The URL can be used to link to this page

2001-03-13PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. ~iT~,?6g ~60~i~§Si0~ STA~E~: %e ~ity'~f"~Uiid, ~0U~ te'~rk ~d ~00perati0n, pm~ides at areas~nable cost, quality Services that respond to the needs of all citizens, fostering a safe, attractive and flourishing communi' AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 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 o * CONSENT AGENDA *A. APPROVE MINUTES: FEBRUARY 27, 2001 REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 27, 2001 SPECIAL MEETING 5905-5909 5910 *B. APPROVE PAYMENT OF CLAIMS 5911-5932 *C. SET PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 AND THE MODIFICATION OF THE TAX INCREMENT PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-1:4/24 5933 2. LIQUOR LICENSE FEE INCREASES: 4/24 5934-5935 *D. ACTION ON RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THAT CDBG FUNDING OF WESTONKA COMMUNITY ACTION NETWORK (WeCAN) BE CONTINUED 5936-5943 COMMENTS & SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT ON ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA. (LIMIT TO 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.) SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN & RELATED MATTERS mo DAN PARKS, MFRA, WITH UPDATE ON MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT APPROVAL OF PLAN AND GRANTING OF APPROVAL PROCESS TO CITY OF MOUND 5944-5995 Bo DISCUSION ON REQUEST FROM CITY OF SHOREWOOD FOR RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE USE AND SALE OF PHOSPHOROUS LAWN FERTIIZERS 5996-6016 PLEASE TURN OFF AT CELL PHONES & PAGERS IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. 6. LMCD AND DOCK PROGRAM MATTERS GREG NYBECK AND BURT FOSTER, LMCD, ON ADDITIONAL WATER PATROL ON LAKE MINNETONKA CONSIDERATION OF PROJECT AND COSTS FOR SHORELINE SURVEY FOR THE ACCURATE DETERMINATION OF BOAT STORAGE UNITS FOR DOCK PROGRAM Co DISCUSSION ON LMCD RESPONSE ON CITY REQUEST TO ACCOUNT FOR LMCD BUDGET AND CITY LICENSING FEE Do ACTION ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT RIPRAPPING ON COMMONS AREAS 6017-6035 6036-6037 6038-6051 6052-6058 o 10. MATTERS RELATED TO COMMISSIONS A. DISCUSSION REGARDING RECOMMENDATION BY PARK AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION FOR A YOUTH ADVISORY COMMISSION 5059-6093 Bo SET SPECIAL MEETING DATE WITH PLANNING COMMISSION AND PARKS AND OPEN SPACE COMMISSION REGARDING APPOINTMENTS POLICIES AND PROCEDURES EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSIDERATION OF POLSTON, ET AL, LAW SUIT (To be hem at 9:15 p. tn. or later, dependent upon the arrival time of defense attorney, and concurrently with the HRA executive session.) INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax 6094-6095 B. Westonka Schools communication 6096-6098 C. LMCD communication 6099-6111 D. Report on City Hall structural investigation 6112-6117 E. Thanks from Lake Minnetonka Area Chamber of Commerce 6118 F. Met Council planning and budget breakfast meetings 6119-6122 G. Article: 2000 IACP Awards Presented During the 107th Annual Conference 6123-6124 H. Westonka Senior Center newsletter 6125 I. Westonka Farmers' Market minutes: Nov 22, 2000 6126-6127 J. Finance reports: January 2001 6128-6130 K. Update on bonding needs and discussion 6131-6135 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. citvofmoundcom. FROH : HOUND POST OFFICE PHONE NO. : 4?22004 Mar. 09 20Dr 09:ltRM Pt All capital expeDdi~ures have been pu~ ¢,n hold. Forward Bead~£ SubjeCt: Please Notify postmaster's %mmediate!y Author: VALERIE L WELSCH at HAMO001L Dat~; 3/~/01 9:55 ~M p.r,.Ui, ~'i ,JOIt~']5©N, ,:14AYLE × -' The following locations are on the capital spending hold li~L. i~. not:i, fyin,u the mayors of these cities. Consumer Affairs will no,iff legislauor$, PLEASE notify postmasters of %hose locations immediately. A Daticnal press release will go out today, fci!ow.