190-2240 400.00 JRNL-CD lOlO SUTHERLAND, JON VENDOR TOTAL o~ 2/27/01 2/27/01 ? 2/27/01 2/27/01 j 2/27/0i 2/27/01 2/27/01 2/27/01 400.00 240.OD--~E~R 71--~00-;9530~ 240.00 JRNL-CD 1010 37;~3---Ml-SCEEL-X'NEou5 37.05 JRNL-CD 10i 2,536.15'-"~EER 2,536.15 JRNL-CD 1010 3,380.55 '-BEER '71';~i00:9530 ........... 3,38C.55 JRNL-CD 1010 IHU~P~ DISIRIBU]IN6 Co~.t~~121T~T1-L ..... 6194.35 T4780 547650 2/z[/ol 27-27-YO]'-- THRIFTY WHITE DRUG STORES VENDOR TOTAL 105.04 108.04 PHOTO PROCESSING ETC 108; 0'4----.JPNL--;CD T4825 10-64 225.00 -- 2/27/01 2/27/01 225.00 - TMB CONSULTING, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 2~277~ 1 27~27/01- ~Z TOLL GAS ~ WELDING SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL · =~ T4940 19688 == 2/27/01 2/27/01 19030 2/27/01 2/27/01 - 22-4170-2100 PRINTER CLEANING 01-4095-3800 JRNL-CD 1010 225.00 57.14--- -S'A~F'ETY--C OVER-FL-ATE E Y C 57.14 SAFETY COVER PLATE ETC 57.15 SAFETY COVER PLATE ETC 171 .'~3"- JR?¢L-C~D 171.43 2,112.45 SEALS, BEARINGS, ETC. 2,112.45 JRNL-CD 532.50 532.50 01~4~80-~250' 73-7300-2250 78-7800-2250 78-7800-3800 1010 REPAIR MILLTRONIES UNIT 78-7800-2310 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 10 AP-~02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND - VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD - NO. INVOICE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS TRI-STATE PUMP & CONTROL I VENDOR TOTAL - TA965 269997 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 AMOUNT DESCRIPTIgN 2644.95 153.84 02-01 ELEVATOR SERVICE i53.84 JRNL-CD ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4320-4200 1010 ] THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATO VENDOR TOTAL 2/27/01 2/27/01 153.84 8.07 --MFSCEL~NEDUS'-/)FFICE-SUPP~E1ES 8.07 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.07 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES ~OF MISCkLLANEOU5 UFFICE SUPPLIES 8.07 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 2.69 HISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 2~69----MrSCE[]27jNE--O~]rF-~-CE-~UPPLiES 4.01 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 4.01 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 6~99~E'XDS' 40.42 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 101.16 JRNL-CD 01-4090-2100 01-4140-2100 O~--~I~O-'~TOo 01-4340-2100 01-4280-2100 7~-7~00-2100 78-7800-~100 UI~-4'Igl~tl-O~-- 01-4040-2100 1010 289464-0 51.17 DATA BINDERS 01-4090-2100 2/27/01 2/27/01 51.17 JRNL-CD 1010 289474-0 122.36 TONER CARTRIDGE 22-4170-2100 ~: 2/27/01 2/27/01 122.36 JRNL-CD 1010 - 286303-0 7.43 PACKET FILES (12) 22-4170-2100 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 7.43 JRNL-CD 1010 - TWIN CITY OFFICE SUPPLY CO VENDOR TOTAL 282.12 ~? uSo3O ~'129~D1~ '~44;33---~L-~MP$, SOL~ETS, E~C 73~730~2330 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 444.33 JRNL-CD 1010 ~S FiLTEN VENDO~-TO~[ - U5102 010228 31.95 02-0i BALBOA PARKING 01-4280-4200 31.95 02-01 BALBOA PARKING 78-7800-4200 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 95.85 JRNL-CD 1010 UNITED PROPERTIES VENDOR TOTAL 95.85 - 2/27/01 2/27/01 10.00 JRNL-CD 1010 L ---O-NTV'E~-"S-r~F-~N-'RE-G1 -S-FT~i%~ - %rEl~9 OR ' ~r OT A12 ...... iO.OO ' V5160 010216 159.75 RETIREMENT -- 27~T 71)~Im--272771II 159.7 5---JP, N [ ~ CD- 010216-A & $ JEWELERS WATCH EwALD, JOHN 01-4140-4100 99.36 PLA~UE EWALD RETIREMENT 01-4140-4100 Z7271~'I-----2727701 ....... 99.36 JRNL-CD ............................... lOlO ..... ........ VENDOR~..TOTAL .... 259.11 PAGE AP-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. INVOICE NHBR DATE DATE STATUS PURCHASE JOURNAL CiTY OF HOUND AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER U5443 283019 2/27/01 2/27/01 - dATERTOWN PARTS CENTER VENDOR TOTAL -. 2/27/01 2/27/01 4009 2/27/01 2/27/01 40Z8 2/27/01 2/27/01 X5695 010131 i~ 26583 00032146 27-2'77~1--~727701 2 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE VENDOR TOTAL 26810 010205 - RAMSEY COUNTY SHERIFF 20.45 FILTERS - 20.45-'FILTERS 20.45 FILTERS 61.35 JRNL-CD 61.35 1; Ok 0.00 0i-; 05~'0i-' 3'0 1,040.00 JRNL-CD 1,427.00 JRNL-CD -1~51 ~. 50---O-I-~Z~=~ 1--~7~ T ER~ I N 1,514.50 JRNL-CD 932.00---gI~17~Ol--IJ~TER1~-JSq~E-A~ 2/27/01 2/27/01 932.00 JRNL-CD vENgO~R--TOT~--------~913.50 1,781.92 01-01 #2245-301-939 464.86 Ol-O1 ~1914-601-425 3,174.I7 Ol-O1 ~0217-606-329 231.84 Ol-O1 ~0047-005-229 119.93 Ol-O1 ~0864-508-832 1!9.93--'01~I~.~%~0~-~ 119.93 01-01 ~0864-50~-832 1,395.23 Ol-O1 ~0018-802-634 2/27/0i 2/27/01 8,314.47 JRNL-CD ~O~gTA~ ..... 8314.47 53.30 TEXTBOOK 53.3~ .... JRNE~CD 53.30 300.00 CANINE NARCOTIC DETECTION 2/27/01 2/27/01 300.00 JPNL-CD VENDOR TOTAL 300.00 TOT ;~-L-~9_~--VE N D 0 R S ........ 143,941.26 01-4280-2310 7'~;73~;'2310 78-7800-2310 1010 7~; 73~-;380 0 lOlO 73-7300-3800 1010 1010 1010 01-4320-3710 71-7100-3710 73-7300-3710 z2=~170---371~ 01-4340-3710 01-4280-3710 73-T3-DD---371~ 78-7800-3710 78-7800-3710 1010 22-4170-4110 IO'lO-'-- 01-4140-4110 1010 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com MEMORANDUM February 16, 2001 TO: Kandis FROM: Jon SUBJECT: Quasi Public Sign Permit Westonka Public Schools Please note the attached Sign Permit Application with Loren Gordon's review and approval (comments on the bottom). Quasi Public Signs require City Council approval, are typically put on the consent agenda and approved as recommended by staff. The approval would include all the signs as detailed and located on the map except for the one sign located in Minnetrista. In addition, the signs should be kept out of the right of way. printed on recycled paper SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364 Phone: 472-0600 FAX: 472-0620 Portable signs used for the purpose of directing the public used in conjunction with a governmental unit or quasi-public functions. The period of use shall not exceed ten (10) consecutive days and requires approval of the City Council. Signs shall be placed on the premises of the advertised event, and/or on such other premises as approved by the City Council when granting the permit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYPE OF SIGN: banner ~1,/'/~'(i'g..S,'?¢) {"~ ~temporary/7 t SIZE OF SIGN:~-U-' -7 feet hiqh x DATES OF USE.- F~OffC.'~ / /~ / ~/ wall mount permanent '~* ~9 feet wide = · o09'1~1/,~ ~.~,X® ~?- ~ r I-~ free standing ! /~, '.~ square feet DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc. ): ld,i fl- Appl~ant s Signature Date IIII/111/11/111111/1111111/1111111111111111111/I/11/11111111/I/111111/11111111 APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON: Feb 15 O1 09:00a p. 1 ~uuz 02/14/ol 09..39 F..k.X CITY OF )IOUND _ SIGN PERMIT APPLICATION QUASI PUBLIC FUNCTION - PORTABLE SIGN Citv of Mound, 5341 Mavwood Road, Mound, MN 55364 --AX: 472.-0620 '. # of~b POSt-it* Fax Note 7671 Date '~.- [~' page. TO ~ % ~ ~ From t._.~ I~ Co./Dept. V~r.,.~,,..,.,f~ Co. t~ ~ Phone ~ Phone f Fax ~ Fax ~ FEB {3 200~ lng the pubtic used in conjunction with a The period of use shall not exceed ten of the City Council. Signs shall be placed I/or on such other premises as approved -D¥-zne ~,[y ~.,ounc,, "wr~u-~o--~u .... ~v.'mit. A permit is required, however is exempt from all fees. NUMBER OF SIGNS: TYP~ OF SIGN: banner ~ ~temporary D£SCRIBE REASON/PUI~O$~ FOP, lm.EQDEST: wall mount free standing permanent ~/P//~-- ~-~ ~ DESCRIBE SIGN (message, materials, is it illuminated, etc.): 1 ~ ~-/~-0t III/11111111111111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIt1111111111111/11/11111/I//tl///////// QUALITY ... a ce 'e valut 8~LE _ QU~ ~ ..:.la core value 92/21/2081 !3:a! 6!258~2a64 HESSE PAGE 01 Performance Promotions P. O. BOX 1474 MAPLE GROVE, M:¥ 55311 Phone: (763}535-801I JOtI2V ttESSE, TOURNAMEI~tT DIRECTOR LINDA HESSE, EVENT MANAGER January26,2001 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Attention: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Subject: Oander Mountain Invitational Bass Tour & Youth Tournament Dear Ms. Hanson: With this "Public Gathering Permit" request, we are also requesting that our 40' Tournament Weigh-In Trailer, hooked to a truck, as well as, a few other small pieces of equipment, be allowed ro stay overnight in the p~zk on July 13, 2001, for our July 14th Youth Tournament. In thc past, we have dealt with Fran, who we understand is presently out on a leave-of-absence. However, we have held our event weigh-in's at thc Mound Park for the past several years and we have always left the premises clean. Previously, we were the organizers for the Silverado Pro-Bass Tour and Minnesota Pro/Am Bass Tour. In 2001, we axe organizer/owner of the Oander Mountain Invitational Bass Tour fishing tournament circuit. Also, as in the past, we will make a $200.00 donation, to city parks, for your hospitality., which will be due prior to our July 13th tournament date. Please call me if you have any questions. Lmda Hesse Event Manager attachment 82/21/2881 13:~1 61250~2~64 ~555£ P'~5 02 01/1~,,'[;1 12:,~0 FAX CIT% OF ~rd[~l) ......... ~Jou~ )~rk or ¢ommo~ l~y my gz~up ¢ort~isting of 15 or mor~ in~vidu~ls. U~., ~.s ,'mt to J~tgt'fgrg abJlit~ of the poUce /~Q LIOUOR OR BK£R MAY BE USeD L~ ~ OF T._i~K C/TY pA.RI~ OR Group is t~ r~mov¢ ~ litt~ ~! trash ~ ptovid-., a d,Zl~$it to in~re cleaning up of the parr CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com Z-z~-ol printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01- RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2001 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute, 115A. 552, Counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each City implement and maintain a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County has in 1994 passed a funding policy entitling each City to receive SCORE funds, proportional to the numbers of eligible residential units in its curbside collection program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound wishes to receive these funds. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2001 grant application and further authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute such grant agreement with the County. The foregoing resolution was moved by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: February 27, 2001 Attest: Interim City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel Hennepin County An Equal Opportunity Employer January 4, 2001 Ms. Joyce Nelson City Of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364-1687 Dear Ms. Nelson: Enclosed is the 2000 Municipal Recycling Grant Final Report/2001 Municipal Recycling Grant Application. A new resolution from your governing board authorizing the submittal of the 2001 grant application and authorizing the signing of the 2001 contract should accompany your final report. Contracts cannot be executed without a new resolution. The final reports and resolution are due February 15, 2001. It is important to get the final reports in because your application and new grant will not be processed until all final reports have been received. SCORE funds received from the State for 2001 decreased slightly ($19,000) fi'om 2000, but the net effect on individual municipalities should be minimal. As you may recall, funding is based on the total number of households that have curbside recycling services available. In Item B Part 1I, please list the total number of households that have curbside recycling services available as of January 1, 2001. Each house should be counted only once. lfyou have any questions, please contact me at (612) 348-5893. Sincerely, Daniel Ruiz Sr. Plalming Analyst Enclosure Department of Environmental Services 417 North Fifth Street Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401-1397 (612) 348-6509 FAX:(612) 348-8532 Environmental Info Line:(612) 348-6500 Recycled Paper February 8, 2000 RESOLUTION NO. 00-17 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute, 115A.552, Counties shall ensure that residents have an opportunity to recycle; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County Ordinance 13 requires that each City implement and maintain a recycling program to enable the County to meet its recycling goals; and WHEREAS, HennePin County has in 1994 passed a funding policy entitling each City to receive SCORE funds, proportional to the numbers of eligible residential units in its curbside collection program; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound wishes to receive these funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council authorizes the submittal of the 2000 grant application and further authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to execute such grant agreement with the County. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Ahrens, and seconded by Councilmember Hanus. The following Councilmembers voted in the affu'mative: Ahrens, Brown, Hanus, Meisel and Weycker The following Councilmembers voted in the negative: none. Attest: City Clerk 8~;/PAT MEISEL Mayor CERTIHCATE City of Mound STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN) I, the undersigned, being the duly qualified and Clerk of the City of Mound, Minnesota, hereby attest and certify that: As such officer, I have the legal custody of the original record from which the attached and foregoing extract was transcribed. 2. I have carefully compared said extract with said original record. o I find said extract to be a true, correct and complete transcript from the original minutes of a meeting of the City Council of said City held on the date indicated in said extract, including any resolution adopted at such meetir~, insofar as they relate to: RESOLUTION NO. 00-17 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2000 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT Said meeting was duly held, pursuant to call and notice thereof as required by law on February 8, 2000 WITNESS my hand officially as such Clerk, and the seal of said City, this 21st day of March, 2000 CITY CLERK SEAL CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01- RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF WESTEDGE BOULEVARD, FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD 15 SOUTH TO WOODEDGE ROAD. WHEREAS, it is proposed to improve Westedge Boulevard, from Hennepin County Road 15 south approximately % mile to Woodedge Road, with curb and gutter, storm sewer and catch basins, and to assess the benefited property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mound, Minnesota: That the proposed improvement be referred to McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., for study and that they are instructed to report to the Council with all convenient speed advising the Council in a preliminary way as to whether the proposed improvement is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible and as to whether it should best be made as proposed or in connection with some other improvement, and the estimated cost of the improvement as recommended. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember , and The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative. Attest: Interim City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 0'1- RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF WESTEDGE BOULEVARD FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD '1 $ TO WOODEDGE ROAD WHEREAS, pursuant to a resolution adopted February 27, 2001, a report has been prepared by McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc., with reference to the improvement of Westedge Boulevard, from Hennepin County Road 15, south approximately % mile to Woodedge Road, and this report was received by the Council on February 27, 2001, and WHEREAS, the report provides information regarding whether the proposed project is necessary, cost-effective, and feasible, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Mound, Minnesota: The Council will consider the improvement of such street in accordance with the report and the assessment of abutting property for all or a portion of the cost of the improvement pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 429 at an estimated total cost of the improvement of $209,900. A public hearing shall be held on such proposed improvement on the 27"~ day of March, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of City Hall, and the City Clerk shall give mailed and published notice of such hearing and improvement as required by law. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember seconded by Councilmember The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this ~day of ,2001. , and Attest: Interim City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel W'7o CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364-1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www. cityofmound.com TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BONNIE RITTER, INTERIM CITY CLERK LICENSE RENEWALS The following licenses are up for renewal. The license period is March 1, 2001 through February 28, 2002. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, fees, etc., being submitted. Garba,qe Waste Management Blackowiak & Son BFI of North America Randy's Sanitation printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION # 01- RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION ON THE ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4446 DENBIGH ROAD, PID # 19-117-23-24-0001 P & Z CASE gOl-07 WHEREAS, the applicant, Mark Hanus, has requested a side yard setback variance to add a second story addition, and first floor entryway. The existing setback is indicated below: Side yard ; and, Existing Required Variance 5.28 feet 6 feet 0.72 feet WHEREAS, the property is located within the R-lA Single Family Residential District which requires a lot area of 6,000 square feet, a 20 feet front yard setback, and a 6 feet side yard for this lot of record; and, WHEREAS, the 17 feet by 29 feet second story addition would be built within the existing building envelope and would not expand the existing nonconforming setback; and, WHEREAS, the 11 feet by 12 feet entryway would expand the front of the house in a conforming manner; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the request and recommended that the Council approve the sideyard variance as recommended by Staff; and, NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: 1. The City does hereby approve the sideyard setback variance with the following findings: a. The variance does not increase the existing nonconformity; b. The variance allows an addition to the house that is a reasonable method to provide for increased livability of the property; c. Given the existing conditions, granting of the variance does not provide special privileges to the property that would be denied to other structures in this zoning district; d. The variance requested is the minimum variance needed to alleviate the e. The variance is not materially detrimental to adjacent properties or the purposes of this Ordinance. This variance is approved for the following legally described property as stated in the Hennepin County Property Information System: LOT 1, BLOCK 1, AVALON, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA, TOGETHER WITH THAT PART OF ADJACENT, VACATED, STRATFORD LANE, WHICH LIES BETWEEN THE NORTHERLY EXTENTIONS OF THE EAST AND WEST LINES OF SAID LOT 2. The property owner shall have the responsibility of filing this resolution with Hennepin County and paying all costs for such recording. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember and seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: APPROVED: February 27, 2001 Pat Meisel, Mayor Attest: City Clerk MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Those present: Chair Geoff Michael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Bill Voss. Staffpresent: Mayor Pat Meisel, City Planner Loren Gordon, Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Noflander. The following Public were present: Steve Codden, Mark Hanus, Paul Larson Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 CASE #01-07 VARIANCE 4446 DENBIGH ROAD MARK HANUS Commissioner Mueller felt he needed to step down (due to the city's new ethics policy) because he sold Mark Hanus this property and made money on it. He felt he needed clarification fi.om the city attorney. Mayor Meisel agreed that it was a good idea to step down and consult the city attorney. It was the consensus of the commission that Mueller did not have a conflict of interest however Mr. Mueller wanted to wait for official word one way or another. City Planner Gordon introduced the proposed variance. Mark Hanus, property owner, wants to add a second story and entryway to the existing home. The sideyard setback is non-conforming by .72 feet. He feels the variance is very reasonable and recommends Planning Commission approval. Discussion Commissioner Burma questioned the 4.2 feet on the far end of the addition. He was concerned because it had not been recognized. Building Official Sutherland said, in previous cases, the City Attorney felt it was unnecessary to do so. When the issue is recognized it is somewhat authorized and this may not be the desired goal. MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle and seconded by Commissioner Hasse to recommend approval of the variance request. Motion carried unanimously VARIANCE APPLICATION crrY OF MOUND S3~1 Ma~Nood Road, Mound, MN 5~31M Phone: 472-0607, Fax: 472-0620 (FOR OFFICE USE ONLY} Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: City Planner City Engineer Public Works DNR PARK Other SUBJECT PROPERTY LEGAL DESC. .a, OPERTY OWNER APPLICANT (IF OTHER THAN Lot / .. B~oc,k / Subdivisicn ~ v~,[ o ['1 P~D# I C~-117-~.-5 ZW ZON~NeD~ST~CT .-~ ~ .-2 .-3 Phone (H) d 7~- 5'9?0 OWNEF~) Name Address Phone (H) Plate B-1 B-2 B-3 (W) (M) Has an application ever been made for zoning, variance, condiUonal use permit, or o~er zoning procedure for this property? ~,~yes, ( ) no. if yes, list date(s) of application, action taken, resolution number(s) and provide copies of resoi~ons. ?/.- 7to' , Detailed description of proposed construction or alteration (size, number of stories, type of use, etc.): / Valance Ap¢icatlan, P. 2 Case Nc}. Do the existing structures c~mply witfl ali area, height, bulk, and selt~d( regulalions for the z~ning district in which it is located? Yes (), No ~x~'. If no, specify each non-mnferming use (describe reasan for variance request, i.e. se~ac~ lot area, RI=QUIRED REQUESTED VARIANCE Front Yard: ( N~E W ) Side Yard: ( N S~)W ) Side Yard: ( N S E~)) Rear Yard: (~(I~S E W ) /5" Lakeside: (f,.~ S E W ) -(NSEW) fL lo ¢c fL 7.~-~ fL ft' ?.¥ fL fL SI.;. fL fL fL ,7~ fi- Street Frontage: z/'O fL z/~ ? 3 ft. ft. Lot Size: ~ CO::D SCl ff '7~,~"- .sq ft ~ sq ft Hardcaver. ~o-r? sq fl: ~.TZ.~, sq ff ---- sq ft Does the present use of the praperty c~nform t~ all regutaQons for the zaning distri~ in which it is located? Yes/~ No (). if no, specify each non-conforming use: o Please Which unique physical characteristics of the subject praperty prevent its reasonable use far any of the uses permitted in that zoning district?. t(x~) tt:::)O ilarrow oo small ( ) too shallow describe: "7'-/1 ~ topography . ( ) drainage '~-e~ng situation shape ( ) other:, specify ~ A /~ '~, Was the hardship ~ above cm. ated by the action of ,a~yone having pml~erty interests in the land after the zoning ordinance was adopted (1982)? Yes (), No,~ Eyes, explain: Was the hardship c=~.ated by any other man-made change, such as the relocation of a mad'?. Yes (), No,~ If yes, explain: o Are :he conditions of hard.ship for which you request a variance pe~liar only to :he property described in this petition? Yes (), No~[~ If no, list some other properties which are similarty affected? 9. Comments: ! certify that all of the above statements and the statements contained in any required papers or plans to be submitted herewith are tree and accurate. I consent to t~e entry in or upon the premises described in this applicati(3n by any authoriz.,,d offidal of the City of Mou/~d f~r the purpose of inspecting, or of pc~ting, maintaining and r~moving such notices as may be required by law. ~ner's Signature <--~d[ _ t . -' ,Date Applicant's Signature._ ~ 1 ' _NORT/.t ELECTION _~L,~LE", Y~" ='.]--' . .. L~£A p6 ADVANCE SURVEYIi- ,G & DIGINEERING $811 Cedar Lake Road M iq.eapoll$. MN 554[$ SURVey FOR: MARK HANUS ONE INCH EQUALS 20 FEET SURVEYED: July 21, 1988 CO. P~ne [61Z) 541 0500 D~AFTED:' August 11, 1988 R~-v~*sed $o Sho~ O.H.W. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: ~~4a~ G, 19~l Lot !, Block 1, AVALON, Hennepln County, Minnesota, together with that part of adjacent, vacated, Stratford Lane, which lies between the northerly extentions of the east and west lines of said Lot 2. .L_E. GAL DESCRIPTION SOURCE: Ve'have surveyed the above described property -htch the client claims to own or appeeri t'o own fr~ various 9overr.~nent records. Ve ~ke ~ r~presentatlon that t~ client does In fact ~ t~ pro~rty nor that a search ~F the records ~s been ~de ~o detemine the extent and nature oF his ~ldlngs. IF ther~ ts any ~ub: concerning ~he accuracy oF the legal description. C~etent legal counsel s~ld be retained to perform a title search*and issue a title oplntnn For our use (n preparlnq the survey. EASEMENTS · other sources. The survey does not ~urnort t .... - all eas~nts and t~rov~nts. STAND~RD ~BOLS A~ CO~):r~C):~~ , "c~' Denotes I/Z' lO pipe wtth Plastic ~lu~ r, ~tate [Icense N~r ~Z35 set. denotes Found iron ~-~n:. ' C~RT~FICATION: herr, by certtf., that this :.~.-vey ,,~s p-.? .... l;y ~ or u~%r ~ ~lrect su~lst~ ~ t~t I ~ 4 dul . ..: .... ~?~': 6-7S CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01- RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT CDBG FUNDING OF OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WECAN) BE CONTINUED WHEREAS, the City of Mound has supported a variety of services that the Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) provides to Iow and very Iow income residents in western Hennepin County with the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds; and WHEREAS, these services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job counSeling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public assistance intake services, and the family mental health counseling; and WHEREAS, in 2000 WECAN served over 900 families, a third of whom are residents of the City of Mound. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound recommends that the CDBG funding of the Westonka Community Action Network (WECAN) be continued. The foregoing resolution was moved by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Attest: Interim City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel Westonka Community Action Network · Family Support Services · Meals on Wheels · Human Services · Job Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnetrista, MN 55364 {952) 472- 0742 (952) 47%5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independent Rockford Loretto St. Bonifacius MapJe Rain Spdng Park Minnet0nga Beach Tonga Bay · Minnetdsta Westem 0ron0 OFFICERS Dorothy Mc0ueen President Community 'volunteer Sandy Simar Vice President Head Start Manager Susan Meyers Secretary CommuniO, Volunteer Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of Independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderson Minnetrista Police Chief Larry Bailey Directo~ West Hennepin Public Safety Mary DeVinney Westonka Food Shelf Len Harrell Mound Police Chief Helmar Heckel Pasto,~ Baywind Christ/an Church Paula Larson Owner, Larson Printing Sharon McMenamy-Cook Community Volunteer Marlys Nelson Personal Banker Sandy Olstad Par/stl Nurse Charles Pugh Community Volunteer Bob Tomalka Community Volunteer Mark Winter V/ce President, Crow River Bank ADMINISTRATION Edith Travers Executive Director Beppy Goodfellow Family Advocate Volunteer Coordinator Audrey Ogiand Adm/mstrative Assistant Meals on Wheels Coordinator Shirley Tulber§ Career CounseTor/Job Developer United Way Affiliated Agency February 2, 2001 Mayor Pat Meisel And City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: On behalf of the WeCAN Board of Directors, I am again asking the city of Mound to support our request for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. WeCAN is a community-based human service organization, dedicated to helping people achieve greater self-sufficiency and family stability. We provide a variety of services to Iow income residents in western Hennepin County, and in most cases WeCAN is the only provider of these services in this area. In 2000, we served over 900 families, a third of whom are residents of Mound. Our services include emergency housing and utility assistance, job counseling, food and nutrition education, family support services, public assistance intake services, and family and individual mental health counseling. Approximately ninety percent (90%) of those families we serve have a total household income considered Iow or very Iow. Though the economy has been good in the past year, many of our clients are the working poor who barely make enough to get by, and any financial set-back is devastating for them. We have seen an increase of over 30% from 1999 in the number of households for whom we provided emergency assistance and/or family support. Enclosed is additional information about Mound residents WeCAN served in 2000. As you well know, your city's CDBG allocation is now part of a pool of funds from communities receiving less than $75,000 annually in CDBG funding, Mound has a long history of supporting WeCAN City of Mound Page 2 operations, and your on-going support is essential to us. This year WeCAN is requesting $15,000 from Consolidated CDBG funds. If you continue to support WeCAN's mission of helping families achieve greater self-sufficiency, we would appreciate a letter of support or resolution from the City of Mound which affirms that support by March 1,2001. We will then submit your letter along with our application for CDBG funds to Hennepin County, which is due March 9. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please feel free to contact me. I would be honored to present WeCAN's mission and accomplishments at a future city council meeting. And thank you for your continued support! Respectfully, Edith J. Travers Executive Director Enclosure Z Z O~ C~&tiv¢ Solutioa~ ~Or L~nd l~l&anin~ snd Dcsi~n Hoisiagton Koegler Group lnG. gill MEMO February 10, 2000 To: Leah Weyck~r Mound City Council From: Bruce Chamberlain Mound Visions Coordinator Re: Skate Pa~k I understand from our conversation the other day that ther~ may be a grant opportunity lbr a skate park in Mound. "Skate park" is a term used to desgn'be ~n in-ground or above ground, concrete or wood facility that ac.~ommodates ia-line skate and skateboard moves and tricks. Skate parks have become the hottest new park and recreational facility in the c. ountry. I am working with several communities who are considering installing or have re~enlly installed ska:e parrs. Todd Hoffman, Park a~d Recreation Director with Chanhassm recently told me that their new skate paxk was a difficult political sell but now that its ins~all¢cL, the City. Council r~cognizes it as the best recreational investment in the City. As a skate park relates to the redevelopment of downtown Mound, there are a few things I believe the City should consider. 1) The City will be creating a highly pe, destrian-friendlv downtown environment over the next few years. Pedestrian places also m~e gr~t plae~s to skateboard becaus~ they have steps, railings, planters and other fun things to do skate tricks from. If skateboarders use the downtown distri~ as one big skate park, them will likely be zonflicts. Thc City could ban skateboards from the downtown but without offering an alternative a ban seems both unrealistic and utffair to tho kids. 2) It will be in the City's best interest to build a s~rong sense of ¢ommuni~' ownership in ~.em~e.w down!ox.va. In_.the cas. e ofyoufl~, this will b~ especially important in order to maze vmaalism. The scho~l brick design program at Lost Lake is intended, in part, as a way to build that sense of ownership. A ska:e park linked closely with downtown could be another way to build ownership. 3) The Mound Market Position adopted by the Council several years ago suggests that the stral~-gy for downtown revitalization should be built around creating a reerealional/¢ultural/sc, enie destination. A skate park would be one more reason for ldds and parents to come downtown. I obviously think thata skate park linked to the downtown district is agood idoa. If the Council should hapl~n to agree then the next question is - where. Sucoessful skate parks are usually in high visibility areas. Pan of the reason downtowns am so alluring is because they give skateboarders a chance to show-offa little. Any location considered should also be safely accessible by trail for obvious reasons. I also believe there is a sn-ategic advantag~ in locating a skate paxk close to the downtown because there will almost certainly be skateboarders that want 123 North Third Street, Suite 100, Mim:capo~, MN 55401-1650 Ph (1612) 338.0800 Fx (612) 338-~8 MP..IVlO - Les,h W~.c.k~, skate ~azks Felamar~, 10, 2000 Page 2 to use the downtown district (within reason ~hat is probably l'me). But if there is a problem, it will be much easier for business people to suggest that someone not skateboard downtow~a it'they ea~ point to ~e place within eyesight where kids are encouraged to skate. Having quiekty looked at a few possible location options, the most encouraging one may be the end. of Maywood road close to City Hall. It is closely linked wi~ the Lost Lake Greenway, it would offer little or no conflict with surrounding land uses, it is visually accessible by police and others and there is enough spa~. It may requite some modification to the layout of police parking on May-wood Road and it may impact access to the City's woodehip pile but these issues are probably resolvable, Enclosed is a plan suggesting the location I discussed. Ir'you have ,any furth~ questions or need additional information, please let me know. Oaarl ~ 0 G£~SE££-~S MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: RE: DATE: THE CITY COUNCIL JOHN DEAN MOUND/BECKERS - MH200-86 February 23, 2001 As a follow up to the City Council meeting of February 13, 2001, further discussions have been held between City Staff, the TEP panel, and Peterson Environmental Consulting (Peterson) on behalf of the Beckers. It appears significant progress has been made toward agreement on a revised wetland delineation line. The options under consideration at this time appear to be the following: 1. Agreement. Agreement on a specific wetland delineation line, subject to survey, that could be the basis for preparation of proposed development plans by the Beckers. Based on such agreement, the Beckers would withdraw the requests for a no-loss determination and exemption. Such an agreement would not obligate the City to approve any particular development plans, approve variances, or take any other specific actions. Also, such agreement would not address the need for additional permits or approvals from other agencies, such as the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 2. Extension. Pending further discussions of a possible agreement, continue the matter for a specific period of time, say 30 days, provided that the Beckers expressly agree to a further extension of any applicable 60-day period. 3. Denials. If it appears that it will not be possible to reach an agreement, the City Council will proceed with consideration of a resolution adopting findings to deny requests by Beckers for no-loss determination and/or exemption under the Wetland Conservation Act. We expect to be able to present this matter in more detail to the City Council on February 27th. JML-193846vl MU200-86 :: :: '? ':. CITY OF ~.xIOUND ORDINANCE NO. 2001-__ A.N ORDINANCE .aaMENDING SECTION 540 OF THE' MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO SEWER AND WATER RATES, CHARGES AND FEES. · :. " THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITYOF MOUND HER~RY ORDAINS: ·: :: :j. · ..: ...,.. Section 1. Section 540 of the Mound City Code relating to Sewer and Water Re[es, Charges and Fees ts hereby amended tO read as follow~: '- ' ..... ~ Subd. No. 3, Code'SectiOn 600:.45 .~ Tream~nt Rate.~ Residential Quarterly ~e~,er charge For 10,000 gallons or less Ail over 10,0OO gallons, per 1,000 gallons 2.50 Minimum Quarterly Bill 40.00 NOTE: The -,move minimum apphes to each single family dwelhng or apartment wNch is in ~cordanc,: with existing sewer department policy. Quarterly Charge $40.00 Mimmum Commercial Including I,arze Auartm_en~ Monthly Charl~es Monmly Sewer Charges (Large Users) For 3,000 gallons or less Ail over 3,000 gallons, per 1,000 gallons NOTE: Mimmum Monthly Bill per apartment S13.35 Minimum. 2.50 13.35 Single Family Dwelling - The sewer ra~e sh:,ll be based on the actual water used. Water used but not pl~ed into the sanitar~ sewer may be deducted provtding n is metered. Two-Family Usage and Multiple Dwelling Usage - Is computed on th~ sarnc basis as a single dwelliug, except that the rot'al quarterly charges on all such propemes sh',Ai not be less than the uumber of units muluplied by the $13.35 per month, minimum charge per unit. Water used but not placed into the sanitary sewer may be deducted providing it is metered. Dwellings Couaecr~d to Sewer bul no[ Connected to Municipal Wa~er- Shall pay a quarterly me of .~ ~.~qg...ff.,.SUch.users w~h to pay se-er rates based on gallons of w~ter u.~ed, they can purcha~ a water meter from the City and h~ve their own plumber install the meter on their well. Commercial and Industrial - The monthly sewer rate is ba.~ed on the actual amount of water bed each month on the ~ne cost ,,:;ge as residentia.t (see above). Water used but no~ placed into the sanitary Sewer may be deducted providing it is metered. Availability Charge 7 All dwellings '.not confiected~0 .the sanitary sewer must pay an availability charge of $40.00 per quarter whether occupied or vacant. Late Fee Penalty - For 'all bills not pa~d on or before the due d~e specified on the bill, a 10% late fee will be added. Secnon 2. This ordinance is effective ,2001. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Mound this __ ,2001. day of Pat Meisel, Mayor ATTEST: Kandis Hanson, City C~erk 6-7% CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 o www. ci.shorewood.rnn.us · cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us Febmary8,2001 Mayor P~Meisel City of Mound 5341Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1627 Dear Mayor Meisel: The purpose of this letter is to request your support for the adoption of a resolution relating to restrictions on the use and sale of phosphorous lawn fertilizers. I am writing to you in my capacity as the Mayor of the City of Shorewood. I have been involved and concerned with water quality issues for many years, particularly the impact of phosphorous additives found in lawn fertilizers, most recently as mayor and previously as a manager with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. As with many issues, it frequently requires the accumulation of local initiatives to bring about broader state legislative changes. We have learned a lot about the impact of phosphorous lawn fertilizers over the last many years. Please find enclosed a phosphorous lawn fertilizer fact sheet prepared by John Barton with Hennepin County Parks. The City of Shorewood has already adopted this resolution, and I urge you to consider adoption of the enclosed sample resolution, or one tailored to your community. We, as local units of government, can send a strong message to the fertilizer producers and raise public awareness through local initiatives such as this. Upon adoption of the resolution, please return it to me at the City of Shorewood, and I will forward it to the Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts and appropriate legislators. Since the Legislature is in session it is important that the resolutions be returned by March 15. I am happy to discuss these issues with you at your convenience. Also, if you feel it would be helpful, I can arrange to meet with your Council to answer questions you may have. Please reach me at (952) 470-2552 or (952) 474-7802. Si~~//~ Mayor Woody Love City of Shorewood Cc: Ray Bohn, Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts ~, PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER GREEN LAWNS - GREEN LAKES THE PHOSPHORUS CONNECTION Homeowners in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area apply over six million pounds of phosphorus fertilizer to lawns each year. The fertilizer helps to keep lawns nice and green. Unfortunately, the phosphorus also helps to make lakes nice and green during the summer, which diminishes swimming, boating and fishing for many people. Recent studies have shown that 50 percent of the phosphorus in runoff from residential areas comes from lawns. Most of the rest comes from sources such as leaves, grass clippings and sediment on hard surfaces. It takes only one pound of phosphorus to grow 500 pounds of algae. URBAN RESIDENTIAL RUNOFF Total Phosphorus Sources Driveways SOIL PHOSPHORUS FERTILITY LEVEL Very High Medium The unfortunate thing about all this fertilizer use, is that it is unnecessary. Soil tests have shown that most lawns, almost 70 pement, have very high levels of phosphorus and do not need any additional phosphorus fertilizer. The accompanying figure shows the results of 181 soil tests done on lawns in Plymouth, Maple Grove, Minne'tonka and Eden Prairie. Similar results could be expected throughout the metropolitan area. High ~ Very High=P> 50 lbs/acre ~-~ High -- P < 50 lbs/acre When phosphorus fertilizer is applied to lawns with very high / ~, o.~ .. .... ~, .. o,, , ~.~, .... levels of phosphorus, much of it runs off of the lawn into the street where it can be carried into lakes, streams, and wetlands. The graph shows the concentrations of phosphorus in runoff water from lawns with different fertility levels and fertilizer application practices. As the graph shows, much more phosphorus runs off of very high fertility lawns than other lawns. This is not surprising, applying phosphorus fertilizer to high fertility lawns is like RUNOFF PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION pouring coffee into a full cup, some of it is going to spill out. Lawn Category In fact, a lot of the phosphorus applied as fertilizer is spilling out of our lawns. The soil particles can only hold so much the excess begins to run off. Approximately 25 pounds of phosphorus is added to lakes, wetlands and streams each from a 100 acre residential development. It can cost over $5,000 per year to remove this phosphorus using ponds, street sweeping and other management practices. We can all help to improve our lakes, streams and wetlands by not spilling phosphorus into rainfall runoff by doing the following: Have a soil test done on your lawn before adding fertilizer. Aerate your lawn each year. If you fertilize, do it in the fall and sweep up any granules that land on hard surfaces. Keep grass clippings and leaves off of the street so they can't wash into the stormsewers. USE ONLY PHOSPHORUS FREE FERTILIZER ON YOUR LAWN ..... Phosphorus free fertilizer can be purchased at many locations including the following: Dundee Nursery Otten Brothers Hennepin Coop City of Plymouth Bachman' s Nurseries Mills Fleet Farm Linder's Garden Center Home Depot Stores LOOK FOR A FERTILIZER BAG WITH A "0" FOR THE MIDDLE NUMBER. Source: John Barten, Hennepin Parks, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON TI-IE USE AND SALE OF PHOSPHOROUS LAWN FERTILIZERS WHEREAS. the (Watershed, County, Agency of...) water resources; and is tributary to significant fresh WHEREAS there has long been established a well-documented relationship between the use of phosphorous lawn fertilizers and the degradation of water quality; and WHEREAS. as a matter of policy, the (Watershed, County, Agency of...) reduce the consumption and use of phosphorous lawn fertilizers; and desires to WHEREAS. subject to unique circumstances, regional soil conditions have an abundance of natural phosphorous; and WHEREAS. industry leading fertilizer manufacturers and retailers have failed to produce and market low phosphorous lawn fertilizers to the public; and WHEREAS. over two decades of public education has had minimal effect when in competition with corporate advertising and their refusal to formulate to local needs; and WHEREAS. the (Watershed, County, Agency of...) the reduction in the use of phosphorous lawn fertilizers within the finds it important to encourage ; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of declares its commitment phosphorous lawn fertilizer reduction by encouraging the adoption of regulations regarding restrictions of use and sale of phosphorous lawn fertilizers within the BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the (Board of...) supports legislation restricting the sale of any lawn fertilizer, liquid or granular, that contains any amount of phosphorous or other compounds containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except, small quantities may be sold when a soil test indicates added phosphorous is needed to support healthy turf growth, or during the first year when new area or tuff is being established. In addition, displays of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous shall be limited to ten percent of the quantity of non-phosphorous lawn fertilizer on display at any given time. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, such legislation should require that displays of such fertilizer must be clearly marked as containing phosphorous, and must be separated from the display of other fertilizers, and that for each sale of such fertilizer the seller must provide the buyer with a copy of the appropriate printed consumer information. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the (Board of...) does request and encourage its state legislative delegation to consider and enact legislation to regulate and limit the use and sale or phosphorous lawn fertilizers. ADOPTED by the (Board of...) this ~ day of ,2001. ATTEST: , Administrator ::ODMAXPCDOCSXLIB 1\644635\1 , Chair SHOREWOOD MODEL PHOSPHOROUS SALE PROHIBITION Sale of Fertilizer Containing Phosphorous. Effective 1 January , no person, firm, corporation, franchise, or commercial establishment shall sell any lawn fertilizer, liquid or granular, within the Counties of Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey or Scott that contains any amount of phosphorous or other compound containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except: ao bo Small quantities of such fertilizer may be sold for use as provided in Section 18C.201 subd. 6. Displays of lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous shall be limited to ten percent (10%) of the quantity of non-phosphorous lawn fertilizer on display at any given time. Displays of such fertilizer must be clearly marked as Containing phosphorous, and must be separated from the display of other fertilizers by no less than eight (8) feet. c. For each sale of such fertilizer the seller shall provide the buyer with a copy of the printed consumer information set forth herein. ::ODMA~PCDOCS~LIB i\633905\1 DRAFT MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Bill Voss. Staff present: Mayor Pat Meisel, City Planner Loren Gordon, Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Steve Codden, Mark Hanus, Paul Larson Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:44 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBER INTERVIEWS There are two candidates that have applied. Jerry Clapsaddle does not desire to be interviewed at this time. The other candidate is not in attendance. It is understood that the other candidate was notified. Ballots were taken. The secretary tallied the ballots for Commissioner and Jerry Clapsaddle was the unanimous choice. MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Weiland to approve Jerry Clapsaddle as Planning Commissioner. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Weiland to adjourn the meeting at 10:12 PM. Motion carded unanimously. Fe~ 09 2001 16:49:10 -> ~ainistrator FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities 881 Of 882 Number 6 February 9. 2001 Sales tax exemption bills to be heard The House Sales and income Tax Division will hear several bills that would exempt the purchases of local units of government from the state sales tax. The committee, chaired by Rep. Elaine Harder (R-Jackson), will meet in Room 200 of the State Office Building on Thursday, Feb. 15 at 10'.15 a.m. The committee will also begin hearing a number of special bills that would exempt purchases related to specific municipal projects. The Legislature extended the state sales tax to purchases made by local units of government in 1992 ~when the state was experiencing a severe budget shortffall. At that time, the sales tax paid by cities and counties was estimated to generate S60 million for the state's general fund. Now, the estimated cost has risen to more than 5;100 million per year. The issue has been a priority for the League, especially given the recent string of record state budget surpluses. Although the governor has included the exemption for local units of government in his "Big Plan" tax reform proposal, the future of that broad proposal is currently unclear. The Sales and Income Tax Division agenda includes the following bills: · HF 107 (Cassell)--Exempts sales to political subdivisions. · HF 166 (Wasilul()--Exempts sales to political subdivisions. · HF 188 (Stanek)--Exempts sales to political subdivisions. · HF 301 (Marquart)--Exempts sales to political subdivisions. · HF 314 (Kubly)--Exempts sales to political subdivisions. · HF 538 (Folliard)--Exempts sales to political subdivisions. · HF 630 (Swapinski)--Exempts sales to political subdivisions · HF 468 (Erickson)--Exempts materials and equipment used in the construction of a fire station in Princeton from sales and use taxes. Competitive bid threshold With unanimous support, the Senate State and Local Government Operations Committee approved SF 376, authored by Sen. Jim VJckerman (DFL-Tracy) and Sen. Chuck Fowler (DFL-Fairmont) to bring uniformity to the competitive bid thresholds. The House bill will be introduced Monday and will be chief authored by Rep. Larry Howes (R-Hackensack). Last year, the Legislature increased the collar thresholds for local govern- ment contracts subject to the municipal competitive bid law to $35,000 for municipalities under 2,500 population and S50,000 for all others (Minn. Session Laws - 200, Chapter 328 amending § 471). A drafting oversight resulted in two bid processes to be excluded from the threshold increases. They are: · § 429 Special Assessment proce- dures; and · Day Contracts (also in § 429). The thresholds for special assess- manes and day contracts have been uniform and consistent with all other procurement processes subject to the bidding law. That is, of course, until last year's drafting oversight. For more information on city legislative issues, The bill is non-controversial and will be passed from the Senate's consent calendar. Secretary of state proposes election reforms Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer announced Wednesday that she is urging action by the Legislature on a package of four bills designed to increase voter confidence iR the integrity of the election process and to safeguard the conduct of elections. Rep. Tony Kielkucki (Dist 20B- Laster Prairie, Cokato, Silver Lake, Watertown, Winsted) will author legislation that would make signifi- cant changes to election day voter registration procedures. Sen Roy Terwilliger (Dist. 42- Edina) is authoring similar legislation. Kiffmeyer noted "weaknesses" in the way elections are currently administered She said she wants to prevent any "Florida-type fiasco" from occurring here. Specifically she ',','ants to avoid "inequities in votin.~ practices, disputed ballot-:. wrangling over recounts, and ineligible voters casting ballots.' She also wants to ensure military personnel are not denied the opportunity to vote. Kiffmeyer strongly supports another important but controversial proposal to create a fund to provide "every voter with the best voting equipment." The Rural Voter Equality Act would require the Legislature to appropri- ate as much as S22 million to equip all precinct polling places with optical scan electronic vote counting equip- ment that immediately indicates if contact any member of Iht League of .14innesota Cities lnterg_ overnmentat Relations team. (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 ?ch 89 Z881 1£ 58 8Z Via Fax FRIDAYFAX FE~,u,~y 9. 2001 -- P,~E 2 Administrator Page 882 0£ 882 voters have made mistakes when casting their ballots. Currently, polling locations where paper ballots are used (in smaller cities and in townships in rural areas) do not have automatic voting equipment to process the ballots. Election officials who met in Decem- ber with the secretary of state to making such equipment more widely available said there are a host of questions to resolve, not the least of which is that many of the polling places in question serve very few voters--raising questions about the feasibility of providing the electronic optical scan equipment for polling places that do not have it now. The other proposal would make changes to election day registration. The "anti-fraud" bill would require registered voters to present a photo ID when voting atthe polls; require voters registering on election day to provide the last four digits of their Social Security number in order to register; and make it a felony to vote three times in the wrong precinct. On Thursday, Sen. Terwilliger introduced SF 579, which would require voters to produce a photo ID before they would be allowed to sign the voter roster. Senate and House tax committees hit the road Both House and Senate tax committee divisions have decided to take some of their hearings on the governor's tax proposal to locations around the state instead of holding all the hearings at the Capitol. It's a good idea to contact the chair's office if you would like to testify. Watch next week's Bulletin for additional meetings, or check out the House Tax Committee web site at'. www. house.leg.state.mn.uslcommltax esltax eshome.htm. Senate Tax Committee & Division Hearings Feb. 15---Income and Sales Tax division; Chair: Senator Don Betzold Hibbing Memorial Building, 400 East 23'~ Street, Hibbing at 7 p.m. Contact: Michele Ford, (651) 296-4147 Agenda: Governor's tax proposal presentation by Commissioner Smith; public testimony Feb 15--Property Tax Division, Chair'. Sen Samuelson Stearns County Court House-County Board Room, St. Cloud at 7 p.m. Contact: Mary Babus, (651) 296-7593 Agenda: Governor's tax proposal; public testimony House Tax Committee Hearings Feb. 15--PropertyTax Committee; Chair'. Rep. Ron Abrams Rochester City Hall, Room 104,201-4th Street S.E., 7- 8:30 p.m. Contact: Jason Rohloff, (651) 296-8880 Feb. 16--Sales & Income Tax Committee; Cl~air: Rep. Ron Abrams Moorhead City Hall, 500 Center Avenue= 12 - 1:30 p.m. Contact: Jason Rohloff, (651) 296-8880 3oin the B( C effort! Send in your City Council Resolution MINNIIOTA ClTIII, Building Quality 6ornmunltles Check out the B~C Web site: www.lmnc.org/bqc/home.htm Building Quality Communities is about taking charge of the way your cib/is perceived by your residents, legislators and the media. [t's a grassroots effort among all communities throughout the state - and it can't be successful without you! Each city was sent a packet of materials to get ~our city started in communicating how cities en- ance Minnesota's high quality of/ire. Pass the City Council resolution committing your city to the effort and send it to Laura Petersen, 145 Uni- versib/Avenue West., St. Paul, NN 55103, or fax it to 651.215.41~I1. Feb imm in istra~or FRIDAYFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of'Minnesota Cities Page 881 0£ 88Z Number 7 February 16, 2001 Board adopts interim policies on racial profiling, 0.08 DWI threshold The LMC Board of Directors met yesterday and adopted interim policies on two high-profile legisla- tive issues--racial profiling and a reduced driving-while-impaired (DWI) offense threshold. Neither issue was considered during the League's policy adoption process, but it became apparent to intergov- ernmental relations staff at the beginning of the legislative session that both issues would be heavily discussed at the Capitol. Member !input was sought through the Cities Bulletin and at the recent Legislative Conference. After a lengthy discussion of the racial profiling issue, Board members agreed racial profiling does exist and that the LMC should support a meaningful and effective response to the problem The policy language opposes mandatory data collection while supporting state-f unocal training programs, compliance checks, and sanctions against documented instances of inappropri- ate treatment of citizens. The Board also felt the League should have a policy on the reduction of the blood alcohol content (BAC) level threshold for DWI offenses from 0.10 to 008. Citing the benefits to public safety of a reduced thresh- old and the League's Building Quality Communities initiative, as well as the risk of loss of federal highway if the measure is not imple- mented statewide, the Board adopted an interim policy in support of the 0.08 threshold. Staff plans to bring the issues forward for more thorough discussion during next year's policy adoption process. Look for more details and specific policy language in next' week's Cities Bulletin. State budget forecast due Tl~e state Department of Finance will unveil the updated state budget forecast on Wednesday, Feb. 28 Rumors suggest the revised fore- cast will reflect a slowing in the state's economy and slightly re- duced revenues--perhaps in the S250 to 5350 million range. If such a reduction is actually included in the forecast, the surplus through the next biennium would be reduced by approximately 10 percent from the current $3 billion surplus estimate. The release of the updated forecast will mark the beginning of the true budget discussions Legislators ha,'e been waiting to re~,c;er corn- pi-cie judgment on the (:jovernor's prcposal or to begin formulating their own budget and tax plans until they know the updated status of the state budget. Along with the February forecast, the governor will submit supplemen- tal budget recommendations based on tl~e revised revenue and expen- diture estimates. If the governor decides to maintain the broader reforms included in the original Big Plan, he will likely have to identify additional resources to fill in the forecast gap. These recommenda- tions could include such changes as an increase in the new proposed state property tax levied against business and cabin properties, a smaller reduction in the sales tax rate, or smaller reductions in his proposed income tax rates Perhaps more likely, the governor could propose a reprioritization in other state programs, including possible further reductions in city aid programs or an elimination of his proposed sales tax exemption for local government purchases Under the current plan offered by the governor, the net impact of changes to LGA and HACA would reduce total aid paid to cities by approxi- mately S150 million Although some of this aid reduction would be offset by the elimination of the sales tax, virtually all cities will have to increase their property tax levy. Stay tun ed. Competitive bid threshold One of the LMCs Building Quality Con-~mu nit/es leg/slat/va initiatives passed from the Senate to the House on a vote of 65-0 The Senate approved SF 376~ authored by Sen. Jim Vickerman (DFL-Tracy) and Sen. Chuck Fowler (DFL- Fairmont), to bring uniformity to the municipal contract law by including special assessments and day contracts in the competitive bid threshold increases of 2000 Rep. Larry Howes (R-Hackensack), Rep. Bill Kuisle (R-Rochester), Rep. Mary Liz Holberg (R-Laker/lie), and Rep Scott Dibble (DFL-Minneapo- lis) authored the House bill, HF 817. The House Local Government For more information on city legislative issues, contact an}' member of the league of Minnesota Cities latergovernmentat Relations t~am. (65]) 281-1200or(800) 925-]122 5~OL~ FRIDAYFAX 16, 2001 ~ P,~GE 2 -) ~dminis~re~or Page 882 Of flBZ Committee will be hearing the bill Monday, Feb. 19. Last year, the Legislature increased the dollar thresholds for local government contracts subject to the municipal competitive bid law to $35,000 for municipalities under 2,500 population and $50,000 for all others (Minn. Session Laws- 200, Chapter 328 amending § 471). Electronic fund transfer and credit card use The Senate State & Local Govern- ment Operations Committee has passed SF 509, authored by Sen Claire Robling (R-Prior Lake). The bill will next be discussed on the Senate floor. The bill authorizes cities and counties to accept pay- ment of obligations or claims by electronic transfer or by credit card. Sen. Dan Stevens (RrMora) amended the bill to provide cities and townships with limited authority to make purchases via credit card. Similar authority was given to counties last year after the Office of the State Auditor voiced concern that counties did not have explicit statutory authority to make such purchases. Sen. Stevens and Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton) have authored bills similar to the S'teven's arnen0ment to the Robim9 bill. Correction to aid estimates table The Big Plan aid estimates chart in this week's Cities Bulletin contained errors in the column headings. From left to right, the column headings should read: 1. City Name; 2. 1999 Population; 3.2001 HACA; 4. 2001 LGA; 5. Current Law Projected 2002 HACA; 6. Current Law Projected 2002 LGA; 7. Governorls Proposed 2002 LGA; and 8. Percent Change Current Law (2002 LGA plus 2002 HACA) to Governor's Proposed 2002 LGA. Send 3oin the B( C effort! in your City Council Resolution MINNESQ?A Cl'rl!! Builcling u lity ,. Communlbes Check out the BQC Web site: www.lmnc, org/bqc/home.htm Building Quality Communities is about taking charge of the way your city is perceived by your residents, legislators and the media. It's a grassroots effort among all commu- nities throughout the state - and it can't be successful without you! Each city was sent a packet of materials to get your city started in communicating how cities enhance Minnesota's high quality of life. Pass the City Council resolution committing your city to the effort and send it to Laura Petersen, 145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103, or fax it to 651.215.4141. Page 1 of 4 Kandis~anson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Friday, February 16, 2001 1:46 PM Subject: westonka.news westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 18 February 16, 2001 The Westonka Public Schools' channe/for direct electronic communication to interested parents, staff, and community members, providing up-to-date information about education in District 277. westonka.news publishes weekly. Look for it in your mailbox on Fridays. Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A, Mound MN 55364; bttp:l/www.weston.k_.a_.k_12._m_n_.u~s; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: . ~w_eljs_te~n @westo n ka. k 12. mn. us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Legislative Action Committee Seeks Members --Mound Westonka Mock Trial Team is Undefeated for Fourth Year in a Row --Referendum Q&A 2. Focus Topic: Westonka District 277 Foundation Grants Available 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **Legislative Action Committee Seeks Members** If you're interested in advocating for your public schools with your local legislators, consider coming to an organizational meeting of the Westonka Legislative Action Committee on Thursday, March 1, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 200 at Shirley Hills Primary School, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound. Committee members would collaborate on communicating Westonka's needs to our legislators, assuring that the word gets to St. Paul. The committee will: (1) examine current information from the legislature, (2) disseminate accurate information to employees, parents, students, and citizens, which they can use in 02/16/2001 Page 2 of 4 communicating Westonka's needs to their legislators, and possibly (3) organize visits to St. Paul to take the message to legislators. The House and Senate will be drafting their education bills as soon as the next financial forecast is published, at the end of February. Governor Ventura has proposed a 0% increase in K-12 education funding. It is unknown what the House and Senate might intend to provide in education funding. The Westonka School Board has invited local legislators to attend a special study session on Monday, February 26, at 7:30 p.m. in Room 200 of Shirley Hills Primary. Community members are invited to attend. For more information on the Legislative Action Committee, simply reply to this message. **Mound Westonka Mock Trial Team is Undefeated for Fourth Year in a Row**' For the fourth year in a row, the Mound Westonka High School Mock Trial Team has finished the regular season undefeated. Mock Trial is a co-curricular activity that allows students to explore the legal profession. It provides excellent preparation for students considering law school. After learning about their assigned case, team members are challenged to think fast on their feet, use analytical writing skills, and develop strong cases with persuasive witnesses. The team's success is doubly impressive when one realizes that they regularly compete against much larger schools, including Edina. Faculty advisor Marc Doepner-Hove said, "This is the fourth year in a row that we have been undefeated. Regions start next week, and we'll compete against Orono in first round." Doepner-Hove's wife, Stacy Doepner-Hove, assistant director of admissions for the University of Minnesota law school, has helped coach for the team for the past seven years. **Referendum Q&A** Several citizens have asked the following question: Q. "Why is the district holding an election on a Saturday?" A. The decision to hold the vote on a Saturday was based both on feedback from previous years and professional advice. In the past, people have raised concerns about holding the election on a work day and school night-making it difficult for them to squeeze in time to vote between work and evening hockey/dance/other children's activities. Decision Resources, Inc., a survey research firm that has extensive experience with school elections in the upper Midwest, advised the school board that Saturday elections have been held in other communities, were received favorably by voters, and resulted in increased voter turnout. **If you have heard questions about the referendum, please call the Bond Hotline (952.491.8443) or write welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us. Even if someone has not called directly, we'd like to answer questions that are "out there"--you can help by identifying the 02/16/2001 Page 3 of 4 questions. FOCUS TOPIC **Westonka District 277 Foundation Grants Available** The Westonka District 277 Foundation recently announced that applications for 2001 Grants are now available. Applications have been placed in the offices of all schools, Community Education, and the Early Childhood center. Since 1977, the Westonka District 277 Foundation has awarded from 8 to 16 grants each year, with a total amount of over $24,000 committed to Westonka programs. Individuals, staff committees, parent groups, co-curricular groups, community groups, and businesses are eligible for funds - with the requirement that all funds enhance student opportunities in Westonka schools. Applications are due Monday, April 9. Applicants are urged to discuss project ideas with other staff members, parents, or students, before writing the proposal. According to Foundation director, Diane McCurry, grants are competitive each year, with no guarantee of continued funding for previous recipients. "There are always more applications than funds, so please don't be discouraged if your project has been rejected in the past. Perhaps with some modification, this could be your year!" You may call the Foundation voice mail, 952.491.8267, or Diane McCurry, 952.472.6342, with questions or for help in completing the application. UPCOMING EVENTS --February 19, Presidents' Day Holiday; district employee holiday, buildings closed, no school E-12. --February 23-24, Section 4AA Wrestling Tournament, Mound Westonka High School. --February 25, Ali-District Band Concert/Art Show, 2:30 p.m., Mound Westonka High School, 5905 Sunnyfield Road East, Minnetrista. --February 26, Late Start, grades K-4 (school starts two hours later than usual; dismisses at regular time). Middle school and high school students have regular school day. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! We would like to hear your feedback on any of the topics above, or any other school-related issue. Use whichever way works best for you: send an e-mail message to 02/16/2001 · 2000 Boat Density & User Attitude Survey's: Schoell and Madson, Inc. conducted these'surveys in'compliance ..... with the Management Plan for Lake Minnetonka. The Boat Density Survey is conducted every two years, with the User Attitude Survey conducted every four years. This project is a joint effort of the LMCD and the MN DNR. A presentation of these surveys is scheduled for the 3/14/01 Regular LMCD Board meeting. A copy of this survey will be forwarded sometime in the near future. ~ '. :' . . ' ' ~ : ' '. ": .... . -i:'. · 2001 Board Officers & Board Appointments: Board Officers for 2001 were discussed at the 1/10/01 Regular LMCD Board meeting. Board Officers for 2001 include: Bert Foster- Chairman, Craig Nelson- Vice Chairman, Tom Skramstad- Treasurer, and Lili McMillan- Secretary. LMCD member cities Deephaven, Minnetonka, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Orono, Shorewood, Tonka Bay, and Wayzata. Discussion of these appointments is planned for the 2/28/01 Regular LMCD Board meeting. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 (952) 745-0789 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER Gregory S. Nybeck February 14, 2001 Increased Water Patrol Presence for 2001 Boatinq Season: This past summer, the LMCD forwarded a proposal to increase Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol presence on Lake Uinnetonka, for the 2001 boating' . season, by two full-time Deputies for five months. A two-year commitment, at $100,000 per year, has been seeked for the proposal, with costs to be shared by Hennepin County (50%), LMCD Member Cities (30%), and the LMCD "Save the Lake" Fund (20%). , To date, both Hennepin County and the LMCD "Save the Lake" Fund have appropriated the needed funds for the proposal for 2001. Additionally, nine LMCD Member Cities have agreed to voluntary payments of approximately $17,000 for the proposal in 2001. LMCD staff, working with LMCD Board leadership, either has made contact with the remaining five LMCD Member Cities or has plans to in the near future. Any shortfalls in the 30% commitment from the LMCD Member Cities will be addressed by the LMCD Board sometime in the near future. Further details of this proposal will be provided when they are available. ... ...... : ;,-: ...... ;':. ;;~ .~,~:,,,...' .~. Exotics Manaqement: Similar to one year ago, the LMCD assembled a EWM Harvesting ProgramWorking Group to evaluate the Program to see if improvements can be made for 2001. This Working Group met on 11/18/00 and 1/13/01, and discussed a number of aspects of the Program. Some of the aspects discussed at these meetings include: 1) establishing a rotating harvesting schedule, 2) establishing a harvester replacement schedule, 3) improved radio's and communications, 4) possible modifications to the harvesting equipment, 5) improved hauling of harvested vegetation, 6) addressing work vehicle needs, 7) improved maintenance of the harvesting equipment, and 8) addressing budget constraints. Recommendations from this Working Group will be presented to the LMCB Board at its 2/28/01 Regular meeting. Further details will be provided when they are available. Staff is currently preparing plans for the 2001 Zebra Mussel Program. Similar to 2000, efforts will be continued on improving public education and awareness. Additionally, the LMCD would like to take a more aggressive approach on the inspection and/or cleaning of watercraft that have come from infested waters prior to launching into Lake Minnetonka. This was a problem area in 2000, with no watercraft washed by the LMCD's high-pressure sprayer. The LMCD is currently considering hosting a public forum to get input from the public on how to better approach the zebra mussel issue. Further details will be provided when they are available. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER, 2/14/00, PAGE 2 On-goin.q Licenses ;Permits: LMCD staff has recently inspected all licensed de-icing installations on Lake Minnetonka. Result.'; of these inspections, with related correspondence, have been forwarded to the licensee and the affected municipality. Staff is currently processing all new and renewal without change applications for licensed multiple dock facilities on the Lake. Additionally, staff has sent out new and renewal applications for charter boats on the Lake, and is currently processing renewal intoxicating liquor, wine, and non-intoxicating malt liquor applications for these boats. For the 2001 season, the demand for intoxicating liquor licenses will exceed the number the LMCD i.~ allowed to issue by State law, similar to 2000. LMCD Code requires that all liquor licensees on Lake Minnetonka, whether new or renewal, attend mandatory training annually. Staff from the LMCD and the Hennepin County Sheriff's Office Water Patrol will facilitate these training sessions, which will be held sometime in late March and early April. The focus of these training sessions will be on charter boat rules and regulations, related liquor regulations, and general discussion regarding feedback we have received from lhe public. Web Paqe: The LMCD's WebPage is currently under construction and should be updated by the end of March. The address is: http://www.lmcd.org. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT MEMO Date: FROM: SUBJECT: Febmary 14, 2001 Judd Harper, Administrative Technician Deicing Inspections An inspection of licensed deicing facilities in your city was conducted on January 22, 2001, to verify compliance with deicing license requirements outlined in LMCD Code Section 2.09. Copies of the inspection letters are enclosed for your review. Feel free to call the office at 952 745-0789 if you have any questions or concerns relating to this matter. 5%\\ BOARD MEMBERS Bert Foster Chair, Deephaven Craig Nelson Vice Chair, Spring Park Lili McMillan Secretary, Orono Tom Skramstad Treasurer, Shorewood Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Douglas E. Babcock Tonka Bay Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Margaret Davis Minnetrisla Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Herb J. Suerth Woodland Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka ~heldon Weft Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNE'~ONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN. MINNESO'~A 55391 · TELEPHONE 9521745-0789 · FAX 952/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR February ] 4, 2001 Mr. Thomas Johnson 5163 Emerald Drive Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mr. Johnson: An inspection of your licensed deicing facility was conducted on January 22, 2001 to verify compliance with deicing license requirements outlined in LMCD Code Section 2.09. The inspection at )'our facility confirmed that your deicing installation is in compliance with LMCD Code requirements. A copy of the inspection report is enclosed for your review. Your cooperation in ensuring that your facility continues to be monitored daily and operated in compliance with Code requirements is appreciated. Feel free to call the office at (952) 745-0789 if you have any' questions or concerns relating to this matter. Sincerely, LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT Administrative Technician Encl.: CC: Inspection Report Hennepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol City of Mound 5(r~ Recycled Content 2(~% Post Consumer Waste Web Page Address: http://www.lmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com '"0 0 0 0 03;0 r~ 0 '0 0 ~z ~< r- o 'T -' 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ =0 m =. ~.~ m m ~ ~ ~0 ~ m m~O ~ =0~ '~ m m ...... ~=- =~o~-o~~:m~° ~-~~ ~g-~ ~-'~ o ...... ~ .... o~5' ~== o-~= o~ ~ ~ ~ · =. 0 ~ o ~, ~ ~ < ~ --5' ~m - 0 - <g= s <=k° = ~' 5' 5' ~' 5' ~'= 0 0 · 0 · 0 · 0 · 0 · 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g- ~-~ 5'~ o ~'S ~o~ ~'< 0 ~' ::3' O CO ",,I 03 CO 03 'TI r~ ~.0 O O') 03 --. = = m_o =. o ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ E ~ , ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~' ~ ,~ E 0 _ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 ~'E 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 E ~. ~ ~ ~ --. m ~ 0~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o -- _ o~:= ~~ ~ ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _. 0 _. _ = .... ~O~e 0 = =o~ - _ - ~ 0 m 0 m m = E 0 0 · 0 · E · 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ 0 I%0 0 Fe~ ZZ Z001 l~:OZ:4G Via Fax -> ~andis Xanson AMM FAX EWS February 19-23, 2001 (no. 2) Page 881 Of 881 (~' .... :? · ,,~;~., ',~ Association of Hetropolitan i'lunicipalities Metropolitan Council Bills Introduced and Hearings are Scheduled Senator Orfield and Myron Representative Dan McEIroy have introduced several bills regarding the Metro- politan Council. In addition to his elected Metropolitan Council bills Senator Orfield has introduced a bill (SF 786) requiring cities to identify in the comprehensive plan an urban growth boundary. Repre- ;entative McEIroy has introduced a (HF 981)that would establish a legislative commission on the Metropolitan Council. The commission would consist of fourteen members. The mem- bership would be evenly split between the House and Senate. The commission would be charged to review and approve the Metro- politan Council's operating and capital budgets as well as its work plan. The commission's recom- mendations would need to be approved by the legislature. Therefore the Metropolitan Council's budget (operating and capital) and work plan would be approved by the legislature. On Wednesday the House's Metropolitan Council Subcommit- tee met to discuss HF 46. Repre- sentative Lipman's bill would repeal the Metropolitan Councirs role in comprehensive planning. The subcommittee heard testimony from the author and several local government officials. There was testimony for and against the bill. The subcommittee did not take any action and will continue the hearing on HF 45 next Wednesday. TAB Adopts a Policy on Housing Performance Standards The Metropolitan Council and it's Livable Communities Commit- tee have established a 100 point affordable housing performance guideline for funding and set a public hearing for March 21,2001 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Cham- AMM Nen',~ Fax is faxed to all AMM city' matt- agers att d administrators, legislative contacts and Board members. Please share this fax with your mayors, councilmembers and staff to keep them abreast of important metro city issue$. 145 University Avenue West St. Paul, .~LN' 55103-2044 Phone: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (6519 281-1299 E-rna[l: a,nm ~.~,nm 14 5. org bers. The guidelines differ slightly as applied to cities or counties. They impact TEA 21 projects by becoming part of the 1300 point solicitation cdteda. The TAB at its February 22, 2001 meeting decided to support the guidelines and their application with one caveat. TAB moved that points be determined based solely on the applicant. A county project extending through several cities would not lose points if one of those cities did not meet housing criteria. Also a state project would be based or', the county or counties through which it runs Electronic Communications Restored at the AMM Office As of Wednesday, February 21, the AMM's E-mail and Internet service has been restored. Tt~e problems with the bill tracking system have also been remedied. Thank you for your patience during the past week. Minnehaha Creek Watershed Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life District Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin@minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder i~ Printed on recycled paper containing at ,~ast 30% post consumer waste. NEWS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Diane Lynch Coordinator 952-492-7722 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) is working on a very important project that will allow it to track changes that affect the quality of water resources in its communities. This exciting project has an extensive public participation component. Interested persons are solicited to participate in any one of nine Regional Teams located throughout the District. The Teams will be comprised of representatives from local, state and federal government, businesses, non-profit organizations and citizens. Teams will help participants identify water quality problems, enhance education regarding pollutants and facilitate participants' involvement in the development of options and a pollution reduction plan. Each Team will have 12-15 members. The Teams are expected to meet 4 times until the 2nd quarter of 2002. The first meeting is anticipated to be within the next month. The meeting time and location will be convenient to the participants. The following Team communities are based upon similar land uses: Lower Watershed Team 1--Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina and Richfield Team 2-Hopkins and Minnetonka Upper Watershed Team 3--Plymouth, Wayzata, Woodland and Deephaven Team 4--Medina, Long Lake and Orono Team 5--Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Shorewood Team 6--Mound, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach Team 7-Victoria, Chanhassen, Laketown Township and Waconia Township Team 8-Watertown Township, Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius Team 9-Independence and Maple Plain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) was established in 1967 to preserve and protect water quality and the flood control capacity of 27 cities, three townships and two countiea It covers over 181 square miles of waters stretching from the western suburbs nortlg south and eas~ These waters drain into Lake Minnetonka and end up at Minnehaha Falls. MCWD has the responsibility and authority to regulate stormwater runoff, projects altering floodplains and wetlands, dredging, stream and lake crossing and shoreline improvements. The deadline for application is Friday, February 23. For more information, please contact Diane Lynch, Public Participation Coordinator, Lynch Associates at 952-492- 7722 or dlynch ~pclink. com HYDROLOGIC/HYDRAULIC AND POLLUTANT LOADING MODEL OF THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 2/01/01 The Proiect The Board of Managers of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) hired a team of consultants to develop and implement an integrated district-wide hydrologic and pollutant data system. The objective is to develop a data management system for. the entire watershed that would allow the Distdct to track changes in the watershed and determine the resultant impacts to the District's water resources. The program will be patterned after the approach used to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for pollutant loading to water bodies as outlined by the united States Environmental Protection Agency. It is estimated that the entire project will take three years. There are six work areas envisioned to accomplish this project: Watershed Data Collection & Geographic Information System (GIS) Construction; Hydraulic and Hydrologic Modeling (H/H); Public Involvement; TMDL Modeling; TMDL Implementation and Groundwater Analysis. Public Involvement The Public Involvement Component is a collaborative process that promotes stakeholder understanding, involvement and support throughout the entire project. It is designed to meet the following key objectives: · Maintain and enhance MCWD's working relationships · Capture stakeholder interest and involvement · Develop and enhance stakeholder understanding · Progressively integrate city, county and state resources A comprehensive and well-defined community process minimizes conflict. The stakeholder participation for this project is comprehensive and includes: regional teams, a project advisory committee, a technical advisory committee and regional source groups. A Regional Team Approach The Upper (Lake Minnetonka) and Lower Watershed (Minnehaha Creek) are divided into "Regional Teams." These Teams are developed based upon similar land uses, such as: housing densities, lot sizes, open space, recreational uses, transportation, commercial and industrial uses and infrastructure. These Teams are the foundation for the public participation process. The Teams are comprised of representatives from the District's local governments, regional, state and federal agencies and citizens. Their role is to help identify pollutants, sources of pollution and to develop a process to involve point source and non.point source stakeholders in the development of a wasteload reduction plan. They engage those stakeholders in definition of the problems, enhance education regarding pollutants and facilitate their involvement in the development of options and the development of a wasteload reduction plan. Lower Watershed Team 1-Golden Valley, St. Louis Park, Minneapolis, Edina and Richfield Team 2-Hopkins and Minnetonka Upper Watershed Team 3-Plymouth, Wayzata, Woodland and Deephaven Team 4-Medina, Long Lake and Orono Team S-Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Greenwood and Shorewood Team 6-Mound, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach Team 7-Victoria, Chanhassen, Laketown Township and Waconia Township Team 8-Watertown Township, Minnetrista and St. Bonifacius Team 9-Independence and Maple Plain ReRional Team MeetinRs Each Team will have 12-15 members. The Teams are expected to meet 4 times from the 4th quarter 2000 until the 2nd quarter of 2002. The first meeting is anticipated to be within the next month. The meeting time and location will be convenient to the participants. Currently, a list of possible participants is being compiled. For more information, please contact Diane Lynch, Public Participation Coordinator, Lynch Associates at 952-492-7722. Minnthaha Crttk Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, 'Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G, Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Printed (m recycled paper containing at least 30% post consumer waste. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 7, 2001 TO: City and Township Clerks Within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed FROM: Diane Lynch, Coordinator Public Participation Volunteers Needed I have enclosed a copy of the news release that was just sent to the StarTribune, Pioneer Press and community newspapers that serve the 27 cities and 3 townships located within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. We are looking for citizens, public officials and organizational representatives to be part of a large water resources project that will engage local communities in identifying and managing threats to water quality. This exciting project has an extensive public participation component. We need your help. Please circulate this news release throughout your office, post it and ifposs~le, put an article on your website or include it in your newsletter (if applicable). We have enclosed a Fact Sheet that descn'bes the project in more detail. Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-492-7722. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471-0590 Fax: (952) 471-0682 Email: admin @ minnehahacreek.org Web Site: www. minnehahacreek.org Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Fisher Monica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Printed on recycled paper containing at least 30% post consumer waste. February5,2001 To: Interested Parties Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the November 21, 2000, Proposed Revisions to Rules B. D. G and N of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) in both clean and redtined versions, and the November 21, 2000 Statement of Need and Reasonablenes~ (SONAR) describing the proposed changes and the reasons for them. The proposed revisions all concern the protection and management of wetlands. Rule D, the MCWD Wetland Protection Rule, is substantially revised to clearly distinguish requirements applicable under the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) (when the MCWD is implementing WCA as the Local Government Unit) fi'om those applied by the MCWD solely pursuant to its authority under the watershed law, Minnesota Statutes § 103D.341. Further, it broadly revises the MCWD requirements pertaining to wetland excavation and the establishment and maintenance of buffer strips, to clarify those requirements, modify them to reflect recent experience and current scientific knowledge, eliminate certain requirements and include certain new ones, all as explained in the SONAR. Rule B, Erosion Control, is proposed to be amended to include a temporary wetland buffer during site disturbance. This replaces the permanent buffer requirement that now applies under Rule D. The title of Rule G, Stream and Lake Crossings, is revised to reflect that the rule itself has for several years applied to wetlands. To Rule N, Stormwater Management, would be added a provision requiring stormwater and point source discharges to wetlands to meet specified standards for maximum bounce and inundation period. Comments are requested specifically on the need for and reasonableness of the proposed revisions; any compliance burdens or costs that they would impose; their impact on water resource protection; and whether the purpose for the change may be better achieved by a means other than that proposed. The more specific the comments, the more helpful they will be to the MCWD Board. On the basis of public comments received, the Board will make appropriate revisions to the proposed changes before they are adopted. ~ritten public comment on the proposed revisions will be received at the MCWD offices until 4:30 P.M. on April 5, 2001. Comments may be mailed, faxed or delivered. In addition, a public hearing will be held at the Board of Managers' meeting in the Minnetonka Community Center, Council Chambers, Minnetonka, Minnesota, at 6:45 P.M on Thursday, April 12, 2001. At that time, all interested persons will have an opportunity to address the Board directly on the proposed changes. It is recommended that those speaking at the public hearing also submit a written copy of their remarks. Please address all comments and inquiries to: Eric Evenson, Administrator Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior IvlN 55331 (612) 471-0590 x284 (612) 471-6290 (fax) MIHHEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MAHAGERS PROPOSED REVISIOHS TO RULES B, D, G and H UHDER MI#NESOTA STATUTES §103D.341 Hovember 21, 2000 DEFINITIONS The followin~ terms are added: "De~raded wetland" means a wetland that provides minimal wetland function and value due to human activities such as drainaEe, diversion of watershed, filling, excavatins, pollutant runoff, and veEetative or adjacent upland manipulation. "HiEhly susceptible wetland type' means a wetland characterized as a sedEe meadow; open or coniferous boE; calcareous fen; Iow prairie; coniferous or hardwood swamp; or seasonally flooded wetland. "Least-susceptible wetland type' means a deEraded wetland characterized as a ~ravel pit; cultivated hydric soil; dredged material or fill; or a material disposal site. "Moderately susceptible wetland type' means a wetland characterized as shrub- carr; alder thicket; fresh wet meadow not dominated by reed canary ~rass; or shallow or deep marsh not dominated by reed canary ~rass, cattail, ~iant reed or purple Ioosestrife. "SliEhtly susceptible wetland type' means a wetland characterized as a floodplain forest; fresh wet meadow dominated by reed canary Erass; or a shallow or deep marsh dominated by reed canary ~rass, cattail, eiant reed or purple Ioosestrife. The term "Subwatershed# is amended to read as follows: '*Subwatershed# means one of the fifteen major subwatershed plannin8 units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A map of subwatershed plannine units is attached to and incorporated into these Rules. MC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 RULE B: EROSIOH CONTROL A new paraEraph S(b)(8) is added as follows: (8) Documentation that no veRetatton or soils will be disturbed, and no excavated, fill or construction material will be stockpiled, closer to any identified wetland than the followinR: Wetland Size (acres) Distance Cfeet) up to 1.O 25 feet 1.O or larRer $O feet ParaRraph 9 is amended to read as follows: 9. MAINTENANCE. The permittee shall be responsible at all times for the maintenance and proper operation of all erosion and sediment control facilities. On any property on which land-disturbinR activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this rule, the permittee shall, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site, and at least weekly, until land-disturbinR activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee shall perform these responsibilities at least weekly until veRetative cover is established. FencinR of sufficient heiEht and visibility to prevent land-disturbinR activity from intrudinR on temporary wetland buffer shall be maintained between the buffer and land-disturbinR activity until that activity has ceased. The permittee shall maintain a IoR of activities under this section for inspection by the District on request. RULE D: WETLAND PROTECTION Rule D is revised to read as follows: 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of ManaRers to: (o) Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, function and bioloEical diversity of Minnesota's wetlands; (b) Increase the quantity, quality, function and bioloEical diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by preservinE exlstinE wetlands, restorinE and enhancin8 deEraded or drained wetlands and fosterinE the creation of new wetlands; MC:WD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 Cc) Limit impacts to the quantity, quality, function and biological diversity of Minn,ota's wetlands by Emphasizing impact avoidance followed by sequencing in the following order: minimization, rectification, and reduction or Elimination of direct and indirect impacts to existing wetlands; restoration of degraded wetlands; and replacement of degraded or eliminated wetlands. 2. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REQUIREMENTS. The Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes SS103G.221 through 10:~G.227:~, restricts the draininG, filling and Excavation of wetlands. Where the District is the local Government unit responsible for administration of the WEtland Conservation Act, it will administer the Act in accordance with its terms and the rules set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420, as Each may be amended From time to time, hereby incorporated asa part of this rule. NotwithstandinG, wetland replacement shall occur in the same subwatErshed as the associated wetland impact. :3. CHAPTERS 10$B AND 10:3D REQUIREMENTS. The follOwinG requirements are established pursuant to authority in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 108B and 10:3D. An activity subject to these requirements needs a permit from the District whether or not the District is responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act in the location where the activity is to occur. (a) Excavation. (1) Excavation in wetlands shall be subject to the followinG terms: Ca) Excavation shall accord with the sequencing principles of paragraph 1(c) of this Rule. (b) Replacement shall be in the ratio of one acre of replaced wetland for Each acre of wetland disturbed. The function and value assessment required under paragraph 4(d) of this Rule shall demonstrate that the increased function and value of the replacement wetland exceeds the loss of function and value from the disturbed wetland, each considered as a whole. Modification or conversion of nondEGradEd wetland from one wetland type to another does not constitute replacement. Restoration of degraded wetland shall count for replacement in the amount of one-half of the wetland area restored. (c) Wetland replacement shall occur in the same subwatErshed as the associated wetland impact. MC:WD Proposed Rules Revisions :3 November 21, 2000 ed) Replacement of wetland values must be completed before or concurrent with the excavation of wetland or a ,¢urit¥ acceptable to the District must be provided to ~uarant, the successful Establishment of the replacement wetland. (e) Wetland created or restored under a replacement plan thereafter shall receive the full protection accorded wetland under the kIC:WD Rules. (f) Excavation is not subject to Rule D if, as drainine or fillin~o it would be exempted from the Wetland Conservation Act under a provision of klinn,ota Rules 8420.O122, as amended. (2) Excavation in wetlands for the purpose of wildlife enhancement must meet the criteria stated in the DNR publication "Excavated Ponds for WaterfowlN (1992). (3) REstored wetland or a chanEe in wetland type r,ultinE from Excavation for wildlife enhancement, wetland restoration or stormwatEr manaEement shall constitute replacement in kind on a findinE by the Board of klana~Ers that: (a) The wetland that will be disturbed has been substantially degraded by human activity; (b) The function and value assessment required under paraEraph 4ed) of this Rule determines that the function and value of the resultinE wetland Exceeds that of the disturbed wetland, Each considered as a whole; and (c) The project is dEsiEned and conditioned so that the function and value of the r.ultine wetland will not substantially decrease over time due to project impacts or other human activity. The views of the technical evaluation panel and of relevant resource aEenci, shall be Eiven substantial weight by the Board. Both this paraEraph and paraEraph :~(a)(1)(b) shall apply where there is no inconsistency. To the Extent Of an inconsistency, the less restrictive lanEuaEe shall Eovern. MC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 4 (4) REmoval of accumulated outfall sediment or intentionally placed fill that is not intended to and does not substantially disturb the wetland bottom contour or existinE veEetation shall require a permit but shall not require a replacement plan. The applicant must demonstrate that the sediment or fill substantially results from human action and that the proposed activity will meet the requirements of this paraEraph. In addition to other appropriate conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that the activity will employ proper measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the wetland; will not block fish passaEe; and will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements. eS) Where excavation is subject to both the Wetland C:onservation Act and section :3 of this Rule and the District is the responsible local EovernmEnt unit for administration of the Act, compliance with the requirements of both sections 2 and :3 is required. In the event of an applicant's inability to comply with the requirements of both sections, the provisions of section 9 shall prevail. In the event of an applicant's inability to comply with both the protected waters statute, Minnesota Statutes SS10:3G.941 throuEh 10:3G.951, and section :3 of this Rule, the provisions of the protected waters statute shall prevail. (b) Buffer Requirements. (1) Any activity requirinE a permit under Rule C:, D, G or N of these Rules shall provide for a permanent buffer around each wetland on the disturbed parcel. Any activity requirinE a permit under Rule E of these Rules shall provide for a permanent buffer around each wetland in which authority to dredEE is Eranted. Buffer shall be established by Easement, declaration or other recordable instrument that shall be approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or re8istrar before land disturbance under the MC:WD permit commences. The recordablE instrument shall state that on further subdivision of the property, each subdivided lot of record shall meet the monumentation requirement of paraEraph of this Rule. (2) The buffer shall be of the followinE width: Wetland Size (acres) Width (feet) up to 1.O 1.O or larEer MC:~/D Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 9S feet $O feet s WhEn the buffer includes a portion of a steep slope, the buffer shall Extend to the upland Edge of the steep slope. A steep slope is defined as land with an averaEe slope excEEdinE 12 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more. HotwithstandinE the widths specified above, the buffer shall Extend at least to the 1OO-yEar hiEh water Elevation of the wetland. An applicant may use a 1OO-year hiEh water Elevation identified by the District where that Elevation has been Established. (:~) The buffer shall consist of vEEEtatEd land that is not cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, EXcept for periodic cuttinE or burninE that does not injure buffer quality, the proper application of labelled herbicides, or actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, as approved in writinE by District staff. In actinE on a permit application under subsection :~(b) of this Rule, the District may impose reasonable conditions to Establish and maintain vEEEtation within the buffer in order to Ensure an adequate dE~rEE of buffer function. An applicant may propose a buffer Establishment plan for District approval where the ExistinE buffer is not adequate. (4) No structure or impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer permanently or temporarily. (a) NotwithstandinE, a structure may Extend or be suspended above the buffer on written District approval if the impact of any supports within the buffer is negligible, the design allows sufficient light for the maintenance of the Species shaded by the structure, and the structure does not otherwise interfere with the wetland protection afforded by the buffer. (b) Where buffer is Established in a permit authorizinE a wetland crossinE under Rule G, the authorized crossinE is Exempted from the prohibition of this paraEraph. The Rule G requirement that wetland and buffer impact be minimized shall apply. (5) The buffer may be disturbed temporarily pursuant to authorized activity in the wetland, in conformance with a plan approved in writin~ by the District that minimizes buffer impact and provides for buffer restoration. (6) The buffer may Enclose a non-wetland feature such as a pond or trail if the Board finds that doinE so will not siEnificantly reduce the protection MCW'D Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 afforded the wetland. ThE non-wetland feature shall not count toward buffer width. (7) If the District permit is souEht for activity on o residential parcel that is not beinE subdivided or subject to a new primary use rEquirinE a rezoninE, special use permit or variance; and that does not involve work in the wetland in question, a partial Exception to the application of paraEraph 3(b) shall be ~rantEd as follows: (a) The buffer shall be delineated and recorded as set forth in paraEraph :3(b)(1) and of the width specified in paraEraph :3(b)(2); (b) No new permanent or temporary impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer, but the requirements of paraEraph :3(b)(:3) otherwise shall not apply; and (c) ParaEraphs :3(b)(4) throuEh 3(b)(6) shall continue to apply. (8) A buffer established pursuant to this rule shall be indicated by a permanent, frEe-standinE marker at the upland EdEE of the buffer. There shall be one marker for each 200 feet of upland EdEe or part thereof. If the District permit is souEht for a subdivision, this requirement will apply to Each lot of record to be created. A marker shall be at least three feet above the Eround. It shall indicate that it marks the EdEe of a buffer Established to protect the adjacent wetland and shall briefly state or summarize the activities not permitted within the buffer. This paraeraph shall not apply when the buffer requirement is imposed on a sinEle residential lot, Except that the recordable instrument filed pursuant to paraEraph :3(b)(1) of this Rule shall include the lanEuaEE specified in that paraEraph concErninE monumEntation, which shall apply in the Event that the lot subsequently is subdivided. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The followinE exhibits shall accompany the Combined Joint Notification (¢JN) form. One set - full size; one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11#x17#. (a) Site plan showinE: (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant; (2) ExistinE and proposed Elevation contours; includinE the ExistinE runout Elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; MC~D Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 7 (:3) .&rea oF the v, etland portion to be f-i$1.d disturbed. (b) C:omplEtE delineation of the existinE wetland(s), includinE data sheets with detailed information on field indicators (soils, hydroloEy and veEetation) and summary report. ~VEtland delineations should be performed durinE the normal ErowinE season for this area of the State (Ida~, 1 - October 15). Delineations performed outside of this time frame may or may not be permitted, depEndinE on potential wetland impact in relation to the Entire development or project. ~VEtland boundaries shall be staked in the field. (c) Identification and area of the total watershed area presently contributlnE stormwater runoff to the wetland. ed) A replacement plan, if required, outlininE the steps followed for the sequencinE process with an explicit avoidance analysis, documentation supportinE the proposed mitiEation plan, and a function and value assessment for the disturbed and replacement wetlands usinE IdNP, AId or another assessment method approved by the District. A description of the nature and amount of the proposed disturbance and an annual monitorinE plan sufficient to Ensure the replacement of wetland function and value also must be included. The replacement plan shall provide that native soils will be reserved and spread over the disturbed area. For created wetland, the plan shall specify clean peat as the surface soil. (E) identification, within wetland and buffer areas to be disturbed, of the location and species of each tree larEer than four inches in diameter at a point four feet above the Eround, indicatinE those trees proposed to be removed. (f) %Vetlands proposed to be Excavated must also submit a cross section and construction specifications that include the followinE dEsiEn criteria: (1) Excavated v, etlands of an irrEEular shaped and an area of at least 2500 square feet; (2) For wildlife Enhancement, excavated wetland depth not to exceed $ feet with an undulatinE bottom; (:3) Itatios of basin side slopes for Excavated wetlands between :3:1 and 10:1 (horizontal:vertical); (4) An identified spoil disposal site not below the 1OO-yEar water level of a watErbody, Except as separately authorized under applicable law: and IdC:~VD froposed Itules Revision~ November 21. 2OOO (5) A stand-alone veletation restoration plan that includes the disturbed area bEin~ seeded or planted to native ~rassEs, forbs or woody vegetation for a minimum of 150 feet around the dugout. (f) information as to state, county and local protection status or designation of the subject wetland. RULE G: STREAM AND LAKE CROSSINGS The title of Rule C; is amended to read as follows: Rule G: Stream, Lake and %Vetland Crossines IdC:%VD Proposed RuJes Revisions November 21, 2000 RULE N: STORMW'ATER MANAGEMENT Section 2 is amended to add a new paragraph (i) as Follows: (i) Impact on Downstream Lakes and %Vetlands. No activity subject to a permit under MCWD Rule B, C, D or N may alter stormwatEr flow so as to increase the bounce in water level or duration of inundation for any downstream lake or wetland beyond the limit specified below for the lake or wetland susceptibility class, during a precipitation event of critical duration with a return frequency of 1.5, ten, or 1OO years in the subwatershed drainage area in which the site is located. No water may be discharged from a commercial or industrial facility or operation onto or into the Ground, or into a waterbody, so as to increase the bounce in water level or duration of inundation for any downstream lake or wetland beyond the limit specified below applicable to the 1.S-year precipitation event for the lake or wetland susceptibility class. Susceptibility PErmitted Bounce Inundation Inundation Class PEriod for 1.5- Period for lO- YEar Event and 1OO-Year Event HiGhly susceptible Pre-development Existin~ Existing wetland Moderately Pre-development ExistinE plus 1 Existing plus 2 susceptible + O.S feet day days SliGhtly Pre-development Existing plus 2 Existing plus 14 susceptible + 1.O Feet days days wetland Least-susceptible No limit Existing plus 7 Existing plus 21 wetland/Lake days days Source: State of Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group, "StormwatEr and Wetlands flannin~ and Evaluation Guidelines for Addre,in~ Potential Impacts of Urban StormwatEr and SnowmEIt Runoff on Wetlands' Cdune 1997). MCWD froposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 10 MI#HEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MAHAGERS PROPOSED REVISIOHS TO RULES B, D, G and H UHDER MIHHESOTA STATUTES §103D.341 (Redlined Version) Hovember 21, 2000 DEFIHITIOHS 'The followinE terms ore added: "DeEraded wetland" means a wetland that provides minimal wetland function and value due to human activities such as drainaEe, diversion of watershed, fillinE, excavatinE, pollutant runoff, and veEetatiYe or adjacent upland manipulation. "HiEhly susceptible wetland type`` means a wetland characterized as a sedge meadow; open or coniferous bo~; calcareous fen; Iow prairie; coniferous or hardwood swamp; or seasonally flooded wetland. "Least-susceptible wetland type" means a de~raded wetland characterized as a ~ravel pit; cultivated hydric soil; dredged material or fill; or material disposal site. "Moderately susceptible wetland type`` means a wetland characterized as shrub- cart; aider thicket; fresh wet meadow not dominated by reed canary Era,; or shallow or deep marsh not dominated by reed canary ~rass, cattail, ~iant reed or purple Ioosestrife. "SliEhtly susceptible wetland type`` means a wetland characterized os a floodplain forest; fresh wet meadow dominated by reed canary ~rass; or a shallow or deep marsh dominated by reed canary Erass, cattail, Eiant reed or purple Ioosestrife. The term "Subwatershed" is amended to read as follows: "Subwatershed" means one of the fifteen major subwatershed planninE units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A map of subwatershed planninE units is attached to and incorporated into these Rules. MC~VD froposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 RULE B: EROSION CONTROL A new paragraph S(b)(8) is added as Follows: (8) Documentation that no vegetation or soils will be disturbed, and no excavated, fill or construction material will be stockpiled, closer to any identified wetland than the followinG: Wetland Size (acres) Distance (feet) up to 1.o 25 feet 1.0 or IorRer SO feet ParaGraph 9 is amended to read as follows: 9. MAINTENANCE. The permittEE shall be responsible at all times for the maintenance and proper operation of all erosion and sediment control facilities. On any property on which land-disturbinG activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this rule, the pErmittee shall, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site, and at least weekly, until land-disturbinG activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee shall perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. FEncin~ of sufficient height and visibility to prevent land-disturbinG activity from intrudin~ on temporary wetland buffer shall be maintained between the buffer and land-disturbin~ activity until that activity has ceased. The pErmittee shall maintain a log of activities under this section for inspection by the District on request. RULE D: WETLAND PROTECTION Rule D is revised to read as follows: 1. POLIC:Y. It is the policy of the Board of ManaGers to: (a) Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, function and biological diversity of Minnesota's ~ wetlands; (b) Increase the quantity, quality, function and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by preserving existing wetlands, restoring eF and MC:WD froposEd Rules Revisions REdlinEd VErsion Hovember 21, 2000 EnhancinE ~ dEEradEd or drained wetlands and fostErinI the creation of new wetlands: (c) Limit impacts to the quantity, qualityr function and biololical diversity of Minnesota's wetlands b,/EmphasizinE impact avoidance followed by sEquEncinE in the followinE order: minimizationt rectification, and reduction or Elimination of direct and indirect impacts to ExistinE wetlands; restoration of dEEraded wEtlands~ and replacement of dEEradEd or Eliminated wetlands. MCWD Proposed Rules Revisions Rodlined Version November 21, 2000 MC~%VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Hovember 21, 2000 2. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REQUIREMENTS. ThE Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes 66103G.221 through 103G.2273, restricts the draining, filling and excavation of wetlands. Where the District is the local government unit responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act, it will administer the Act in accordance with its terms and the rules set forth in Minnesota Rules 8420, as Each may be amended from time to time, hereby incorporated as a part of this rule. Notwithstanding, wetland replacement shall occur in the same subwatershed as the associated wetland impact. 