=.d by localizes stsr..a releases. I wi]! send yot~ a co,u7 of r.t~. ~t_'~5e re!.~as~s when finalized- FSO Thank Val~rie Nebraska: Alda, Eustis, Gering, Rickman, Mazy, Flea~an~: Dale, Winnebago, ~oy:~own, North Loup, Bushnell., ©maha(?iorencc) Kansas: M~rid~n, Berryton, Cimarron, E!kt',~rt, ~,.u~:¢d, Hi~h..~r;,~, Louis burg, Nick&rson, Oakle'f, C. iawkie, Spring Hill, Thayer, Tonganoxiu, Uniontcwn, Moran, Harveyville, Wichita Minnesota: klm~.rania, Bric~_lyn, Fosnton, ?razee, Gilbert, ~enderson, Hills, Isle, Lore%to, MaplecoF,, Marshall, PIontevidco, Mound, Nc.w Germany, New Prague, Ni$$wa, [~ark Rapids, Plainvic~, Raymond, Red l,.:.ka, R~chmon¢t, Sq~.].~w Lake, Welch, Elk River, ~u~chinson, Lskevi].le, Minneapolis, Frier Lake, Kasota, S5. Paul North Dakota: Fargo Sou~h Dakota: Black Ha~k, i~la~er~ont, Lc. wet Brule, Minc~ Tea, Union Cen~er, Whice, whitewood, Sioux Falls, Tulare Wisconsin: Barron, ~.enco~%, De Pore, E!m~-;ood, Fall River, Glen Haven, Gratio~, Jackson. Jim Falls, Lnke Tomahawk, Madison, Marsnfie]d, McFarland, Milwaukee, Mu$ceda, North ~ra.L.cie, Pembine, ReeC-~vi!!c, Riel( T.,nk~, S~l. em, Sarona, Shawano, Shebcvqan Falls, Prair"~e, Webster, Whi.-.ewater, Wil~on, Wc~;~v:!.i.',e, E!khorn, E~tkland, G~a~dvie'~', 5eetown, Waukesna COUNCIL BRIEFING March 13, 2001 Agenda You may have probablv read or heard about the plans of the USPS to remove the Mound project from its capital improvements list. The'HRA agenda will be amended at the meeting to include a report on the Post Office Project and the efforts staff is making to restore that project. #3.1. MetroPlains Development Agreement As is common practice, MetroPlains and the City are now refining the terms of our agreement. This is the first in what could be a series of amendments. #3.2. Liquor License Fees Oops! We need to hold a public hearing in order to increase fees for liquor licenses. There is no public notice requirement but all license holders need to be notified and have opportunity to be heard. #5.A. & B. Surface Water Management Plan The memo from Dan Parks is generic in nature. He has plans for more communication with the Watershed District before our meeting, so will have more concrete information at that time. Dan will also be available for input on the consideration of a phosphorus free resolution versus an ordinance, as will be required under our Surface Water Management Plan. #7.A. Youth Advisor~ Commission There are two concepts for a youth advisory commission in your packets. The first is a recommendation by the ark Commission, formulated after the Plymouth model. The second is one that is being generated by the ealthy Living Collaborative (the last three pages of that section of the agenda). Rather than risking duplication, perhaps there could be some cooperation between the two organizations that would suffice for both. #7.B. Special Meeting with Parks and Planning Commissions Both the Park and Open Space Commission and the Planning Commission wish to work with the City Council on the policies pertaining to appointments. A special joint meeting has been suggested to work out the details of future appointment processes. #8. Executive Session There will be concurrent executive sessions with the HRA and the City Council. The Mayor should continue the HRA meeting to the Council executive session. That must be announced at the start of the session. Once out of the session, the HRA closed meeting will need summarization and adjoumment, followed by the same procedure for the City Council meeting. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FEBRUARY 27, 2001 The City Coundl of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Klm Anderson, and Peter Meyer. Councilmembers Absent: Mark Hanus Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; City Attorney, John Dean; Finance Director, Gino Businaro; City Building Official, Jon Sutherland; and the following interested citizens: Leah Weycker, Andrea Ahrens, Lorrie Ham, Carol Shukle and Troup 1513, Marilyn Hostetler, Gene Hostetler, Derek Hostetler, Bruno Mendes, Edith Travers, Dylan Wilbur, Sandy Rauschenderfer, Sue Hostetler, Jason Swensen. *Consent Agenda: Ail 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 Councilmember or citizens so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m., and the pledge of allegiance was recited. She welcomed Girl Scout Troup 1513. They are in attendance to observe City Government, because they are earning their Jr. Citizens Badges. 2. APPROVE AGENDA City Manager Hanson submitted changes to the agenda as follows: Consent item F2, changing hearing date from March 27 to April 10; item I, the amount of funding for WECAN is $15,000 (Mayor Meisel followed by requesting that this item be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion); Add item J (resolution for sign for Upper Tonka Little League) and add item K (resolution designating Bonnie Ritter as Acting City Clerk). Item 9.5 is to be added to the regular agenda. This is approval of the storm water facility maintenance agreement. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to approve the agenda as amended above. All voted in favor. Motion carried. 3. CONSENT AGENDA Meyer requested that item A be pulled from the consent agenda for discussion. Mound City Council Minutes - February 27, 2001 He requested it be noted in the January 9, 2001, minutes that he asked Councilmember Hanus if he wanted to trade Commission appointments, and Hanus declined. He also questioned the times noted on the February 13, 2001, minutes, in regards to the Mayor's leaving the meeting and adjournment time. Both of these issues will be corrected in the minutes. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to approve the agenda and consent agenda as amended above. All voted in favor. Motion carried. A. City Council Minutes of January 9, 2001, and February 13, 2001. B. Approve payment of claims in the amount of $214,520.10. C. Approve quasi public sign permit for Westonka Public Schools. D. Approve application for Public Performance Events and Public Gathering Permit for Bass Tournament at Mound Bay Park April 13-14. E. RESOLUTION NO. 01-21: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF 2001 GRANT APPLICATION FOR RECYCLING AND EXECUTION OF GRANT AGREEMENT F. Westedge Boulevard Improvement Project: 1. RESOLUTION NO. 01-22: RESOLUTION ORDERING PREPARATION OF REPORT ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF WESTEDGE BOULEVARD, FROM HENNEPIN COUNTY ROAD 15 SOUTH TO WOODEDGE ROAD 2. RESOLUTION NO. 01-23: RESOLUTION RECEIVING REPORT AND CALLING HEARING ON THE IMPROVEMENT OF WESTEDGE BOULEVARD FROM HENENPIN COUNTY ROAD 15 TO WOODEDGE ROAD G. Approve February 2001 Licenses: 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. Garbage Haulers: Waste Management Blackowiak & Son Randy's Sanitation BFI of North America Mound City Council Minutes - February 27, 2001 H. RESOLUTION NO. 01-24: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTING AN ADDITION ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT ~.~.~.$ DENBIGH ROAD, PID #19-117-23-24- 0001. P & Z CASE #01-07. CBDG Funding for WECAN Mayor Meisel expressed her wish to see the budget for these funds. Edith Travers of WECAN will provide the budget for further consideration. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Anderson to continue this item until further budget information is received. All ayes. J. Quisi-public sign permit for Upper Tonka Little League K. RESOLUTION NO. 01-25: RESOLUTION DESIGNATING BONNIE RITTER AS ACTING CITY CLERK 4. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS Andrea Ahrens came forward and stated that if she were still on the Council she would have pulled item D on the consent agenda - approval for the Bass Tournament. She stated no other city in the area will allow these tournaments, and that's the reason they come to Mound. The park is taken away from the rest of the public for this event, and there isn't even a fee charged. She was informed that the Bass Tournament has donated $200 for the parks and the stipulation is included that they are responsible for all clean-up and restoration of the park to its original condition, and a January 24th resolution adopted a fee of $150 for park use of similar type. 5. SKATE PARK PROJECT Derek Hostetler and Dylan Wilbur represented the youth from the task force working on location for a skate park. They reviewed the pros and cons of different locations with the Council. Jason Swensen, Mound Police Officer and member of the task force, also reviewed some options with the Council. It was the consensus of the Council that City staff work on possible locations with the task force. Meyer stated that he has been attending task force meetings and Brown indicated that he would be willing to get involved also. 6. WETLANDS CONSERVATION ACT NO-LOSS REQUEST (BECKER) City Attorney Dean reviewed the last action of the Council, being the suggestion that the Becker reps and City reps get together to see if a compromise could be reached. Since that meeting, extensive discussions along those lines have Mound City Council Minutes - February 27, 2001 resulted. There is a strong potential that a resolution can be reached, but there is nothing in writing for consideration tonight. Dean continued by stating that the joint recommendation is that the matter be continued to 90 days (May 22n~ Council meeting),and between now and then all unresolved issues will be resolved. He added that the Beckers provided another waiver of the 60-day rule, and that the City can automatically extend 60 days without further notice, and after that date can extend with mutual consent, to any date in the future. 7. ORDINANCE RELATING TO SEWER CHARGES Finance Director Businaro reviewed the proposed change, stating that now rates are based on winter usage and the change would allow rates to be based on actual usage. It was stated that the City Manager have the authority to look at some special situations and make determination as to what is cost effective and a mutually acceptable option. MOTION by Meyer, seconded by Brown to adopt the following ordinance. All ayes, ORDINANCE NO. 02-2001: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 540 OF THE MOUND CITY CODE RELATING TO SEWER AND WATER RATES, CHARGES AND FEES. 8. RESTRICTION ON USE AND SALE OF NON-PHOSPHOROUS LAWN FERTILIZERS City Manager Hanson informed the council that within 1-3 years the City will be asked to adopt an ordinance as to the sale and use of phosphorous lawn fertilizers with the City, as prompted by the Watershed District. Mayor Meisel and Councilmember Brown feel that the community, as well as the businesses selling fertilizers, need to be educated before action is taken. Councilmembers Meyer and Anderson, however, stated opinions that the Council should go ahead and act on this now. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meisel, to table this matter until more information can be obtained, such as the affect on business people, etc., and this information can then be presented at the next Council meeting. Meyer stated that the facts are in front of them, and wants to move forward now. He feels the Council is micro-managing when they should be visioning. He added that neighboring cities, as Shorewood and Excelsior have already passed this resolution. Anderson added that she would agree to wait for two weeks, but not a full year. Those voting in favor: Brown, Meisel, Anderson. Those voting against: Meyer. Motion carried. 9. RECOMMENDATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPOINTMENT TO FILL VACANCY Mound City Council Minutes - February 27, 2001 MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to appoint Jerry Clapsaddle as Planning Commieeioner, through December, 2003, as recommendation by the Mound Advisory Planning Commission. All ayes. 9.5 STORMWATER FACILITY MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT City manager Hanson informed the Council that this agreement is required by the Watershed District, and required by Rottlund Homes for their development. MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to approve the Stormwater Facility Maintenance Agreement as presented. All ayes. 10. INFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS A. LMC Friday Fax B. Westonka Schools communication C. LMCD communication D. AMM Bill Tracking Report Index E. AMM Fax News F. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District correspondence G. Letter: Reliant Energy H. Letter: Metropolitan Council I. EDC meeting minutes; February 15, 2001 J. Park & Open Space Commission meting minutes: Feb. 8, 2001 K. Planning Commission meeting minutes: Feb. 12, 2001 L. Financial reports: Dec, 2000. Councilmember Meyer asked why information that was noted in the Parks Commission minutes, to be passed along to Council, was not on the agenda. was determined to be a lack of communication and City Manager Hanson will look into this. 11. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Brown, seconded by Meyer to adjourn at 8:48 p.m. All ayes. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel SPECIAL MEETING OF MOUND CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 27, 2001 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in special session on Tuesday, February 27, 2001, at 6:15 p.m. at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Councilmembers Present: Mayor Meisel, Councilmembers Bob Brown, Kim Anderson. Councilmembers Absent: Mark Hanus Others Present: City Manager, Kandis Hanson; Acting City Clerk, Bonnie Ritter; Finance Director, Gino Businaro; Jim Fackler; Jon Sutherland; Jim Prosser, John Cameron, Greg Skinner Mayor Meisel called the meeting to order at 6:28 p.m. BONDING NEEDS FOR 2001 Jim Prosser of Ehlers and Associates, Inc., gave a preliminary overview of the type of debt issues that will be presented March 13th at the regular Council meeting. The following 2001 projects were discussed, along with financing options and funding sources: Storm sewer improvements; Water Improvements (well) Auditors Road; WestedGe watermain; Westedge road improvements; Retaining walls; Westonka School District settlement; Liquor store improvement bonds; Reimbursement for downtown development; Information technology. The projects listed as follows are projects with timetables of Fall, 2001 and later: CH15 local match; 375,000 gallon elevated water tower; Greenway/Lost Lake improvement; Public Safety, Fire Station and kennel facilities; City Hall improvements; Public Works building improvements/expansion/storage; Park improvements (ADAIsafetylcodelimprovements); and Pavement management System/underground city utilities. This was general discussion, with final decisions and additional discussion to follow. MOTION by Councilmember Brown, seconded by Meyer to adjourn at 7:23 p.m. All voted in favor. Attest: Acting City Clerk Mayor Pat Meisel PAGE 1 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L _JP-C02-O~I C-!TY OE M~ VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO= IJ~VO!CE NMBR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUNT NUMBER - AOO51 11697 102.95 DEPOT SERVICE 30-1190-0000 ~/-~3~zJ~l 3~-~1 ~02_95 JRNL-CD ~ O !g-- ABRAX SYSTEMS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 102.95 A0068 170I 271.93 GAMMA GOAT GRASS RIG 22-4170-3820 3/13/0i 3/13/01 271.93 JRNL-CD 1010 i531 150.23 GAMMA GOAT GRASS RIG 22-4170-3820 3/13/01 3/13/01 150.23 JRNL-CD 1010 AERO UPHOLSTERY VENDOR TOTAL 422.16 'i-- ACL3~3--0%02 ~2 1~47 THRU--O ~- 2~- O1--G A~H ARG ~S 3/13/0I 3/13/01 i25.47 JRNL-CD 1010 :'__AMO~JL--r.