3. CHAPTERS 103B AND 103D REQUIREMENTS. The following requirements are established pursuant to authority in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. An activity subject to these requirements needs a permit From the District whether or not the District is responsible for administration of the Wetland Conservation Act in the location where the activity is to occur. (a) Excavation. (1) Excavation in wetlands shall be subject to the following terms: (a) Excavation shall accord with the sequencing principles of paragraph 1(c) of this Rule. (b) Replacement shall be in the ratio of one acre of replaced wetland for Each acre of wetland disturbed. The function and value assessment required under paragraph 4ed) of this Rule shall demonstrate that the increased function and value of the replacement wetland exceeds the loss of function and value from the disturbed wetlandr each considered as a whole. Modification or conversion of nondegraded wetland from one wetland type to another does not MCWD Proposed Rules Revisions Redllned Version November 21. 2000 constitute replacement. Restoration of deEraded wetland shall count for replacement in the amount of one-half of the wetland area restored. (c) Wetland replacement shall occur in the same subwatershed as the associated wetland impact. ed) Replacement of wetland values must be completed before or concurrent with the excavation of wetland or a security acceptable to the District must be provided to luarantee the successful Establishment of the replacement wetland. (e) Wetland created or restored under a replacement plan thereafter shall receive the full protection accorded wetland under the MC:WD Rules. (f) Excavation is not subject to Rule D if, as draininE or fillinE, it would be exempted from the WEtland C:onsErvation Act under a provision of Minnesota Rules 8420.0192, as amended. (2) Excavation in wetlands for the purpose of wildlife enhancement must meet the criteria stated in the DNR publication 'Excavated Ponds for Waterfowl' (1992). (3) REstored wetland or a chanEe in wetland type rEsultin~ from Excavation for wildlife enhancement, wetland restoration or stormwatEr manaEEment shall constitute replacement in kind on a findinE by the Board of Managers that: (a) The wetland that will be disturbed has been substantially degraded by human activity; (b) The function and value assessment required under para(;raph 4ed) of this Rule determines that the function and value of the rEsultin~ wetland exceeds that of the disturbed wetland, Each considered as a whole; and (c) The project is desiEned and conditioned so that the function and value of the resultinE wetland will not substantially decrease over time due to project impacts or other human activity. IdC:~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Hovomber 21, 2000 The views of the technical Evaluation panel and of relevant resource aeencies shall be Eiven substantial weight by the Board. Both this paraEraph and paraEraph 3(a)(1)(b) shall apply where there is no inconsistency. To the extent of an inconsistency, the less restrictive lanEuaEe shall Eovern. (4) REmoval of accumulated outfall sediment or intentionally placed fill that is not intended to and does not substantially disturb the wetland bottom contour or ExistinE vegetation shall require a permit but shall not require a replacement plan. The applicant must demonstrate that the sediment or fill substantially results from human action and that the proposed activity will meet the requirements of this paragraph. In addition to other appropriate conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that the activity will Employ proper measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation into the wetland; will not block fish passaEe; and will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements. (5) %Vhere excavation is subject to both the Wetland Conservation Act and section 3 of this Rule and the District is the responsible local EovernmEnt unit for administration of the Act, compliance with the requirements of both sections 2 and :~ is required. In the Event of an applicant's inability to comply with the requirements of both sections, the provisions of section 2 shall prevail, in the event of an applicant's inability to comply with both the protected waters statute, Minnesota Statutes §510:~G.241 throuEh 10$G.251, and section $ of this Rule, the provisions of the protected waters statute shall prevail. (b) Buffer Requirements. IdC:WD froposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 (1) Any activity rEquirinE a permit under Rule C:, D, G or H of these Rules shall provide for a permanent buffer around each wetland on the disturbed parcel. Any activity requirinE a permit under Rule E of these Rules shall provide for a permanent buffer around each wetland in which authority to dredEe is ~ranted. Buffer shall be established by easement, declaration or other recordable instrument that shall be approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or reEistrar before land disturbance under the IdC:%VD permit commences. The recordable instrument shall state that on further subdivision of the property, each subdivided lot of record shall meet the monumentation requirement of paraEraph :3(b)(8) of this Rule. 7 (2) The buffer shall be of the followinE width: Wetland Size (acres) Width (feet) up to 1.O 25 feet 1.O or larEer $O feet When the buffer includes a portion of a steep slope, the buffer shall extend to the upland edge of the steep slope. A steep slope is defined as land with an averaEe slope exceedinE 12 percent oYer a distance of $O feet or more. NotwithstandinE the widths specified above, the buffer shall extend at least to the 1OO-year hiEh water eleYation of the wetland. An applicant may use a 1OO-year high water elevation identified by the District where that Elevation has been established. (:3) The buffer shall consist of vegetated land that is not cultivated, cropped, pastured, mowed, fertilized, subject to the placement of mulch or yard waste, or otherwise disturbed, Except for periodic cuttin~ or burnin~ that does not injure buffer quality, the proper application of labelled herbicides, or actions to maintain or improve buffer quality, as approved in writinE by District staff. In actinE on a permit application under subsection :3(b) of this Rule, the District may impose reasonable conditions to establish and maintain vegetation within the buffer in order to ensure an adequate deEree of buffer function. An applicant may propose a buffer establishment plan for District approval where the existin~ buffer is not adequate. (4) No structure or impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer permanently or temporarily. (a) Notwithstanding, a structure may extend or be suspended above the buffer on written District approval if the impact of any supports within the buffer is neEli~iblE, the desiEn allows sufficient liEht for the maintenance of the species shaded by the structure, and the structure does not otherwise interfere with the wetland protection afforded by the buffer. (b) Where buffer is established in a permit authorizing; a wetland crossinE under Rule G, the authorized crossin~ is exempted from the prohibition of this paraEraph. The Rule G requirement that wetland and buffer impact be minimized shall apply. IdC:WD froposed Rules Revisions Redlined VErsion November 21. (5) The buffer may bE disturbed temporarily pursuant to authorized activity in the wetland, in conformance with a plan approved in writin~ by the District that minimizes buffer impact and provides for buffer restoration. (6) The buffer may Enclose a non-wetland feature such as a pond or trail if the Board finds that doinE so will not significantly reduce the protection afforded the wetland. The non-wetland feature shall not count toward buffer width. (7) If the District permit is sou(hr for activity on a residential parcel that is not bein~ subdivided or subject to a new primary use requirinE a rEzoninE, special use permit or variance; and that does not involve work in the wetland in question, a partial exception to the application of paraEraph :~(b) shall be ErantEd as follows: (a) The buffer shall be delineated and recorded as set forth in paragraph :~(b)(1) and of the width specified in paraEraph :~(b)(2); (b) No new permanent or temporary impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer, but the requirements of paragraph :~(b)(:~) otherwise shall not apply; and (c) Paragraphs :~(b)(4) through :~(b)(6) shall continue to apply. (8) A buffer established pursuant to this rule shall be indicated by a permanent, frEe-standin~ marker at the upland edEe of the buffer. There shall be one marker for Each 200 feet of upland EdEe or part thereof. If the District permit is sought for a subdivision, this requirement will apply to Each lot of record to be created. A marker shall be at least three feet above the Eround. It shall indicate that it marks the edEe of a buffer Established to protect the adjacent wetland and shall briefly state or summarize the activities not permitted within the buffer. This paraEraph shall not apply when the buffer requirement is imposed on a sinEle residential lot, except that the rEcordable instrument filed pursuant to para~zraph :~(b)(1) of this Rule shall include the lanEuaEE specified in that paragraph concErninf monumEntation, which shall apply in the Event that the lot subsequently is subdivided. MC~D Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Hovembe, 21, 2000 4. REQUIRED EXHii~ITS. The foliowinE exhibits shall accompany the Combined 3oink Hotification ((:dH) form. One set - full size; one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11NX17N. (a) Site plan showinE: (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant; (2) ExistinE and proposed elevation contours; includinE the existinE runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; (:3) Area of the wetland portion to be ~ disturbed. (b) Complete delineation of the existine wetland(s), includinE data sheets with detailed information on field indicators (soils, hydroloEy and veEetation) and summary report. Wetland delineations should be performed durin8 the normal ErowinE season for this area of the State (Iday I - October 15). Delineations performed outside of this time frame may or may not be permitted, dependinE on potential wetland impact in relation to the Entire development or project. Wetland boundaries ~**d-be shall be staked in the field. (c) Identification and area of the total watershed area presently contributin8 stormwater runoff to the wetland. ed) A replacement plan, if required, outlininE the steps followed for the sequencinE process ~ with an explicit avoidance analysis, documentation supportinE the proposed mitiEation plan, and a function and value assessment for the disturbed and replacement wetlands usinE IdNRAId or another assessment method approved by the District. A description of the nature and amount of the proposed r~-mGt~r~eJ-disturbance and dekGik e~ke an annual monitorinE plan sufficient to ensure the replacement of wetland function and value also must be included. The replacement plan shall provide that native soils will be reserved and spread over the disturbed area. For created wetland, the plan shall specify clean peat as the surface soil. (e) Identification, within wetland and buffer areas to be disturbed, of the location and species of Each tree larEer than four inches in diameter at a point four feet above the Eround, indicatinE those trees proposed to be removed. MC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redltned Version November 21, 2000 10 (f) Wetlands proposed to be excavated '-- '-'~' ...4. ~-. ..... : must also submit a cross section and construction specifications that include the followinE desien criteria: (1) ~ Excavated wetlands skeuld-be of an irreeular shaped and ..-.!.-:!_-..:,.-. :~:: :f an area of at Iea~t 2500 ~quarE feet; (2) For wildlife ~ Enhancement, Excavated wetland depth not to EXcEEd 5 feet ~ with an undulatinE bottom; (~) Ratios of basin ~ide clop. for ~z,~,:~ .... d ..... Excavated wetlandz between ~:1 k and 10:1 (horizontal:vertical); (4) T~: An identified ~poil disposal ~itE ~'~:~ ~: ~.~f.:~ .......... ~ not b,lo~ the lO0-~Ear ~at,r level of a ~at,rbod~f Except a~ ~,paratEl~ authorized under applicable la~. ~; ~nd (5) A skofld-Glone veee~Uofl res~oroUon plon ~ ~ho~ includes ~he disk.rbed ~r~ beJfle seeded or pIGnked ~o nGUve 8rosses~ ~orbs or woody veeekGUofl ~or ~ miflJmum o~ 1SO ~ee~ oround ~h~ (f) Information :~:~-~ ~:~:: as to ~tatef count~ and local protection ~tatu~ or de~iEnation of the ~ubject ~etland ~ .... ~..~.~ k-- --...i..*--.l:L.. .. k~Lk RULE G: STREAM AND LAKE CROSSINGS The title of Rule G is amended to read as follOws: Rule G: StreamL mad Lake and %Vetland CrossinEs RULE N: STORMW'ATER MANAGEMENT Section 2 is amended to add a new paraRraph (J) as follows: MC%VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21. 2000 11 (i) Impact on Downstream Lakes and %Vetlands. No activit,/ subject to a permit under kl¢~/D Rule B, ¢, D or N may altor stormwater flow so as to increase tho bounce in water level or duration of inundation for any downstream lake or wetland beyond the limit specified below for the lake or wetland susceptibilit`/class, durin~ a precipitation Event of critical duration with a return frequency of 1.5, ten, or 1OO years in the subwatershEd drainage area in which the site is located. No water ma,/ be discharged from a commercial or industrial facility or operation onto or into the ground, or into a watErbod`/, so as to increase the bounce in water level or duration of inundation for an`/downstream lake or wetland beyond the limit specified below applicable to the 1.S-year precipitation event for the lake or wetland susceptibility class. IdC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Hovember 21, 2000 Susceptibility PErmitted Bounce Inundation Inundation C:la. PEriod for 1.5- Period for 10- YEar Event and 1OO-Year Event HiEhly susceptible Pre-development ExistinE ExistinE wetland Moderately Pre-development ExistinE plus 1 ExistinE plus 2 susceptible + 0.$ feet day days Slightly Pre-development ExistinE plus 2 Existin~ plus 14 susceptible + 1.0 feet days days wetland Least-susceptible No limit Existin~ plus 7 ExistinE plus 21 wetland/Lake days days Source: State of Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group, "Stormwater and Wetlands Plannin~E and Evaluation Guidelines for Addre.inE Potential Impacts of Urban StormwatEr and Snowmelt Runoff on %Vetlands~ (June 1997). MCWD froposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Hovember 21, 2000 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS Proposed Rules Revisions Erosion Control (Rule B). Wetland Protection (Rule D). Stream and Lake CrossinGs (Rule G), Stormwater ManaGement (Rule H) Hovember 21, 2000 This document summarizes proposed revisions to Rules B, D, G and N of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ("MCWD~), and sets forth the basis for the MC%VD~s judgment that the revisions are both beneficial and reasonable. The proposed revisions all concern the MCWD's regulatory program for wetland protection. Both the statutes creating and Granting powers to watershed districts (Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D) and the Wetland Conservation Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103G) invest the MCWD with the authority to protect wetlands and regulate wetland disturbance. In about one-half of the municipalities within the watershed, the MCWD acts as the local Governmental unit (LGU) responsible for implementing the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The MCWD, in addition, protects and manages wetlands through rules adopted under authority of the watershed law, Minnesota Statutes i103D.341. The proposed revisions concern MCWD rules applied under both sources of authority. The revisions are proposed on the basis of extensive MCWD Board of ManaGers and staff experience in implementing the MC:WD's existing wetland rules as well as its related activities to inventory, restore and protect wetlands within the watershed. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §103D.341, these proposed rules now are beinG issued for public comment. The MCWD solicits and welcomes all comments from state and regional resource protection agencies, local Governments, regulated parties and all other members of the public. Comments are solicited on the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rules. Specificity in comments reGardinG proposed lanGuaGe or suGGested alternative lanGuaGe is particularly desirable. A public hearing also will be noticed and held to provide the opportunity for oral comments on the proposal. The MCWD carefully will review all comments, undertake further review procedures as are warranted, and make appropriate revisions to the proposed rules before adoption. MC~D Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 Rule B: Erosion Control The wetland protection rule, Rule D, provides that when a permit is Eranted under the IdC:V/D Rules, a condition of that permit is the establishment of permanent buffer around all wetlands on the subject property. The buffer is Established by way of a written declaration that is executed by the landowner and filed in the office of the County Recorder or ReEistrar. However, certain types of activity requirlnE an IdC:WD permit may not bear a stron8 relation to wetlands on the property or create a substantial risk of impact to those wetlands. Specifically, shoreline protection installations under IdC:%VD Rule F and stream and lake dredEinE under Rule E may fall in this cateEory. Further, while work requirinE an IdC:~/D Erosion control permit presents risks to site wetlands durinE site disturbance - includinE sedimentation of exposed or stockpiled soils, pollution from construction equipment and materials, and physical damaEe from equipment - these risks cease when the construction disturbance ends. AccordinEly, as discussed below, the MC:~VD proposes to reYise the Rule D buffer requirement so that it is triEEered only when a permit is required under the Id(::~D's floodplain alteration, wetland protection, waterbody crossinE or stormwater manaEement rule, or when a wetland is proposed to be dredEed under Rule E. The MCWD proposes to amend the buffer requirement so that the establishment of permanent wetland buffer is not a condition of the erosion control permit. However, as noted, the MCWD does believe that wetlands merit particular protection while a site is disturbed. Therefore, the proposed rule would require a temporary buffer to be maintained around each wetland durinE the period of site disturbance. The width of the buffer would depend on wetland size and correspond to the width of permanent buffer required under Rule D: 2S feet for a wetland one acre or smaller, and SO feet for a larEer wetland. The applicant would bo required to specify in its erosion control plan that durinE the course of land disturbance, the buffer area would remain undisturbed and no fill or other construction materials would be placed within the buffer. Fencin8 at the upland buffer edge would be required to be maintained until the site were restabilized. Once restabilization were complete, the area encompassed within the temporary buffer would not be subject to further restrictions. It is important to note that under the proposed rule, the Rule D buffer requirement would apply to site work under a Rule B permit if the activity otherwise triE8ers a Rule D buffer requirement. Specifically, if a proposed activity tri8Eers the permanent buffer requirement by virtue of a permit condition under Rule C, D, E, G or N, permanent buffer would be established MC%VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 2 before any site disturbance, would apply to site activity under the permit and would remain in place after Rule B activity ceased. Rule D: Wetland Protection Statement of Policy. The lan~uase of the Rule D Statement of Policy would be substantially revised. This revision would serve two purposes. First, the present rule affirms the WC:A "sequencinE~ principle throuEh six separate statements of policy. This principle states that the attempt shall be made, in priority order, to avoid, minimize, rectify, and reduce wetland impacts; to restore deEraded wetlands, and to replace deEraded or eliminated wetlands. Solely for the purpose of clarity, the proposed rule would consolidate the six statements of policy into a sinEIE statement. Secondly, the proposed lanEuaEe would emphasize the importance the IdC:WD will attach to the avoidance analysis -- the applicant's examination of alternatives to wetland disturbance -- before that disturbance may be justified. This policy statement is accompanied, in section 4ed) of the proposed rule, by a requirement for an explicit avoidance analysis in each wetland replacement plan submitted under the MCWD rule. Finally. protection and enhancement of wetland function would be explicitly added as an MC:WD Eoal, to Emphasize that wetland quantity, quality and bioloEical diversity, as characteristics to be preserved and Enhanced under Rule D, are to be judEEd with reference to the ecoloEical and societal functions that wetlands provide. WEtland C:onservation Act Implementation. The Wetland C:onservation Act, Minnesota Statutes SS 103G.221 throuEh 103G.2273, restricts the drainin8, fillinE, and Excavation of wetlands. WC:A is implemented by a "local 8oYernment unit~ (LGU), which within the MEtropolitan Area may be a city, township or watershed manaEement orEanization. AmonE the 30 cities and townships wholly or partly within the MCWD, about half act as the W¢~, LGU while half repose LGU authority in the MC:WD. With certain enumerated exceptions, WC:A permits wetland disturbance only if the disturbance cannot be avoided and then, only on LGU approval of a replacement plan that minimizes the disturbance and provides for the creation or restoration of additional wetland to replace the wetland disturbed. MCWD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 ChaptErs 10:3B and 10:)D of the Minnesota Statutes (referred to toeEther in this document as the #watershed law') also Empower watershed districts to rEEulate wetland disturbance. MCWD Rule D contains provisions adopted under authority of both WCA and the watershed law. When a wetland disturbance is proposed in a municipality for which the MCWD is the WCA LGU, it rEYiEws the application under both its %VC~, and its watershed law authority. When the activity occurs in a municipality that itself acts as WC~, LGU, the MCWD applies only those provisions of Rule D that it has adopted and implements under its watershed law authority. £xistinE Rule D does not clearly identify and separate ~/CA rules from the EEnErally applicable provisions of the Rule. This leads to confusion on the part of applicants and others as to how the Rule is applied. A central purpose of the proposed revision is to reorEanizE and clearly distinEuish these two sets of requirements. A new proposed section 2 pertains only to WCA implementation and is inapplicable in a case where the MCWD is not the WCA LGU. The requirements of section :~ apply whether or not the MC%VD is the WCA LGU for the proposal in question. Section 4. sEttinE forth application submittal requirements, applies in both situations. WCA requirements are set forth in Chapter 103G and in the rules of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BXVSR), Minnesota Rules Part 8420. The BWSR rules specify that a municipality or watershed district actinE as a LGU, by exErcisinE its own reEulatory authority over water resources, may supplement WCA in respects broader or more strinEent than the BWSR requirements. Current Rule D does so in one respect, and the proposed rule would make no chanEes. WCA requires that where wetland disturbance is to be mitiEatEd by off-site wetland creation or restoration, the replacement must occur in the same subwatershEd as the disturbance. However, %VCA is more lenient with respect to impacts for public transportation projects within the metropolitan area, allowinE replacement to occur in the same county as the disturbance. The MCWD believes that restoration within the sub-watershed is a reasonable means of reducinE impact to the ecoloEical inteErity of the water resource in which the disturbed wetland lies and does not find inherent in public transportation work support for an Exception to this approach. AccordinEly, the MCWD, as WCA LGU, requires that disturbances from transportation projects be mitiEatEd under the same constraints as other projects, namely within the subwatErshEd of the wetland disturbance. As for other types of projects, in specific cases a variance is available under MCWD Rule I pursuant to criteria no less strinEent than the BWSR rules. MCV/D Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 4 Wetland Excavation. in Eeneral, WCA does not apply to wetland Excavation.~ Under its watershed law authority, the IdCWD presently re8ulates wetland excavation throu8h application of the same state rules and procedures that apply to wetland draininE and fillinE under WC:A. As applied to excavation in wetlands, the existinE rule diverEes in three ways from the WC:A rules: (1) wetland disturbed by excavation need be replaced only in a ratio of 1:1, as opposed to the hiEher replacement ratios Eenerally required under WC:A for filled or drained wetland; (2) all wetland replacement, includini replacement for transportation projects, must occur in the same subwatershed as the impact; (:3) excavation for the purpose of wildlife habitat enhancement is Eoverned not by the WC:A rules, but by the Department of Natural Resources criteria established for wildlife pond construction in wetlands in "Excavated Ponds for Water Fowl" (DNR 1992). The proposed rule would amend the reEulation of wetland excavation in a number of respects. First, the rules EovErninE excavation in wetlands would be 8reatly simplified. The present rule incorporates by reference the full body of WC:A rules applicable to wetland draininE and fillinE, as they may be amended from time to time, and applies them to excavation in wetlands. The MC:WD is proposinE to move to a simpler re8ulatory structure that parallels the WC:A framework but, rather than incorporatinE that framework in all its detail, utilizes five key requirements to Eovern the Evaluation and mitiEatlon of excavation impacts: 1. Paramount is the ~VC:A sequencinE analysis, which must be performed before any wetland disturbance by Excavation may be permitted. The proposed rule's emphasis on a careful avoidance analysis would apply to excavation. 2. Once a disturbance has been shown to be justified, replacement shall be required and the 1:1 replacement ratio of the ExistinE rule is maintained. In addition, however, the applicant, usin8 IdNRAkl or another method of assessin~ wetland function and value approved by the IdC:WD, would need to demonstrate that increased wetland function and value from the replacement would exceed the loss of function and value resultin8 from the excavation. This is part of the ~ Last session, in moving toward consolidation of WCA and the protected waters statute, the legislature amended WCA to apply to excavation in "permanently or semi-permanently flooded areas of type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands." Minn. Stat. §103G.222, subd. l(a). IdC:~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness 6 Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 MCWD's effort, mirrored to a deEree by Bq~VSR's recent amendment of the WCA rules, to move away from complicated replacement calculations based on wetland type and location, and toward a direct focus on preservinE and increasin8 those ecoloEically and socially valuable wetland characteristics included under the concept of wetland function. The proposed rule also would incorporate V/CA terms statinE that modification of a non-de8raded wetland cannot constitute replacement and that restoration of deEraded wetland shall be credited for one-half of the acrea8e restored. :3. C:onsistent with the %VC:A rules, the proposed rule specifies that replacement must be completed, or a security ensurinE completion provided to the ldC:%VD, before wetland disturbance may commence. 