~OMP-ANY YENDOR.--Tq]~-A L t2..5~ 4 7 A0349 00011827 3/13/01 3/13/01 120.00 SPRING CLASS, POUNDER, CHRIS 22-4170-4110 1AO~O0 SR4R-I44C~L~S,~.A~,--J~SON ~-4-t~O-~llO -- 1~0.00 SPRING CtA5S, MYERS, TONY 22-4170-4110 360.00 JRNL-ED 1010 00009680 376.00 2000 NFPA FIREFIGHTERS 22-4170-4110 3/i3/0i 3/13/0i 576.00 JRNL-CD lOlO ANOKA TECHNICAL INSTITUTE · A 038~63 4 (~9-~1 J~ AR_CN U!RELESS 37 A0401 584941 VENDOR TOTAL 736.00 3/13/01 3/13/01 17.16 JRNL-CD . 1010 ¥~.N~OR TOTAL 17.~> 5/13701 3;!310! 73.75 PART FOR WESTERN PLOW #11 73_75 3RNL-CD 01-4280-3510 576441 172.25 MOTOR PART FOR PLOW 01-4280-2310 ~/13!0! ~/!3/0! 172_~5 JRNL-CD ,~-~0--- ' 584942 54.07 RUBBER 'FLAP 01-4280-2310 ASPEN EQUIPMENT VENDOR TOTAL 300.07 B0549 33531100 43.14 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 3/i3/01 3/13/01 43.1~ JRNL-CD 1010 20806900 2,668.57 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 3/13/01 3/13/01 2,668.57 JRNL-CD 1010 20846700 1,655.06 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,655.06 JRNL-CD IOlO PAGE 2 AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOU-ND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NG~_TN VOICE N~R DATE ~A-T E S-TA~T~U S 3/13/01 3/13/01 B!LL CLARK OIL-COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL ~'MOU~T nmcrmrmTtn~ ~S~.Z2 L~THOPLEX~ ETC. 1~9.Z2 I ~TUnml my_ ETC. 456.36 JRNL-CD lOlO 4~36 80600 10077920 31.66 02-01 GARBAGE CM40120 01-4280-3750 31.6~ 02-01 GARBAGE CH40120 78-7800-3~50 3/13/01 3/13/01 94.99 JRNL-CD lOlO ~oo~;9;s ~8.90 02-0i GARBAGE ~CHR030~ 01-4340-3?50 3/13/0~ 3/13/01 78.90 JRNL-CD lOlO 100~7846 17.76 02-01 GARBAGE CHPO085 71-7100-3~50 3/13/0I 3/13/01 17.76 JRNL-CD lOlO 8LACKO~IAK AND SON VENDOR TOTAL 191.65 R~611 ~6 Z~40_68. S~~ALT KIX ~0-23~--~ 3/13/01 3/13/0i 1,349.68 JRNL-CD lOiO ~P~RR~ ~55_77 ~D ~OR SALT M~ 0~-4280-23~ .... 3/13/01 3/13/0I 155.77 JRNL-CD 16~447 -~23 R~ STOCK P~LE Z~-~O ~34 ~_ 3/i3/01 3/13/01 449.23 JRNL-CD -- ~41635 3/13/01 3/13/0I 1,356.27 -- 4_4 L9~9 ~A 3/13/01 3/13/01 440.25 I. 4!998~8 4~0_25 3/13/01 3/13/01 440.25 BOB W!NK. LER VENDOR TOTAL 419l_45 l~35~.Z7~SAND FOJ~ALT H-IX JRNL-CD ~CK P-!LE ~O~W~TERM~J~BRE~___ ~0705 010108 3,212.10 3/!3!01 3/!3!@1 372!2_1Q 1010 JRNL-CD STOCKP!LE FOR ~ATERHA!N BREAK. JRNL-CD 7-- -.l~L3 00~2_34 0 1010 78-7800-254.-0 .... 1010 BRASLAU, DAVID AND ASSOCI* VENDOR TOTAL 3212.i0 B0740 00171481 01-01 TRAFFIC STUDY JRML-CD 55-5877-3100 !0!0 85.51 BULBS 71-7100-2200 3/13/01 3/13/01 BUDGET LIGHTING INC VENDOR TOTAL R~7~.7 85.51 JRNL-CD 85.51 1010 BUREAU 010228 3/13/01 3/13/01 40_00 ~339Z N!CC'JMr DAN 40.00 #3822 CHRISTENSON, 80.00 JRNL-CD AMY OF CRIMINAL APPREHE VENDOR TOTAL 80.00 &-!-4!40-4!!9 01-4140-4110 1010 C0820 21353132 PAGE 3 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L ---Atz-~O~--q~l CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. !H¥~tCE N-M-BR DATE DATE STATUS AHOUNT DESCRIPTION AC-C-OUNT NUMDER 3/13/01 3/13/01 2,377.61 JRNL-CD 1010 21340301 1,091.09 BULK ROAD SALT 01-4280-2340 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,091.09 JRNL-CD 1010 21336476 920.19 BULK ROAD SALT 01-4280-2340 3/13/01 3/13/01 920.19 JRNL-CD 1010 CARGILL SALT DIVISION VENDOR TOTAL 4388.89 C0~25 !~02-56~-9 323.~? PICK "P 'N ~ ..... T 01~-~,-2~A)~--3-I~1-0~ 323.26 PICK UP 'N GO W/KIT 73-7300-3810 3/i3/01 3/13/01 646.53 JRNL-CD 1010 2002677 35.59 SWITCH ROCKER 01-4280-2310 3/13/01 3/13/01 35.59 JRNL-CD lOlO CARLSON TRACTOR'S, EQUIP.~ VENDOR TOTAL C0830 889797 3/13/01 3/13/01 ~S.~ER SAL~ VENDOR--TO~AL 682.i2 ~70.00 470.00 92-01-01 THRU 01-31-02 MAINTEN JRNL-CD C0859 D78535 4.61 POLE KIT 01-4280-2250 4.61 POLE KIT 78-7800-2250 3/13/0i 3/13/01 13.83 JRNL-CD 1010 Oi0301 I1.70 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 73-7300-2310 D78531 27.65 POLES 73-7300-2310 3/13/01 3/13/01 27.65 JRNL-CD 1010 CHAMPION AUTO VENDOR TOTAL 53.18 C0903 010108' 39,60 F!REF!~HTER BERENT & FORSMAN 22~417g-~llg 3/13/01 3/13/01 39.60 JRNL-CD 1010 CHANHASSEN~ CITY O~ VENDOR TOTAL 39.60 C0970 61359097 i54.82 MIX 71-7100-9540 3/Z3/01 3/!3/02 154.82 JRNL-CD 1010 3113101 3113/01 !96=58 JRNL-CD COCA COLA BOTTLING-MIDWEST VENDOR TOTAL 351.40 CIi19 F101248 109.33 CYLINDER BOSS VEE ANGLE 01-4280-3810 3/13/01 3/13/01 109.33 JRNL-CD 1010 CRYSTEEL DIST INC. VENDOR TOTAL 109.33 61364089 71-7100-9540 10t9-~ PAGE 4 AP-C02-¢1 VENDOR NO. INVOICE N~R PURCHASE CZ TY OF INVOICE DUE HOLD DATE DATE S TATILS A.~OJJHTD ..... 3/13/01 3/i3/01 232.02 JRNL-CD JOURNAL 1010 3662 58.04 RUBBER STRAPS 3/13/01 3/13/01 58.04 JRNL-CD ,,~°~ D J'S MUNICIPAL SUPPLY, IN VENDOR TOTAL 34-1417 (~--D AN~ ~EM IR G~N C~[Q ¢~gM[N_T ~D~AL = Di200 i26312 01-4280-2310 1010 290.06 58-r2~ HELMET 22-4170-2200 58.24 JRNL-CD 1010 399.53 RES~,O~DE~ 22-"'4~0-22~0 ....... 399.53 JRNL-CD lOiO llr~ HELMET CUPS 22-4170-2~0 11.38 JRNL-CD i010 71-7100-9530 1~1-0~ 71-7100-9550 469-~i-5 .~ 1,535.20 BEER - 126315 .~t 35.30 MISCELLANEOUS :~ 3/13/0! 3/13/01 3-5-.-3 0 JR~CD ,: i27022 748.50 BEER 71-7100-953b ., 3/-l~S AO-1---~I-L3/0-1 ~&~50~R~N L-- GD iOG-O- DAY DISTRIBUTING COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 2319.00 ~ Di290 i00585 _~ 360.45 HOLIDAY BANNER 01-2300-0500 .,~ 3/13/01 3/i3/0I 360.45 JRNL-CD iOiO ~? 100755 1,070.33 HOLIDAY BANNERS 01-2300-0600 "~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,070.33 JRNL-CD 1010 ~_o_ DISPLAY SALES VENDOR TOTAL 1430.78 '~,~I F1/.;)O 7S/,,f,],~ ~:706=60 BEER · ~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 4,706.60 JRNL-CD 71-7!00 ~5301010 ~l 757~g~ 7.An1 :;~,; R~_FR 71_7! _no_uS3L.- i~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 2,601.25 JRNL-CD iOlO 7575g/. ~A_qn MT%?FI I AIU~'~II~ ~: ....... 71-7100-9550 . ~o] 3/13/01 3/13/01 ~8.50 JRNL-CD 1010 s2! 11P_nn RFE~ 7!_71_nn_o530 __ ~3-~ 3/i3/01 3/13/01 i12.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~, FAgT ~r3F RFVFEAGF VFN~nP TnTAI ::5 El450 i8068-A 168.75 01-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATION 55-5879-3100 ~: '{/!x/O~ "(l!x!_nl !68:7c~ jI~L-CD : !0!0 i8068-B 2,463.75 Ol-O1 TIF 1-2 MISCELLANEOUS 55-5880-3100 PAGE 5 P U R C H A S E --AP-CO2~OZ CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO_ !NVOLCE~M~R DATE D~TE- S~ATgtS AMOUNT DESC.~IPT!ON JOURNAL ACCOUNT NUMBE-R-- I80~9 !80 70-~8 __ 18O/0~C 3/13/01 3/13/01 _&HLERS--LASSOCIATES~INC V~NDOR--IO~AL E1476 INV180486 3/13/~1 3/13!01 ~ v~ ns_ns r,,cTcm nmn S=mWtrcc 5~5883-3100 33.75 JRNL-CD 1010 405.00 JRNL-CD 0~-.~00 .... 1010 ?0,...~n 0-1--0-I ,..-t$C---T':... ~2 ,m~n.,~ SERVICE D~5~O .... 202.50 JRNL-CD 1010 202.50 Of-gl LANGDON BAY ....... ME~IT ~-~1~,~ 202.50 JRNL-CD 1010 43&r~--5 O ~(L1--L~Q UOR--SI~)~L~ C ~T~ 0 N 438.75 JRNL-CD 5-~58~0- 3104) --- 1010 ~915~0(~ 92.29 ~ATTERY IMPACT SUCTION UNIT 22-4170-2270 92~.-29 JRNI.~CD 1010 RGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCT* VENDOR TOTAL 92.29 ~85 S344/2220i 372.00 200I MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 71-7100-4200 3/13/01 3/13/0i 372.00 JRNL-CD 1010 E~UIPMENT SUPPLY INC VENDOR TOTAL 372.00 _ &ZS15--20L0 ~Z~525~00 02~_0$_CURS~%IDE--R~C~CbING 1010 3/13/01 3/13/01 7,525.00 JRNL-CD ._E_=~ECYLLZNG~iNC V.E~IDOR TOTAL 75Z~00 F1641 14624 163.20 MIX 3/!3/n! 3/13/0! 1~.20 JR~L-CD J~J FLAHERTY'S HAPPY TYHE VENDOR TOTAL 163.20 71-7100-9540 1~)-~0---- ~!~ G1750 563557 25.67 02-20-01 UNIFORMS ~,, 25.67 02-20-01 UNIFORMS ,~;: 25_67 02-20-01 UN~FORMS ~: 16.05 02-20-01 MATS i,,-~ 16.05 02-20-01 MATS 16_05 02-20-01 MATS · iZ~l 3/13/01 3/13/01 125.16 JRNL-CD ,:~ 3/13/0i 3/13/01 32.i5 JRNL-CD 55~983 23.33 02-06-01 U~F~RM5 ': 23.33 02-06-01 UNIFORMS <i 23.33 02-06-01 UNIFORMS 26=73 O~-06-O! MATS 26.73 02-06-01 MATS 26.74 02-06-01 MATS 01-4280-2240 73-7300-2240 01-4280-2250 73-7300-2250 1010 1010 01-42~0-2240 73-7300-2240 78-7800-2240 0!