4. ~,lso as in the %V(::A rules, the proposed rule affirms that any wetland created or restored under a replacement plan will be protected from further disturbance in the same manner as any other wetland within IdC:WD jurisdiction. $. Finally, the proposed rule extends to excavation the express WC:,6, exemptions set forth at Minnesota Rules 8420.O12:2, to the same de~ree as if a proposed disturbance were caused by drainin~ or fillinE. ),lthou~h a number of the ~C:), exemptions by their nature apply only to drainin8 or fillinE activities, some may apply to excavation as well. The IdC:%VD has reviewed the application of the qbVC:~, exemptions to these cases, and judges the rationale behind these exemptions to be equally applicable to wetland excavation. The proposed rule also would revise the Rule D requirements pertainin~ to excavation for wildlife enhancement. Under the present rules, wildlife Enhancement ponds created by excavation in existin~ wetlands are subject to the criteria set forth in the DNR's 199:2 publication, "Excavated Ponds for ~Vater Fowl.". In addition, they must meet certain design requirements set forth in section :3, and particularly paragraph :3(e), of Rule D. Two concerns prompt the kIC:WD~s revision of the reEuiatory framework 8overnin~ excavation for wildlife enhancement. First, although excavation in this case is for the beneficial purpose of improvinE wildlife habitat, and in fact may improve the water resource, this is not true in every case or irrespective of the manner in which the work is conducted. IdC:~D review of proposed excavation within the ~eneral framework of the rule can help to enhance water resource benefits and MC~/D Statemont of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 minimize nEGativE impacts on the resource. REviEw of proposed excavation for wildlife enhancement, among other things, would be concerned with all impacts to wildlife and aquatic species GEnerally, and not just with the improvements for specified waterfowl. As discussed below, the proposed the rule institutes the opportunity, if specified criteria are met, for excavation for wetland restoration or stormwater management to be considered replacement-in-kind, in recognition that these activities may enhance wetland and water resource quality. The kIC:~D adjudges wildlife enhancement excavation to be similar and would apply the same provision for replacement-in-kind to this activity as well. Secondly, treating excavation for wildlife enhancement less rigorously than other excavation activity creates the potential for an applicant to characterize as wildlife Enhancement excavation that in fact is not intended for that purpose. For both reasons, the kiCWD proposes no IonEEr to treat excavation for wildlife Enhancement less formally than other types of Excavation. Instead, it would review this type of wetland disturbance in the same manner as excavation for wetland restoration or stormwatEr manaGEment. Excavation still would be required to conform to the DNR criteria, but would be subject as well to the Generally applicable requirements of Rule D. Next, as just noted, the proposed rule would allow certain Excavation, under specified conditions, to be considered self-mitiGatinG, thus meeting replacement requirements without additional wetland restoration or creation. These conditions are as follows: 1. The excavation is for the purpose of wetland restoration, stormwater manaGEment or wildlife enhancement: 2. The disturbed wetland has been substantially degraded by human activity, according to the B~IkrSR definition of a "deGraded wetland~ as % wetland that provides minimal wetland function and value due to human activities such as drainaGE, diversion of watershed, fillinG, ExcavatinG, pollutant runoff and veGEtative or adjacent upland manipulationS; 3. An assessment by MNRAM or another methodology acceptable to the MC%VD demonstrates that the Excavation would result in an overall increase in wetland function and value; and MC:%VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 8 4. ThE project is designed, and subject to conditions of operation, such that the enhanced wetland function and value will be maintained over time. As stated earlier, the MC:%VD by this provision proposes to recosnize that those excavation activities typically are for beneficial environmental purposes. Further, the named activities typically occur in desraded wetland, and, where the excavation is carefully desisned, often will enhance the quality of the wetland. The MC:%VD wishes to encourase efforts to return hydroloeical function to desraded wetland and believes the proposed rule will avoid additional and often costly replacement requirements that create substantial disincentives for these activities. At the same time, the MCWD wishes to Ensure that safeEuards are in place to avoid impacts to productive wetland or excavation that would result in a loss of wetland quality or type diversity. Thus, the rule would apply only to excavation in an already deEraded wetland, would require independent confirmation of enhanced function and value (includine an assessment of any impact on wetland diversity) and would ensure that this beneficial impact is not transitory, but endurine in the face of a developed environment or other stress on the natural hydroloEy and ecoloEy of the site. The proposed rule advises, in particular, that the MC:%VD will look to the use of an approved wetland assessment method and the judEment of the technical evaluation panel or other independent experts when reviewine an application seekine mitieation-in-kind under this section. Next, Rule D does not specifically address excavation for purposes of removine artificial deposits of sediment or fill. Thus, it treats this excavation as any other excavation disturbance requirine replacement. In that the removal of outfall sediments and intentionally placed fill (whether lawfully placed or not) serves to restore the natural wetland contours and hydroloey, the MC:WD believes that it is counterproductive to require additional wetland replacement for these activities. AccordinEly, the MCq~D is proposine new lanEuaEe requirinE a permit for removal of accumulated outfall sediments or fill, but excusinE these activities from the replacement requirement. In issuin8 permits for this activity, the MC%VD will retain the authority to impose conditions necessary to prevent damaEe to the wetland resource. The rule specifically incorporates the protective conditions of Minnesota Statutes S103G.2241, subdivision 11. The MC:%VD expects that imposed conditions also will mirror those applied to minimize impacts durin8 dredEinE. MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Roles Revisions November 21, 2000 9 Finally, the MCWD recoEnizes that its reEulation of wetland excavation under the watershed law may overlap in a Eiven case with reEulation under the protected waters statute or WC:A. Specifically, the protected water statute, Minnesota Statutes i§103G.241 throuEh 10:3.251, Eoverns excavation in public waters wetlands. WC:A applies to excavation in "permanently and semi-permanently Flooded areas of type :3, 4 and 5 wetlands." Minn. Stat. §10:3G.922, subd. lea). As state laws, the protected water statute and WC:A will apply irrespective of the more or less strinsent requirements of a watershed district or other local body of EovErnment. At the same time, both laws allow supplementary regulation of wetland disturbance, pursuant to watershed district or local authority, that beyond state requirements. Accordingly, the proposed rule notes explicitly that where both state and MC:WD requirements apply, compliance with each shall be required. ThouEh a conflict is not anticipated, should there be a situation where an applicant cannot simultaneously comply with both sets of requirements, state law will RovErn. Buffer Requirements. The MC:WD proposes substantially to revise its requirements pertaininE to the Establishment of vEEetative buffer areas around wetlands. The present rule contains three simple Elements: (a) a buffer zone must be established around each wetland; (b) the width of the buffer zone is 16.5 feet for a wetland smaller than one acre, up to 35 feet for a wetland larEer than S acres; (c) mowinE, yard waste disposal and fertilizer application are prohibited within the buffer. Over time and in the course of frequent application, the buffer requirement has acquired an interpretive framework that, while providinE for consistent application in practice, has not offered clarity or transparency to applicants and other interested members of the public. The proposed rule, in larEe part, is for the purpose of incorporatinE the interpretations that Rule D has acquired over time. Specifically, the followinE questions are clarified: When is the buffer requirement triEEered? What actions are prohibited within the buffer? When may site elements not servin~ a buffer function be included within the buffer area, and what effect do these have on the determination of buffer width? IdC:~I~D Statement of Heed and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions Hovember 21, 2000 10 ThE MCWD also proposes a number of substantive chanEes to the current buffer requirement, tncludlnE an increase in required buffer width. The substantive features of the proposed revision are as Follows: 1. When is the Buffer Requirement Triggered? The proposed rule would reduce the number of occasions when the buffer requirement is triE~ered. Pursuant to the plain lan~uaEe of the present rule, the buffer requirement applies whenever a proposed activity requires an IdC:WD permit. When an applicant is issued a permit subject to an IdC:WD rule, that permit is conditioned on the establishment and maintenance of a permanent buffer around each wetland on the subject property. ~,t this time, the IdC:WD poses the question whether certain types of work for which an IdC:WD permit is required pose sufficient risk to site wetlands or bear a sufficient relation to those wetlands to require that wetland buffers be established before those types of work may occur. Specifically, the Board's rules concernin8 dred~inE (Rule E) and shoreline and streambank improvement (Rule F) may not raise concerns supporting the buffer requirement except, under Rule E, where the wetland is to be dredged. In addition, activity that requires an erosion control permit under Rule B, but that does not implicate any other section of the IdC:WD Rules, may not justify the institution of permanent buffers on site wetlands. Accordingly, the IdCWD proposes to revise Rule D to apply the buffer requirement only to activities for which a permit is required under the IdC:WD's preservation of flood storage capacity (Rule ¢), wetland protection (Rule D), waterbody crossin~ (Rule G) or stormwater management (Rule N) rule, or for a wetland to be dredged under Rule E. As discussed Earlier, with respect to erosion control under Rule B, the Board proposes to require a temporary buffer around site wetlands durin~ activity subject to a Rule B permit. Once the site is restored and restabilized pursuant to an approved erosion control plan, the temporary buffer constraints would cease. 2. When is the Buffer Established? The proposed revision also would clarify that the buffer must be established before any site disturbance authorized by the IdCWD permit begins and that the permitted disturbance must avoid both the buffer area and the wetland it protects. An exception is that the buffer may be disturbed to the extent necessary to allow work in a wetland authorized by an IdCWD permit. Site activity that does not involve work in the wetland, however, does not necessitate that the wetland buffer be disturbed and therefore disturbance for non-wetland work would not IdC:%VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 be permitted under the proposed rule. Any buffer disturbance would be limited to that which is identified in on MC:WD-approved plan that minimizes disturbance durinE the work and ensures buffer restoration when the work is complete. 3. What are the Buffer Widths? The rule also proposes to increase the required buffer widths. Presently, the rule requires a buffer 16.5 feet around a wetland of one acre or smaller; a 20-foot buffer for a wetland between one and 2.5 acres; a 25-foot buffer for a wetland between 2.5 and five acres; and a :iS-foot buffer around a wetland larEer than five acres. The proposed rule would increase the buffer for a wetland one acre or smaller from 16.5 to 25 feet, and would establish the buffer for ali lar(Er wetlands at SO feet. The buffer would be Extended, as necessary, to incorporate the entirety of a steep slope, floodplain or DNR natural community that otherwise would be only partially incorporated into the buffer. This proposal is based on substantial research by the MCWD EnEineEr, WEnck Associates, concErninE the effectiveness of buffers of diffErinE widths. On a review of well over 1OO publications reportinE on buffer research, Wenck Associates has concluded that a buffer width of less than 25 feet offers substantially reduced benefit for water quality, as well as limitinE habitat and other functions that buffers provide. However, the marEinal benefit of additional wetland buffer width, accordinE to many studies, declines measurably beyond SO feet. AlthouEh a number of studies suEEest that a buffer of 1OO or Even 200 FEEt brines siEnificant additional benefit and is technically supportable, the MCWD proposes to institute a BO-foot maximum buffer width as a reasonable balance between obtaininE the benefits that a buffer provides and limitinE impacts on landowners' land use options. The Wenck Associates report, containinE a biblioEraphy and related materials, is a part of the rulEmakinE record and is available throuEh the MCWD. The report also suEEests that buffer width may vary dependin8 on other factors such as slope steepness and the sensitivity of the subject wetland. The proposed rule reflects the judEment of the MCWD that the additional complexity of a rule that accounts for these variables, and the additional burden on applicants and MCWD staff to implement a more complicated rule, outweiEhs the additional refinement such a rule would provide. The MCWD invites comments on this question. MCWD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 12 4. When Ida¥ a Non-Buffer Feature Be Incorporated Within the Buffer? The proposed rule also clarifies that a non-buffer feature may be enclosed within a buffer if the Board finds that this will not si~nificantly reduce the protection afforded the wetland. This provision contemplates, for Example, a trail that provides public access into a wetland for educational purposes or a stormwater pond compelled by site constraints to be within a buffer. Under the rule, the applicant would be required both to demonstrate that the intrusion is reasonably necessary and to minimize the impact of the intrudin8 feature, for Example by limitin~ the width of a trail, suspendinE it or usin~ a pervious trail surface. The rule also makes clear that the non-buffer Feature does not contribute to buffer width. The buffer width, not countinE the intrudin8 element, would need to meet the Rule D standard. Indeed, in a ~iven case, an increased buffer width might be warranted to offset any loss in buffer Efficiency occasioned by the intrusion. $. What Activities are Restricted in the Buffer? The proposed rule specifies in detail the activities that are prohibited within the established wetland buffer, frohibited activities include vEEetation cultivation and manaEement; placement or storaEe of mulch, yard waste and similar bulk materials, and the placement of structures. Actions to maintain or improve buffer quality would be permitted on written approval of District staff. While approval would need to be documented in writins, it is contemplated that staff review of a proposed action would be informal and would not impose a substantial burden on the landowner. In addition, althouEh a structure may not be placed within a buffer, it may extend over a buffer on an IdC:WD determination, in the permit or otherwise in writinE, that the structure's impact on buffer veEEtation and function will be nEEliEible. This provision would accommodate a suspended trail, a deck or a similar feature. Because buffer function includes components such as habitat, however, mere preservation of veEetation and its pollutant filterinE or flow moderatinE function miEht not suffice to demonstrate neEliEible impact. Each case would be evaluated on its own facts. 6. When May a Landowner Be Required to Establish Buffer Vegetation? The proposed rule would authorize the IdC:WD, when applyinE the buffer requirement, to direct a landowner affirmatively to establish and maintain buffer veEEtation. This provision is MCWD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 intended to apply where the existtnE land surface within a newly delineated buffer is not adequately veEEtated or otherwise is in a condition that substantially undermines buffer function. The rule states that conditions imposed by the MC:q~VD must be "reasonable.~ For Example, the IdC:q~VD would not intend to require relocation of a permanent existinE structure or demolition of impervious surface that is in Eood condition and providinE beneficial use to a landowner. Conversely, a landowner miEht be required to remove a EravEI or similar artificial, unconsolidated surface from within a buffer, rework or top--drE, soil, or seed or plant the buffer area. Under the proposed rule, a landowner also may submit for MC:WD approval a plan to establish and maintain buffer where the existinE buffer is deEraded and the landowner wishes to improve it as a part of the work for which the permit is requested. The views of commentors are solicited as to the limit of a landowner's affirmative responsibility to Establish and maintain a veEetative buffer and the additional detail with which the MC:~bVD's authority miEht be specified in the rule. 7. How ~k1~ill the Buffer lie Documented? Finally, the proposed rule states that the buffer requirement will be implemented throuEh an easement, declaration or other recordable instrument approYed by the tlC%VD. The instrument would be filed in the office of the County Recorder or ReEistrar before activity authorized by the kIC:~D permit could commence. This proposed lanEuaEE is consistent with the kl¢~D's IonE--standinE implementation of its buffer rule and serves merely to document tlC%VD practice for the benefit of applicants and other interested parties. The kl¢~VD maintains a form Declaration approved for use under Rule D and will provide this document to an interested applicant. A partial exception from the buffer requirement is proposed for developed residential property. Where a parcel has been platted for residential development or already has been built on by the date this amendment to Rule D becomes effective, options for site rEd,iEn to accommodate a buffer area of undisturbed veEetation may be limited or absent. In addition, althouEh the proposed rule would reduce the number of circumstances in which the District buffer requirement would be triEEerEd, the requirement still would apply in instances where the work requirinE a District permit does not directly concern wetlands on the property. For Example, the District recently considered an application under its flood storaEe preservation rule (Rule C:) for the rEbuildinE of a EaraEe on an ExistinE residential property. Under the present rule, an application under MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness froposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 14 Rule C results in application of the buffer requirement to all wetlands on the subject parcel. It would continue to do so under the proposed rule as well. However, application of the buffer requirement by its strict terms would have required that nearly the entirety of the existing property's rear yard be maintained in undisturbed vegetation and precluded essentially all other use of the yard. The fact that the buffer requirement is and will continue to be triGGered by work not in the wetland and its application to residential property with limited redesign options together create the potential for undue hardship. AccordinGly, the District is proposin~ to create a partial exception from the buffer rule. Under the partial Exception, the buffer requirement would continue to apply in all circumstances in which it otherwise would: to all wetlands on a parcel when a permit is sought under Rule C:, D (wetland protection), G (stream, lake and wetland crossings) or N (stormwater management) of the District Rules, and to any specific wetland souEht to be dredged under Rule E (dredGinG). The buffer would be 25 feet in width for a wetland up to an acre in size, and $0 feet for a lar~er wetland. The buffer would be permanently delineated in an Easement or declaration filed with the County Recorder or ReGistrar. The relief offered by the exception would lie in the lesser restrictions imposed on buffer use. Under the General rule, a buffer must be maintained os largely undisturbed vegetation. VeGEtation management is primarily for the purpose of maintaining the buffer and must be approved by the District. Where the exception applies, the property owner is prohibited only from creating new permanent or temporary impervious surface within the buffer. The District believes that this prohibition will prevent what is ~enerally the most damaGin8 use of adjacent upland and will not preclude most ordinary residential uses of property or impose a disproportionate burden on the owner. The owner otherwise may plant or place structures within the buffer, and use it as he or she wishes. An impervious surface other than a structure would not be permitted. ParaGraphs :lCb)(4) through :3(b)(6) of the rule would apply as well to situations where the partial exception is applicable, to the Extent that they allow use of a buffer more Generous than that provided by the proposed partial exception. The partial exception would apply when two criteria are met. First, the work for which the District permit is needed must be on a residential parcel that, since the effective date of the rule amendment, has not been and is not proposed to be subdivided or subject to a new primary use requirinE a rezonlnG, special use permit or variance. That is, the IdC:WD Statement of HEed and REasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 exception would not apply to residential property not yet platted as oF the effective date, where it is presumed that subdivision and lot desiEn may accommodate the Full buffer requirement. It also would not apply where the property owner, since the effective date, has not souEht and is not seekin~ to deviate substantially from the established residential use. it is the District's judsment that in this case, the owner's expectation to have the existin8 use of the buffer area protected no IonEer would apply. Second, the exception would apply only if the District permit tri~erin~ the buffer requirement does not involve work in the wetland in question. Under the framework of laws established by the Idinnesota legislature, includin~ WCA, the protected waters statute and the watershed laws, a property owner does not have the absolute right to en~a~e in activity that disturbs wetland. Itather, the activity may be prohibited, or conditions placed on it, to ensure protection of the wetland. The District believes it is fair and reasonable that an owner seekin~ approval to disturb a wetland also a~ree to the standard terms of the buffer rule that serve to protect the wetland from further impact, if a permit application meets the first criterion, but does not meet this one, the full buffer requirement would apply only to the wetland that the owner intends to disturb. Any other wetland on the property would remain entitled to the partial exception. Finally, the rule proposes to institute a requirement that the upland buffer edge be demarcated by a permanent marker statin~ that the area adjacent to the wetland is a designated buffer for the purpose of protectin~ the wetland and briefly indicatin~ the activities that may not occur within the buffer. In order to ensure visibility, the rule would require that the marker be free-standin~ and at least three feet in height. Thus, for example, placln~ the marker on a tree would not be adequate. In addition, a marker would be required every 200 feet or part thereof of buffer edge on the property in question. For buffer edge of less than :ZOO feet, one marker would be required; for buffer edge of between 200 and 400 feet, two markers would be required: and so forth, if the property is bein~ subdivided, or thereafter is subdivided, there must be at least one marker on each lot of record. These provisions are consistent with other buffer monumentation practices of which the District is aware and, in the Board's judgment, appear to be a reasonable means to identify a buffer without imposin~ a substantial cost on the property owner. The purpose of the marker is to communicate the existence of the buffer to those who were not involved in the permit proceedings or are not successors in title, who would become aware of the buffer by virtue of the buffer's recordation in the property records. This would include purchasers of MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 16 subdivided lots and employees of, visitors to, or residents of commercial, industrial, institutional, mixed-use and multi-unit residential properties. An owner of a residential lot who is subject to the buffer requirement by virtue of obtainin~ his or her District permit, and any successor-in-title who reviews property records for the lot, do not require further notice of the buffer. Accordingly, the monumentation requirement would not apply in these cases. The recordable instrument that is filed under paragraph :~(b)(1), however, would specify that the requirement will apply to each lot of record on future subdivision. Required Exhibits. ,~ number of revisions to the application requirements of Rule D are proposed. Several of these chanses are necessary to implement the substantive revisions discussed above. Others are believed by the MC:~/D to be desirable on the basis of experience in implementinE Rule D. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. %Vhere the rule requires a replacement plan, the plan shall include an explicit avoidance analysis that demonstrates the need for the disturbance. 2. An application must include a function and value assessment, usinE IdNRAId or another IdC:%VD-approved method, for all disturbed and proposed replacement wetlands. Ecolosical consultants now are well versed in wetland assessment by these methods. The proposal is not expected to impose a substantial cost on permit applicants and serves to further the IdC%VD's focus on wetland quality as a consistent approach to implementin8 its wetland protection proEram. :l. The replacement plan must provide for native soils to be reserved and spread over the disturbed area for restoration purposes. Presently, this requirement applies only to excavation for wildlife manaEement. The IdC:%VD, however, believes that the principle has ~eneral merit for enhancin8 the restoration and viability of all disturbed wetland area. Vlfhere replacement wetland is to be created in upland, the plan must specify clean peat as the surface soil. 4. The application must indicate the location and species of trees exceedin~ a specified size (trunk diameter of four inches at a height of four feet) within the wetland and buffer areas and must indicate which trees are proposed to be preserved. This would allow the MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 17 MC~VD better to understand the impact of a proposed wetland disturbance and consider options to reduce that impact. 5. The followinE desiEn requirements currently apply only to excavation for wildlife manaEement. Under the proposed rule, they would apply to all wetland excavation: (a) The wetland must be excavated to an irreEular shape and an area of at least 2,$OO square feet. (b) The wetland side slopes must maintain a ratio (horizontal to vertical) of between 3:1 and 10:1. (c) Any spoils disposal site must be identified and must be above the 1OO-yEar hiEh water level of the wetland and any other waterbody, unless placement below that level otherwise is authorized. (d) A separate veEetation restoration plan must be included with the application. The proposed revision clarifies that the plan may provide for seedinE or plantinE and may use not only native ErassEs, but forbs and woody vEeetation as well. Rule G: Stream and Lake CrossinEs. The MCWD's Rule G reEulates disturbance of the bed and bank of a waterbody for placement of a road, hiEhway or utility. The disturbance must be desienEd for a minimal impact and must be shown to serve a public benefit, retain hydroloEic and navieational capacity, preserve wildlife passaee alone the bank and not adversely affect water quality. On May 25, 2000, the Id¢~VD expanded the rule to apply not only to stream and lake crossines but to wetland crossines as well. However, it neElected to amend the title of the rule accordinEly. The proposed rule would amend the title of Rule G to read "Stream, Lake, and %Vetland CrossinEs." Rule N: Stormwater IdanaEemEnt. In its natural state, a lake or wetland establishes a dynamic equilibrium state with respect to water level and cyclical or precipitation-induced water level fluctuations. The soils and confiEuration of the waterbody as well as the size and topoeraphy of its drainaEe area will determine water level behavior. This characteristic equilibrium of a lake or wetland, in turn, MCWD Statement of Need and Iteasonableness froposed Itule~ Itevision~ November 21, 2000 determines the biotic and plant communities that will establish themselves and the nature of the aquatic and riparian habitat the waterbody will provide. ,4,Iteration of a waterbody or the land that drains to it, or a point discharge to the waterbody, can alter the water level behavior of the waterbody and undermine the natural communities that the waterbody supports. Conversely, in certain environments enhanced water level fluctuation may enhance the establishment and maintenance of natural communities along the wetland or lake fringe. Short-term water level fluctuations that deviate from the established equilibrium, however, also may destabilize the banks and fringe areas of a lake or wetland, leading to erosion and sedimentation impacts. The defining characteristics of this hydrologic Equilibrium ore bounce and inundation period. The former is defined as the maximum rise in water level within a waterbody as the result of a precipitation event of a specified amount and duration. The latter is the amount of time that will pass before the water level in the waterbody returns from this maximum level to the pre-event level. In 1997, a stormwater advisory Group, consisting of state water resource agencies and related stakeholders, established acceptable bounce levels and inundation periods for wetlands and lakes. In a dune 1997 report, UStormwater and %Vetlands Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff on ~/etlands,u the advisory Group recommended that these limits vary depending on the sensitivity, or #susceptibility,# of the lake or wetland to water level fluctuations. Descriptive wetland types are placed in four categories, ranGinG from UhiGhly susceptibleN to #least-susceptible.u All lakes are placed in the #least-susceptibleN category. The IdC:WD presently regulates changes to lake and wetland water levels only in paragraph 4(c) of Rule H, which prohibits land-disturbinG activity requiring a Rule N permit from ~adversely affect£inGl water levels off the site during or after construction.# This lonG-standinG provision, at least in part, expresses a concern to prevent impacts to the rights of adjacent or downstream landowners. Its General standard does not reflect the equally important ecological basis of the rule or provide a means to determine when an impact is madverse.~ In addition, it applies only to off-site waterbodies. The IdC:WD has reviewed a number of development proposals in which a proposed diversion of surface flow to a lake or wetland has raised concerns about the potential impact of that flow. A proposed point discharge of water to a lake or wetland, for example from a commercial or industrial process, raises similar concerns. The proposed rule is intended to allow the IdC:WD to review these actions to help ensure that they do not harm receiving waters, IdCWD Statement of Need and Reasonableness froposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 19 whether on or off site. The specific bounce and inundation period standards proposed, as well, will ~ivE ~uidancE to permit applicants as to the standard by which an impact will be deemed to be adverse. The proposed rule will not impose a new permit requirement on development activity not otherwise subject to the MC:WD Rules. Rather, the proposed standards would apply only to those activities already required to obtain an MC:WD permit under the IdC:WD Erosion control (Rule B), floodplain preservation (Rule C:), wetland protection (Rule D) or stormwatEr manasEment (Rule N) rule. However, any proposed increase of a commercial, industrial or private stormwatEr discharEE to a rEcEivin~ watErbody that is a lake or a wetland also will be required to meet the specified standards. At this time, the klC:WD believes that municipal stormwatEr discharEEs will be adequately and mutually addressed by the MC:WD and the subject municipality throuEh the water plannin~ process of Minnesota Statutes S§10:3B.2S1 and 10:3B.2:35. To Ensure that short-term, storm-induced chanse in lake or wetland water level does not adversely affect the banks, vEsEtation or habitat of the water body, the rule proposes that a chan8e to peak flow bounce for 1.5-, 10- and 1OO-yEar storms from land-disturbin~ activity be limited to an amount tannin8 from no increase over the present bounce for hishly susceptible wetlands, to no limit for least-susceptible wetlands and lakes. Similarly, inundation period for hiEhly susceptible wetlands must be maintained at the Existin~ duration, while the inundation period for least-susceptible wetlands and lakes may increase by seven days for the 1.S-year storm Event and 21 days for the ten- and 1OO-yEar Events. Point discharsEs from commercial and industrial activities would be subject to the bounce and inundation period limitations applicable to the 1.S-year storm Event. C:ommEnt is requested on the proposed rule. In particular, commEntors may wish to speak to the stormwatEr and point discharges that are subject to the proposed rule; whether certain named discharEEs should be Excepted or unnamed discharsEs included; the susceptibility framework that is proposed, and the specific standards set forth. Id¢~D Statement of Heed and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions Hovember 21, 2000 2O R eliant Ener / Minnegasco 800 LaSalle Avenue P.O. Box 59038 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55459-0038 February 2001 Francene Clark-Leisinger, City Clerk City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd Mound MN 55364 Dear Ms. Clark-Leisinger: As you know, the cost of natural gas from our suppliers has been increasing and we are experiencing a colder than normal winter. We realize this year's higher heating bills can cause a hardship for residents in your community. The enclosed brochure explains some of the reasons for this year's higher prices and higher bills and offers some tips to help customers manage energy costs. We have also prepared a similar brochure directed to our commercial and industrial customers to address their issues around higher gas prices. Please feel free to use the information in the brochure as an informational resource for residents in your community. You might also want to include some of this information in your next city newsletter or on your Web site. We would also encourage you to create a link to the Minnegasco Web site (www.minnegasco.com) so your residents can learn more about higher prices and programs we offer to help them manage these costs. Customers can also call our Customer Service Center at 612-372-4727 in the metro area and 1-800-245-2377 in other Minnesota areas for more information. Reliant Energy Minnegasco works hard to ensure your community has a safe and reliable gas supply at a reasonable price. Although prices in February will be significantly lower than in January, we do expect gas prices to remain higher than they were a year ago. Please join us in providing as much information as possible to your residents to ease the burden of these higher energy costs. Please feel free to contact me if you need any further information. Sincerely, Arne Hendrickson Local Government Relations 612-321-5375 Important Information About* Natural Gas Prices eliant Energy. M[nnegasco For our residential customers Reliant Energy Minnegasco works hard to ensure you have safe, reliable natural gas service at tile lowesl reasonable cost. This year, the cost of nalural gas from our suppliers began going up in late summer 2000 and remained unusually high through January 2001. In February we saw a significan! decrease m lhe cos! of gas. We expect this downward trend to continue lhr~ugh lhe warmer .kpri~g m~ ~ths, hul do not expect prices to go down to the levels they were al last year. We pass our supplier cosl fro' natural gas directly on to you with ~zo price mark-up. Y,m will likely see increases tm your gas bill, and we want you to know more about the reasons why and whal yot~ can do to manage or lower your energy costs. See inside for more information Natural gas prices Two things generally affect your natural gas bill: ~ The prices we l~aY ~ur sut)pliers, which arc influenced by supply and demand. · Wcalhcr patterns, which influence the ;IIIB ~UlII (If Ilallll'a] gas y()lt use alld ¢~w,rall ~lcmand ftn' availal~lc supplies. 'Fids winlcr, your Mi~megasc¢~ bills are i,'.bably higher h s The higher pNc'e Of nalural gas from our suppliers. · Higher nalura] gas usc wilh colder weal her. Increasing demand brings rising prices. Natural gas prices reached a 20-year high in January. There are several reasons for the increase, which h~dustry experts across the nation (lid not predict: · Rising consumption and lower supplies. Indus! rial companies with multiple fm, I cal~abilities alltl ele{:tric power generators tl~at use natural gas are among tl,~se coot ributing t u increasing demand. Though nalm'a[ gas production is increasing, additional lower-cost supplies are n~t yet available. · Price speculation on the wholesale market. Utilities typically Inly lower-cost summer gas to rel,hmish storage supplies for winter. This year many held off hoping for lower prices. This and other factors created higher demand and higher prices. Colder than normal temperatures. November 2000 temperatures were about 4 percent colder than normal. November 1999 temperatures, by contrast, were 30 percent warmer than normal. December 2000 was the second-coldest month on record. Colder weather in Minnesota, as well as around the country, means customers are using more gas to heat their homes, creating more demand for natural gas, which in turn drives up prices. Customers on our Budget plan, which helps eliminate bill highs and lows by spreading payments evenly throughout the year, began seeing these increases beginnb~g with their July 2000 bills. That's when we showed them their new monthly payment amount for the 2000-01 plan year. Because prices continued to rise as demand for natural gas increased, we reviewed and adjusted Budget payments again so most customers, saw an increase on their January bills. By making this adjustment a month earlier than normal, the higher payments are spread over more months, which will help assure customers do not have large unpaid balances at the end of the Budget plan year next summer. Warmer weather brings lower prices After our early winter cold spell, the weather got warmer in January and we began to see a drop in prices from our suppliers. In February, our average annual rate for reside~,tial heating customers was down 32% from the January rate. (See the chart above.) While we do not expect prices to go back dorm as low as they were last year, we do expect this trend toward lower prices continue through the warm spring months. Totel cost per therm 25 to 30%- Reliant Energy Mi~negnsco's cost to serve you 1991 1.,c92 1993 1..~.4 1995 19.~ 1997 19.q~ 1999 20~ 2001' · 2001 shows January arid February rates only. Your energy dollars are split two ways. m The largest portion of your gas hill is the actual cost of the gas you use. ~'pically this is f¥oiit 70 to 75 percent of the total. We pass this alltOUIll through to you from our SUl)pliers with ~o price ?lz{~rk-u.p. The price varies monthly according to market conditions. ~ The remaining 25 to 30 percent is our cost to provide you with natural gas service. This part of the cost is regulated by the Mimmsota Public Utilities Conumssion and has not been increased since 1997. Minnegasco can't control market or weather conditions, hut we do our best to ensure tile most reasonably-priced, reliable supldies by: · Purchasing natural gas in vohune, negotiating for low prices and encouraging heallhy market (:ompetition alllOllg tile C(~ ~; ~lr~'s I~ ( )St reputable suppliers. "Using our underground storage and peaking facilities to ensure adequate supplies at lower costs during even the coldest, winter months. · Operating efficiently to keep our expenses down. Natural gas is still your best energy value. The cost for other energ.v sources such as fuel oil, propane and coal, have also been on the rise. Even though prices have gone up, natural gas is still one of the cleanest and llIOSt economical energy sources available. Your energy costs with Mmnegasco are among the b~wesl in the nation. Energy tips Minnegasco programs and services can help you manage energy costs. Bill paying assistance. We understand the hardship higher prices can cause. If you need help managing your energy bills this heating season, please let us know right away. We can work with you to develop a payment plan and connect you with agencies that can help. Budget plan. Avoid bill highs and lows by spreading your energy costs evenly throughout tile year. Sign up online at nmmegasco.com or call us at the number on the other side. Energy audit. Make your home more energy efficient to lower your energy costs. Our state-certified energy auditor checks doors, windows, insulation and heating/cooling equipment and provides some complimentary weatherization materials to get you started. $100 High Efficiency Furnace Rebate. Lower your purchase cost for qualifying high efficiency heating equipment and save on energy costs all the years ahead. Heating system check. Arrange regular maintenance by our professionals, or others, to help ensure yom' furnace or other natural gas appliances are operating at peak energy efficiency. Energy efficiency information. Get our free publications and fact sheets or check our Web site for more details on increasing your home's energy efficiency to help keep costs down. Online account information. Check your account history for natural gas consumption, weather comparisons and gas cost information. Go to minnegasco.com. Steps you can take to save energy Lower your thcrmostal setting al nigh! or while you're away fi'om home four or more hours. Recommended seH,ings in winter are (;8°F while ?re'r(, home and 5H°F when sleeping or away (h' install a programmable thennostal. Use weatherstripping, such as V-strip, lc, seal the gap between doors and door frames to prevent air leaks. Attach a rul~ber-bollon~ed m(,tal (leer sweep Io lhe boLtolll of your Oil[Si(It, dora's I~ hv]l~ IW(w(~III cold dral'ts. Close the daml}er on your fir{ldm:e whenever yol~ are not using il. Shut storm windows I.ightly an~l lock them fora betler seal against air leaks. Ca~k cracks where baseboards meel walls and floors, around kitchen and bathroom fans where they meet wall or ceiling, alld ar(nll~d 5'm~r (:h)lhe,.s (h)'er veld. Use foam gaskets to insulate behind electrical outlets and Light switch plates. Seal your attic by caulking openings where pipes and wires en.ter. Stuff unlaced fiberglass insulation in larger gaps to seal air leaks. Install plastic deflectors on warm air registers located near windows to help direct warm air into the room. For other energy-saving tips, contact us and ask for our More Comfort, Less Energy booklet and fact sheets titled Energy Saving Ideas or Insulation and Ventilation. .~:~?~."-'~" ...... For more information, call iiiiii!iii',::i 612-372-4727 (toll free 1-800-245-2377) · ::%~:.:,;,,;~.~ ........ www. minnegasco.com eliant Energy,. Minnegasco FIRST CLASS MAIL U.S. POSTAGE PAID MINNEAPOLIS, MN PERMIT NO. 3390 P.O. Box 59038 Minneapolis, MN 55459-0038 ©2000 Reliant Energy CO-6693 Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future February 15, 2001 Dear Local Official or Interested Person: Last fall the Metropolitan Council initiated public discussion on draft revisions we were proposing regarding the Council's guidelines for priority funding for housing performance. As the result of our informal public meeting in December and subsequent discussions with a variety of groups, local officials and interested persons, we have made numerous revisions to the proposed revised performance criteria. At 5:00 p.m. on March 21, 2001 the Council will hold a public heating at our offices in the Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul to hear public ~:omments, concerns and suggestions on the attached draft revised housing performance criteria. Following the heating, the Council will consider making further revisions to the criteria and will formally adopt a set of revised performance criteria in April 2001. The proposed draft criteria represent an effort to support our regional Smart Growth strategy by better aligning our expectations regarding the affordable and life-cycle housing capacity, commitment and performance of local governments and our use of limited resources. We hope you will examine the proposed revised guidelines. We encourage you to attend the public heating in March, and to call John Kari (651.602.1548) or Guy Peterson (651.602.1418) of the Community Development Division if you have questions. Ted Mondale, Chair Metropolitan Council ~datthew Ramadan, Chair ~ivable Communities Committee 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 (651) 602-1000 Fax 602-1550 An Equal Opportunity Employer TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 602-1888 02/05/01 DRAFT ATTACHMENT A GUIDELINES FOR PRIORITY FUNDING FOR HOUSING PERFORMANCE The Metropolitan Council's Regional Blueprint includes policy that supports the broadened opportunity for affordable and life-cycle housing throughout the region. As one of the actions it will take to support such housing opportunities, the Blueprint says the Council will "give priority for regional infrastructure investments or expenditures of public dollars to communities that have implemented plans to provide their share of the region's low- and moderate-income and life-cycle housing opportunities." The following criteria and their relative weight will be used to determine a score - 0 to 100 points - and rank for cities and counties in the region to be used in the evaluation and prioritization of applications for funding by the Council. Examples of current funding decisions that will be affected include those for community development - the LCA Fund and Smart Growth initiatives, transportation - TEA- 21, the environment - MetroEnvironment Partnership grants, and other investments and programs such as those for parks and open space. The amount of emphasis or weight given to the housing performance score or rank in the evaluation of applications for various funding programs will be at the discretion of the Metropolitan Council at the time it solicits applications for any of these discretionary funding activities. \\METC_FS2\DATA\USERS\SHARED\LIB RARY~COMM UNDV~PETERSON~2001 \012401 -guidelines.doc 02/05/01 DRAFT Guidelines for Priority Funding for Housing Performance Counties 0 or 10 points 0 or 15 points 0 or 15 points 0 to 60 points Capacit3? to provide affordable work.force and life-cycle housing The col. lnty has an agency or agent (HRA, CDA, EDA, etc.) that is funded by a county property tax and operates or provides housing assistance, development or rehabilitation programs for county residents. 2. The county or its housing agency or agent expends county-generated funds to support the development or preservation of affordable housing. 3. The county or its housing agency or agent owns and is responsible for the management of aflbrdable housing units. Use of tools and initiatives for affordable workforce and life-cycle housing. The county through its housing agency or agent has in place policies, programs or resources to address affordable housing assistance, development and preservation needs in thc county for cities and townships that do not manage their own such programs, lY. xamples of these policies, programs and resources include but are not limited to the following: Tenant~based rental assistance (Section 8 existing housing programs - vouchers or certificates) · The use of low-income housing tax credits for the development of rental housing · Development of county housing TIF district to assist affordable housing development or preservation · First-time homebuyer mortgage assistance program · Do~vnpayment and/or closing cost assistance program · Homeowner rehabilitation or home improvement loan program funded by the use of MHFA funds or locally generated funding · Rental property rehabilitation or renovation program · New construction affordable housing assistance or support funded by the use o1' federal CDBG or 1tOME funds - ownership or rental · The use of housing revenue bonds to support affordable housing production, homebuyer assistance, or housing preservation efforts · Low-income housing rehabilitation loan or grant program funded by use of federal CDBG or HOME funds · An adopted policy preference for the use of federal CDBG or other funds for the development or preservation of affordable, housing over other potential community development uses of such funds. g~4ETC_FS2'~DATA\USERS~SI I AP, ED~LIB R A RY~COMM UNDV~ETERSONg)20501C ountyCi~yScoringCriteria.doc County policy that commits the county to work collaboratively and cooperatively with its municipalities to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable workforce or life-cycle housing when a county action or failure to act will impede the housing objective. · }lousing counseling services (e.g. renter or first-time homebuyer education efforts) · Land acquisition assistance program for affordable housing providers (e.g. Habitat for Humanity) · A program to provide housing for the homeless or abused, or the provision of assistance to another entity that provides housing for the homeless or abused · The absence of a COUnty residency requirements or preference for program applicants in the ad~ninistration of rental and ownership housing assistance. Each policy, program or resource is worth 5 points, not to exceed 60 points. H:~IB RARY~COM MUNDV~PETERSON~020$01CountyCity ScorinsCri~e~ia ~oc Cities 0 to 6 points 0 to 6 points 0 to 6 points 0 to 10 points 0 to 6 points Affordability and Diversification Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of their owner-occupied housing (homesteadsl with an assessed valuation equal to or lower than an amount affordable to households at 80 percent of area median income, and their total number of mobile homes. Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of their total housing stock th,~t is comprised of rental units affordable to households of low- and modcraw-income. This includes all federally subsidized rental units - public h,,using, Seclion 8 housing, units subsidized by the U.S. Department of Agric~fiturc, units developed with the use of low-income housing tax credits, units developed with the assistance of MHFA, the LCA Fund or the assistance ora local fiscal tool or housing finance initiative. This also includes all rental units that are qualified as 4d for purposes of their property tax classification. Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of their housing stock that is comprised of units that are not conventional single family detached units. These units include twinhomes, quads, apartments, townhomes, condominiums, detached townhomes and mobile homes. Municipalities are ranked according to the percent of net units added to their housing stock in the previous four years that are affordable - both ownership and rental. These "new" units may include units that have been "preserved" as affordable for a definitive period of time because of public or private re-investment to retain their affordability. 5. Housing for special needs Municipalities are awarded 2 points for each of the following types of special housing within their jurisdictions: ltousing for which federal, state, county or local funds or those of a non- profit organization have been used to purchase and operate residential units or provide licensed housing for the placement of adult offenders or adjudicated delinquents · A publicly subsidized or non-profit group home licensed by the Department of Health or Department of Human Services which provides temporary or permanent housing for the physically handicapped, mentally ill, developmentally disabled or chemically dependent · A shelter which is publicly subsidized and/or operated by a non-profit group to provide temporary housing for homeless persons and families, battered women or those not otherwise able to secure private housing. Each type of housing (not instance of such housing) is worth 2 points. '~METC_FS2kDAT A\U S ERS\S I I A RED~I. 1B RA RY~CO M M UN D \~PETER S~. t I4\020501 Counl¥Cit YScoringCfileria.doc 0 to 15 points 0 to 15 points Local Initiatives to Facilitate Affordable Workforcc l lousing Development or Preservation 6. Fiscal Tools and Initiatives The municipality has in place adopted local policy that allows and encourages the use ora local fiscal tool or initiative and has used such a local fiscal tool to assist aftbrdable workforce or life-cycle housing develoFment or preservation. Examples of such fiscal tools include but are not limited io the following: · Tax inc~ement financing · Housing revenue bonds · General obligation bonds · A local property tax levy Local tax abatement · Local tee waivers or reductions Credit enhancements · Taxable revenue bonds The use of federal or state dollars is only applicable if such dollars may be used for activities other than the development or preservation of affordable and lifc-cyclc housing. Each local fiscal tool or initiative is worth 3 points. 7. Initiatives regarding local regulation and development requirements The municipality has in the two previous calendar years allowed the reduction, a4j ustment or elimination of a local official control, or development or local code requirement as a cost aw)idance measure in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable workforce or life-cycle housing, or has in place in its policies and official controls a commitment to make such reductions, adjustments or eliminations of requirements whenever they are requested in order to facilitate the development or preservation of affordable or life-cycle housing. Examples of these initiatives in the use of official controls include but are not limited to the following: The use of a density bonus system, inclusionary housing requirements or some other innovative zoning approach The use of variances, rezoning, special use or conditional permits or similar variations from the standards set forth in the community's zoning ordinance for the purpose of facilitating a specific affordable housing development · A local initiative undertaken to revise local design requirements for public improvement that may reduce the cost of public services to new residential development · Public services that might include streets, curbs, gutter, sewer and water hookups, street lighting and other required public improvements. \'~M ETC_FS2'~DATA\USERS~SI t ARED~I.I B R A RY~COMMUND V~PETERSON~20501 CountyCit yScoringCrileria.doe 0 to 10 points 1 to 5 points 1 to 5 points 0 or 10 .points I0. A reduction of such standards as the required street right-of-way, or surfacing width or depth design for residential street, or the size of sewer or water service lines to new housing Each local initiative is worth 3 points. 8. Initiatives regarding housing preservation and rehabilitation The municipality has in place locally-initiated or administered (city or county) housing preservation, home improvement and/or rehabilitation programs, or other tools that are of assistance in keeping its housing stock in sound condition. Examples of these initiatives include but are not limited to the following: · A housing maintenance code and enforcement program for rental housing A housing maintenance code and enforcement program for owner-occupied housing · A housing rehabilitation loan or grant program for rental housing · A housing rehabilitation loan or grant program for owner-occupied housing · A home improvement loan or grant program · A home improvement resource center · A local tool-sharing center or program Each local initiative is worth 2 points. 