-~0~2250----- 73-7~00-2250 78-7800-2250 PAGE 6 --AP-C02-01 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY n: ,~n,,,,n VENDOR 55?286 INVOICE DUE HOLD 25.6? 02-1~-01 ,,~,~:mouc ^~ ...... ~,^ _ 25.67 02-13-01 UNIFORMS 73-7300-2240 25.67 02-13-01 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 13.57 03-13-01 HATS 73-7300-2250 13.56 03-13-01 HATS 78-7800-2250 -3J-l-~/-O-1 ~1--3-/-0-1 ~17.71 JRNL-C9 i010 569829 23.33 02-27-01 UNIFORMS 01-4280-2240 23.33 02-27-01 UNIFORMS 73-7300-22~0 - 23.33 02-27-01 UNIFORMS 78-7800-2240 16.60 02-27-01 HATS 01-4280-2250 16.60 0~27-01 MA~S 73---7~00-22~0-- I6.61 02-27-01 MATS 78-7800-2250 3/13/01 3/13/01 119.80 JRNL-CD 1010 563559 37.54 02-20-01 MATS 22-4170-2230 3/i3/01 3/i3/01 37.54 JRNL-CD IOlO 563558 41.84 02-20-01 MATS 01-4340-2330 3/13/01 3/13/01 41.84 JRNL-CD 1010 SERVICES VENDOR TOTAL 624.39 ~Z--ZT~I ~96-r30 DOOR--REP~4R 3/13/01 3/13/01 196.30 JRNL-CD 1010 --GLAS, S--PLUS V~NDOR--TOLAL ' 61890 OlO131-A 41.18 01-01 WATER #5158600 01-4020-2200 41.17 82.35 JRNL-CD 1010 0!0 !3!-B 0!0!3!-C 010228-A 3/13/01 3/13/01 ..... n,- , '~T=o .5158501 3/13/01 3/13/01 39.40 JRNL-CD 1010 3113/0! 3/!3/0! 3/13/01 3113/01 3/13/01 3/13/0i GLENWOOD INGLEWOOD VENDOR TOTAL 6_79 0!-0! ~ATER #5!585~02 01-4280-2200 6.70 01-01 WATER #5158502 73-7300-2200 6.70 01-01 WATER #5158502 78-7800-2200 20_10 J~NL-CD !O!O 41.18 02-01 W~TER #5158500 01-4020-2200 &l=!7 0~-0! W~TER #5158500 01-4140-4!00 82.35 JRNL-CD 1010 xo:~n n?-n! U4TE~ ~5!5850! 01-4320-2200 39.40 JRNL-CD 1010 6.70 0~-0! WATER #515850~ 01-4280-2200 6.70 02-01 WATER'#5158502 73-7300-2200 6.70 02-01 WATER #5158502 78-7800-2200 ?O:!O JnNL-CD '- lOlO 283.70 PA6E 7 P U R ¢ H ^ S E J 0 U R N A L __AP-CO2-01 C!TY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD .................... A ....... N!!M~ER - NO_ ! NVO I~R DANTE D~T; ~T&TI[~ A M/~II~JT DESCR:PT!0N F~IIZlT Gl905 lOl050? 23.20 O~-O1 LOCATES 73-7300-3~25 m nCaT~ 7~-7500-3~25 23.20 O!-O! ....... S - ,7-i 3/13/01 3/13/01 46.40 JRNL-CD 1010 ~: G-O-PHER STATE ONE-CALL-- !NC VENDOR TOTAL '!. G1972 335513 277.91 WINE 71-7100-9520 :~ 336336 1,150.25 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 ; 337596 202.80 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 338552 513.86 WINE 71-7100-9520 3/-1-3/-~1 ~/-1-3 / ~1 5~3~ 8~6 J~Nb-C~ 1-~lO '~ 341251 242.32 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 :~ 3/-~/O! 3 / 1 ~/-~1 27:2.32 JR~I~ C D lO l-Q-- 341426 312.78 WINE 71-7100-9520 S/-~3J-Ol 3-/-~3 / 01 31~773 JRNL~CO ~0-- 344271 i19.98 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 344334 421.40 WINE 71-7100-9520 9/~tZO~ ~/!3/0] 42!:40 JRNL=CD $.0!0 345137 207.57 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 3/19/01 S/1~/~1 207:57 JRNL-CD !0!0 :~] GRIGGS COOPER & COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 3448.87 ~i H1998 048466 800.07 FSE, PLOW BOLTS, ETC 01-4280-2310 ~ ~ 3/13/01 3/13/0i 800.07 JRNL-CD 1010 N & L MESABI, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 800.07 H2010 010107 36=57 ~E!wmJl~$E M!LEAGE 01--404~,4-0---- 3/13/01 3/13/01 36.57 JRNL-CD 1010 HANSON, KANDI_~ VFND~)R T~TAI 16.57 H2040 2055 296.62 POWER SUPPLY 73-7300-2310 HATCH, JIM SALES COMPANY VENDOR TOTAL 296.62 H206[ 326443 884.72 CHLORINE, ETC ; 73-7300-2260 3/[3/01 3/13/01 884.72 JRNL-CD 1-OlO HAWKINS WATER TREATMENT VENDOR TOTAL 884.72 PAGE 8 P U .__AP-CO_~-O] VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO: !NVO~CE N~SR DATE D~TE ~TATUS 3/13/01 3/13/01 R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY OF MOUND ............ A ....... ~47.45 JRNL-CD ~010 -- HENN [0 SHERIFFS DEPT VENDOR TOTAL 147.45 ~!RO ~nqO-O1-20 236~4@ ~' 3/13/01 3/13/01 236.40 !!HFNN CnlINTY TREASIJRER vF~N.D~R TOT~L I2309 