9. Density of residential development The average net density of new (or re-use) sewered housing for which a building permit was issued in the municipality in the two previous calendar years. The average net density for attached housing units, i.e., units per acre The average net density for detached housing units (including detached townhomes and manufactured homes), i.e., units per acre (Unsewered communities will be scored separately from sewered communities with a higher rank for lower net density.) The municipality's current zoning ordinance allows densities for residential development consistent with densities set forth in the local comprehensive plan revised pursuant to the 1995 Land Planning Act amendments. Therefore, at a minimum, the residential densities identified in the comprehensive plan for the various residential land use categories are achievable for anyone proposing residential development pursuant to the zoning ordinance without a variance or exception. Yes or No. H:~LIBRARY~COMMUNDV~PETERSON\02050 Coun yC tyScoringCrileria.doc 0 or 6 points 11. In the previous two calendar years, the municipality has approved the development of new affordable housing or involvement of the municipality in the preservation and reinvestment in existing affordable housing - ownership or rental - which may or may not have been undertaken as yet for reasons beyond the municipality's control. Points will be awarded according to the number of units involved in the proposal as follows: 2 points - less than 20 units 4 points - 20 to 39 units 6 points - 40 or more units ~M ETC_FS 2\DATA\USER S~I I A RED\L I B R A R Y~COMM UNDV~PETERSO~'4'~O 20501 Count yCil yScofingCrilerin.do~: MINUTES - EDC - FEBRUARY 15, 2001 DRAFT The meeting was called to order by Mark Brewer at approximately 7:10 a.m. Members present were Sharon McMenamy-Cook, Mark Brewer, Suzanne Claywell, and John Wilsey. Others present were City Manager Kandis Hanson, Bruce Chamberlain, Gino Businaro, and Shirley Hawks. Members absent were Bob Brown, Paul Meisel, and Stan Drahos. WELCOME TO NEW MEMBER On behalf of all members of the Economic Develop Commission, Mark Brewer welcomed John Wilsey, as a new member. Each commissioner introduced himself to John. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion made by Sharon McMenamy-Cook and seconded by Suzanne Ciaywell to approve the January 18, 2001, minutes. The motion passed unanimously. PROJECT UPDATES POST OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PLANS: Bruce Chamberlain reported the plans were approved by the Council for the new post office. It was also approved by the council for TIF to help meet design guidelines. The final plans should be ready for bid by the first of April. A variance for the Greenway Trail will be needed because it is closer than 35 feet to the water's edge. Auditors Road will not need a variance as it will have a buffer of vegetation and native plants. METROPLAINS DEVELOPMENT OF SCHOOL PROPERTY: Metroplains has received all critical approvals from the council with the exception of final plans. A suit has been filed against the City to do an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). Since the suit names only the City, Metroplains will continue on with their plans. A news release will be given to The Laker newspaper advising Mound citizens of the suit and who filed it. The article will explain why an EAW is not warranted for this project. It will also explain that because of the suit, the City will need to spend money to defend a project most citizens are in favor of. EDC Minutes - February 15, 2001 DRAFT GRAMERCY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL: The HRA and City Council approved the preliminary agreement between the City of Mound and Gramercy. The City Manager reported that 90% of the issues the City had with them have been resolved. Gramercy will now have eleven months before a final agreement is to be approved by the City. This will give them time to make permit applications and have them approved, to review costs, to revise site plans which will compliment Mound visions and address other related concerns. Both the City and Metroplains are hopeful that this process will not taken the full time alloted them. Gramercy will have a marketing firm assist them with looking at potential retail possibilities for this area. They have also agreed to provide rental sleeping units on Auditors Road that will have maid service. They are also negotiating to purchase the Maxwell property. There was a discussion regarding what the population of Mound may be after all residential sites are completed. It was believed the population may rise 800. COUNTY ROADS 110 & 15 IMPROVEMENTS: Traffic studies are completed. We are waiting for the county to revise their plans. There was a discussion regarding the realignment design and how that will affect Commerce Place and other businesses on that site. Bruce Chamberlain stated that Metroplains is concerned about how wide the road will be on Lynwood Blvd. There was also a discussion on how the road design will affect Uncharted Grounds and other businesses on that block. The City has tried to work with the merchants on John's Variety block regarding parking space. At this time they are not willing to share in the costs to gain more parking spots. CUSTER REDEVELOPMENT: Ken Custer submitted plans for his proposed site on Co. Rd. 15 & Bartlett Blvd. He is in the process of putting together the cost to demolish the building that is presently on the site and build a new facility for Glass Plus. He will probably request some TI1e financing. There was a discussion regarding relocation of Home Laundry. Dave Willette wants to own the land and not rent. LONGPRE BUILDING: The City has purchased the Longpre Building and it will be vacated prior to closing in May. The City Manager stated that $70,000 was given to Jo Longpre as earnest money. There was a discussion as to whether the building should be tom down, boarded up, or made to appear occupied. Concern regarding the deterioration of the building and vandalism once it is empty was discussed. The City' Manager stated the City will be looking into whether or not it will be financially feasible to take the building down and make it into a parking lot. 2 EDC Minutes - February 15, 2001 DRAFT "BUY A BRICK" PROGRAM: There was discussion whether we program going again this summer. It was decided to table it until later. be written for the Spring Newsletter regarding the delay of the program. should get the An article will OTHER BUSINESS The railroad still does not have a sales agreement with Hennepin Parks. The design by Gramercy requires a right of way for that property but it is believed the transaction will be in the near future. There was a short discussion regarding cleaning up the old dump site. The senior center is going well. Sharon McMenamy-Cook stated they will need a full- time maintenance person with a boilers license to care for the building. She also inquired about what type of liquor license they may need when they rent out rooms for private events. ADJOURNMENT MOTION made by John Wilsey and seconded by Sharon McMenamy-Cook to adjourn the meeting. The motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:15 a.m. The next meeting will be March 15, 2001. Bob Brown will bring rolls. Respectfully submitted, Shirley Hawks Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 8, 2001 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE MOUND ADVISORY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2001 Present were: Commissioners John Beise, Tom Casey, Derrick Hentz and Norman Domholt, Susan Taylor and City Council Representative Peter Meyer. Also present was Park Director Jim Fackler, Secretary Jodi Rahn, Jason Swensen, Kristin Perry. Absent and excused Susan Taylor Tom Casey phoned would be in at 8:00 p.m. Chair Beise called the meeting to order at 7:32 1. APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 11, 2001 POSC MINUTES Motion made by Meyer, seconded by Domholt, to approve the minutes of the January 11, 2001 Park and Open Space Advisory Commission (POSAC) meeting, as presented. Motion carried unanimously. 2. AGENDA CHANGES The agenda was approved as presented with the following amendments: 1. 3a Neighbor community involvement 3. DISCUSS: SWENSON PARK PLAY STRUCTURE Park Director Jim Fackler updated the Commission with some changes to the play structure at Swenson Park. Fackler explained the climber in the plan maybe change to the Chunky arch if it fits residents believe it is the safest for the children. Fackler stated the structure provided in the plan allows for the easiest installation in the limited time allowed prior to summer. Minnesota Tree Trust will assist in the installation and is available in the middle of April. Council Member Meyer asked if a tall swing could also be installed so adults could swing with the kids. Commissioner Domholt asked if a toddler swing would be installed. Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 8, 2001 Park Director Fackler stated we would look into the space available and install as many swings as possible. Kristin Perry 4746 Richmond Road stated she and other volunteers could help raise money to help with additional cost that may occur. Chair Beise stated he would like to find out what additional cost would be for two benches and a swing or bounce toy to be added to the structure. 3a. NEIGHBOR/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Commissioner Domholt stated that neighbor involvement is the best way in getting things done for your neighborhood. He would like to divided Mound up into park districts and choose certain parks per month to talk about any issues they would have. Chair Beise asked if we have a map of all the park locations in Mound or any old plans of information of the parks. Fackler stated he would ask the City Planner Loren Gordon. Commissioner Casey arrived at 8:01 p.m. Commissioner Domholt stated if would be nice to have a packet of information for new residents welcoming them to Mound with different types of information on schools, restaurants, park information, etc. Kristen Perry stated she could send out a letter to her daycare providers and she who would like to help with neighborhood involvement. 3b. SKATE PARK Officer Jason Swenson stated he been a member of the Mound Police department for almost 11 years. During his years with the police department he has worked in many areas such as Dare, Investigations and currently with the K-9 unit. Swenson stated he has always been in favor of a skate park in our community and approached Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative and asked to be the liaison for the police department. Swensen explained he would do what ever it takes to help get the skate park. The group meets every Wednesday and are anguish on getting this started. First on the agenda is to find a location. Swensen stated the possible locations could be: 2 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission On the side of City Hall behind the baseball fields it is a central locations and easy for the kids to get to and for the police department to patrol. The baseball association said they would open the concession stand and restrooms for the kids. 2. Shirley Hills tennis court. 3. Minnetrista WRA. Swensen stated that the Take Five Park had about 300 full time members signed up from the surrounding cities. In the 2 years of the Take Five operation no insurance claims against the operation. Swensen presented the diagram to scale of the permanent skate park and explained the model they are looking at is a concrete structure 3 feet high and explained the reason it will be this type of structure is because it will fall under the tier one skate park under the Minnesota cities insurance which means it does not have to be staffed if it is publicly owned and does not increase insurance rates if it under 3 feet. Swensen explained the cost of the park would range between 50,000 for an above ground structure to 100,000 for underground the price does not include the price of the land and will look for donation and free labor. Swenson expressed how important it is to have the park in Mound and at a central location well supervised the kids would be dropped off by parents or be riding bikes. Park Director Fackler stated that if the skate park would be on Mound City property we would provide the maintenance. Commissioner Domholt asked officer Swensen if a log could be kept of all donations given to the skate park. 4. REVIEW: DEPOT REPORTS FOR 2000 Commissioners asked if a log could be made of all residents that have to be turned away because of the date already being booked. 5. DISCUSS: POSAC REQUEST FOR 2002 CAPITAL OUTLAY Park Director Fackler stated that the end of May is when the listings are made, and the requests go to the City Manager the first part of June. Fackler reviewed the line item request. 3 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space CommissionD~J~Fr February 8, 2001 Chair Beise requested copies of the Capital Outlay for the last 2 years. A public hearing in April, and an additional workshop if needed at the end of April. 6. DISCUSS: YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION Chair Beise asked for any comments at the commission level. Commissioner Hentz stated he likes the idea because it will get kids into the community and give them responsibility. We want people to commit and be proactive. Council Representative Meyer stated he asked Park Director Fackler to get together information from the City of Plymouth. At this time there was a lengthy discussion regarding the youth program at the City of Plymouth took place. Commissioner Casey asked if a motion could be put in place tonight recommending a Youth Advisory Council and if all the information from the City of Plymouth be in the next City Council packet. Motion made by Casey, seconded by Hentz that the City of Mound establish a Youth Advisory Council using the information provided by the City of Plymouth. And that all the packet of information provided by the City of Plymouth be reviewed by the City Council for comments and approval. Motion carried unanimously. 7. REVIEW: RESOLUTION BY TOM CASEY REGARDING APPOINTMENT TO ADVISORY COMMISSION Discussion was made between commissioners regarding the old resolution and the newly revised resolution. Chair Beise stated he would not support making a recommendation on the revised resolution. Commissioner Casey talked about his understanding of the term vacancy in both the old resolution and the newly revised resolution. And stated that the term vacancy should remain the same in both. He does not feel any consideration was given to any of the commissioners about the pros and cons of the decision from the City Council. 4 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission Attached is resolution written by Tom Casey. February 8, 2001 DRAFT Motion was made by Casey, and seconded by Meyer to adopt the resolution as written. The following commissioners voted in the affirmative: Casey, Domholt, Hentz and Meyer. The following commissiOners voted in the negative: Beise. Insert Resolution written by Tom Casey Was Moved. 9. DISCUSS: Was Moved. 10. Some 11. 12. DISCUSS: SKATE PARK NEIGHBOR/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT POSAC MARCH AGENDA items for the March POSAC agenda are: 1. Park Tour Date 2. 1999 and 2000 Capital Outlay (information only) 3. Interviews 4. Maps for Community Involvement 5. Neighborhood Community Involvement Discussion and Review of Information 6. Stake Park ? FEBRUARY CALENDAR FOR YOUR INFORMATION 2. 3. 4. 5. City Council Minutes January 9, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 City of Mound Park Dedication Fees Mound Bay Park Information Sign Criteria for Park facilities 5 Mound Advisory Park and Open Space Commission February 8, 2001 City of Mound Directory Letter from Shelly DeWitt Zimmerschied REPORTS: City Council Representative Discussed location of skate parks D ?AFr b. Park Director None Motion made by Domholt, seconded by Casey, to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 P.M. Motion carried unanimously. 6 MOUND ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MONDAY FEBRUARY 12, 2001 Those present: Chair GeoffMichael; Commissioners: Michael Mueller, Orvin Burma, Becky Glister, Frank Weiland, Cklair Hasse, Jerry Clapsaddle, and Council Liaison Kim Anderson. Absent and excused: Bill Voss. Staff present: Mayor Pat Meisel, City Planner Loren Gordon, Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jon Sutherland and Recording Secretary Jill Norlander. The following Public were present: Steve Codden, Mark Hanus, Paul Larson Chairman Michael welcomed the public to the meeting. He then called the meeting to order at 7:44 p.m. APPROVE MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 22, 2001 MOTION by Hasse seconded by Weiland to approve the minutes of the 1/22/01 Planning Commission meeting. MOTION carried unanimously. CASE #00-72 CASE #00-73 CASE #00-74 CASE #01-02 MAJOR SUBDIVISION VARIANCE VARIANCE CUP-PUD 5240/5212 LYNWOOD BLVD STEVE CODDEN City Planner Loren Gordon introduced the major subdivision & variances. The applicant, Coddon Miller Parmership, has submitted a Preliminary Plat, "Miller Coddon Addition", to create two additional lots by replatting portions of the Abraham Lincoln Addition of Lakeside Park. The property is located north of Lynwood Blvd. between Morton Lane (channel) and Apple Lane. The existing plat contains 4 homes which are served by the private access drive. The replat results in 2 additional lots to build on. The plans show a widened private road to 24 feet for the portion that abuts lot 1 and the portion of lot 4 to the driveway. This section would have curb and gutter to control storm water. A turnaround area for emergency vehicles is proposed on the north end of lot 2. The Fire Department has commented that the mm around will accommodate the movements of the ladder truck which is their largest vehicle. The plans are not clear on how storm water will drain from the driveway. Some water will drain to Lynwood and some will be diverted to a swale along lot 2. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 Public water main and fire hydrant would extend along the west side of the driveway to a fire hydrant located between lots 3 and 4. Water upgrades have been required because pressure has been inadequate. Lot area of both the new lots meet lot area requirements (smallest 10,400 SF, 20,000 SF is largest). Variances are needed for street and a CUP for private drives. Hardcover is the largest issue. According to Gordon, the hardcover calculations for the project are incorrect. Lot 2 is over the maximum by 600 square feet - Lot 4 over by 647 square feet. The calculations didn't take into account the mm-around, future driveway & widening of the existing roadway. Although the Fire Department is comfortable with the plan and City Engineer Cameron feels the minor problems can be worked out before final approval, City Plmmer Gordon recommends denial. Discussion Commissioner Weiland expressed concern about the original parcel being undersized and the lack of standard 24 foot roadway for the entire length. Gordon said parcel size was not a problem and that staff would also like to see a full 24 foot roadway all the way. Commissioner Clapsaddle asked whether there had been a watershed analysis on the parcels. He also wanted to know why the water pressure was poor. Cameron was not sure what was required by watershed officials and said the reason water pressure was low is because there is no watermain back there. The service lines mn all the way to Lynwood. Commissioner Clapsaddle also noted there is no place to put snow. Commissioner Mueller wanted to know if a new watermain benefits the current property owners? Cameron said it did. Commissioner Mueller inquired as to the subdivision history of the parcel. Gordon indicated that 4 or 5 different proposals were initiated in the last few years and some have been withdrawn. The last one was successful and was primarily the easterly dog- leg section. Commissioner Hasse asked about the parcels' access to roadway? Gordon said there is no direct access to Lynwood and that the easement provided for 7 driveways off the private drive. A concern was voiced by some about the number of trees that it appeared needed to be removed for one of the driveways and Mr. Codden said there was adequate space to go between the trees. Commissioner Clapsaddle inquired about the location of the high water line. Gordon said it didn't affect Lot 2 dramatically but that lot 3 is affected. Commissioner Clapsaddle inquired as to the minimum frontage for lakeshore. Gordon responded that 40 feet was minimum. Commissioner Clapsaddle felt that if the easterly flag portion were part of the platting you could come up with a different lot configuration and may come up with enough area to get a turnaround in there. He felt there were better ways to go. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 Chairman Michael reminded of the Public Heating. Mr. Codden explained some of the history of his subdivision requests. Each time he had plans drawn up and received objections from staff he withdrew them and changed details in accordance with staff requests. The center lot has been a separate lot for 40 or 50 years as torrens property. Originally, he wanted a lot line adjustment so he could obtain the center lot for himself. The easterly portion was separated as commons property for the partnership. Codden said he was trying to do this to provide a turn-around and to solve the water pressure problems. Going over the staff report, Codden indicated a willingness to modify the plan increasing the roadway to a consistent width. Codden handed out a revised plan showing an increased roadway width to 22 feet for the entire length. Regarding the drainage, Cameron and Gordon agreed that the drainage was not being altered in the area. Codden was agreeable that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed must approve of the plan. He is not contesting that the hardcover calculations are incorrect. Gordon says he can't recommend approval of a variance for hardcover. Codden stated he doesn't want a variance. The houses drawn on Lots 2 and 4 are just shown as examples, as well as the walkways. Final hardcover will be subject to house plan approvals. Staff and Commissioners were concerned that, in order to reduce the house size appropriately, the house would be too small and future owners would come to the city asking for a variance to add on. The only variance Mr. Codden requests is the hardship variance to allow the 2 proposed lots to be treated the same as the 2 existing. Paul Larson 3865 Shoreline Drive, Orono: I worked with the former owners, they bought the parcels separately. They were told that if they were combined that later they could split them. They were originally designed as separate parcels with sewer run to them. I think it should be approved. Chairman Michael closed the public hearing. The Planning Commission expressed a desire to see revised plans indicating the changes Mr. Codden brought forward this evening. The Commission also directed staff to research the property history back at least 1986 where the original intent for division may have been documented. MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Clapsaddle to table the request until staff has time to receive and review the new information. MOTION carried unanimously Chairman Michael called for a short recess at 9:19. Back in session at 9:29. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 CASE #01-07 VARIANCE 4446 DENBIGH ROAD MARK HANUS Commissioner Mueller felt he needed to step down (due to the city's new ethics policy) because he sold Mark Hanus this property and made money on it. He felt he needed clarification from the city attorney. Mayor Meisel agreed that it was a good idea to step down and consult the city attorney. It was the consensus of the commission that Mueller did not have a conflict of interest however Mr. Mueller wanted to wait for official word one way or another. City Planner Gordon introduced the proposed variance. Mark Hanus, property owner, wants to add a second story and entryway to the existing home. The sideyard setback is non-conforming by .72 feet. He feels the variance is very reasonable and recommends Planning Commission approval. Discussion Commissioner Burma questioned the 4.2 feet on the far end of the addition. He was concemed because it had not been recognized. Building Official Sutherland said, in previous cases, the City Attorney felt it was unnecessary to do so. When the issue is recognized it is somewhat authorized and this may not be the desired goal. MOTION by Commissioner Clapsaddle and seconded by Commissioner Hasse to recommend approval of the variance request. Motion carried unanimously 3.1 REVIEW OF POLICIES REGARDING PLANNING COMMISSION INVOLVEMENT IN PROCESSING LAND USE APPLICATIONS Information was not available at this time. 3.2 2001 PC MEETING SCHEDULE Commissioner Mueller contacted The Laker regarding changing the publication date. He said we will have a determination by next meeting. 4. COMMITTEE MEMBER INTERVIEWS There are two candidates that have applied. Jerry Clapsaddle does not desire to be interviewed at this time. The other candidate is not in attendance. It is understood that the other candidate was notified. Ballots were taken. Planning Commission Minutes February 12, 2001 5.2 DRAFT CITY COUNCIL MINUTES OF 12/27/00. 1/9/01, 1/23/01 5.3 DRAFT PARK MINUTES OF 1/11/01 5.4 DRAFT DOCK AND COMMONS MINUTES OF 1/18/01 Commissioner Mueller indicated that the continuation of a public meetings on page 89 of the City Council minutes from December 27, 2000 was not a continuation but a new public meeting. He would like to remove the words "continuance of the" in the first paragraph, second line and insert the word "a" in its place. Approved unanimously MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Glister to request that City Council allow staff to review other policies, state and local, to reconsider the amendment to Resolution 89-139 as approved in Resolution 01-15 on January 23, 2001. Motion carded unanimously. MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Clapsaddle to request that City Council allow staff to review state requirements regarding the ethics guidelines set up by the Council in December 2000, and inquire of other cities what their policies might be, and bring this issue to the Planning Commission for discussion. Motion carried unanimously. The secretary tallied the ballots for Commissioner and Jerry Clapsaddle was the unanimous choice. MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Weiland to approve Jerry Clapsaddle as Planning Commissioner. Motion carried unanimously. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Commissioner Mueller and seconded by Commissioner Weiland to adjoum the meeting at 10:12 PM. Motion carded unanimously. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Dec. 2000 Dec. 2000 BUDGET EXPENSE GENERAL FUND Council 77,620 6,457 Promotions 4,000 0 Cable TV 26,000 11,663 City Manager/Clerk 198,750 17,720 Elections 12,450 802 Assessing 68,000 19 Finance 175,400 17,017 Computer 22,100 405 Legal 146,980 23,311 Police 1,049,650 113,385 Civil Defense 12,150 1,390 Planning/Inspections 208,250 43,409 Streets 485,990 83,238 City Property 76,890 6,687 Parks 208,050 13,326 Summer Recreation 39,570 39,570 Contingencies 106,780 15,323 Transfers 166,120 13,843 YTD EXPENSE VARIANCE 100.00% PERCENT EXPENDED 98,495 (20,875) 126.89% 4,000 0 100.00% 30,198 (4,198) 116.15% 206,824 (8,074) 104.06% 10,418 2,032 83.68% 71,391 (3,391) 104.99% 180,731 (5,331) 103.04% 8,247 13,853 37.32% 121,546 25,434 82.70% 1,015,722 33,928 96.77% 9,098 3,052 74.88% 249,829 (41,579) 119.97% 557,942 (71,952) 114.81% 73,209 3,681 95.21% 205,526 2,524 98.79% 39,570 0 100.00% 15,973 90,807 14.96% 166,120 0 100.00% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,084,750 407,565 3,064,839 19,911 99.35% Area Fire Service Fund 411,520 69,314 351,361 60,159 85.38% TIF 1-2 0 140,547 765,487 (765,487) Recycling Fund 124,980 14,598 104,523 20,457 83.63% Liquor Fund 238,920 112,415 362,030 (123,110) 151.53% Water Fund 441,360 66,140 457,495 (16,135) 103.66% Sewer Fund 939,410 54,862 824,688 114,722 87.79% Cemetery Fund 8,190 1,110 8,355 (165) 102.01% Dock Fund 80,640 7,035 69,229 11,411 85.85% Exp-00 02/1612001 Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Dec. 2000 100.00% GENERAL FUND Taxes Business Licenses Non-Business Licenses and Permits Intergovernmental Charges for Services Court Fines Other Revenue Transfers from Other Funds Charges to Other Departments Dec. 2000 YTD BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE 1,344,330 697,458 1,399,902 4,210 0 3,515 116,200 6,339 172,768 963,800 411,363 973,702 85,700 7,541 113,814 100,000 14,921 118,390 63,500 79,244 135,609 47,500 47,500 47,500 13.000 1,206 15,150 VARIANCE PERCENT RECEIVED 55,572 104.13% (695) 83.49% 56,568 148.68% 9,902 101.03% 28,114 132.81% 18,390 118.39% 72,109 213.56% 0 100.00% 2,150 116.54% TOTAL REVENUE 2,738,240 1,265.572 2,980,350 242,110 108.84% FIRE FUND RECYCLING FUND LIQUOR FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND CEMETERY FUND DOCKFUND 377,470 (6,356) 393,678 115,600 9,973 128,237 1,750,000 215,025 1,888,782 500,000 102,290 532,000 960,000 162,331 1,057,338 6,200 301 4,831 86,000 19,168 87,661 16,208 104.29% 12,637 110.93% 138,782 107.93% 32,000 106.40% 97,338 110.14% (1,369) 77.92% 1,661 101.93% 02/1612001 rev00 Gino 'r.. 0 0 o i- i- i- i- < < < ,,, r,, a: ,,' < < < < z z z z ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ U. ~Z 0 a. ~ n~ 0 E E e 0 0 ~ THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY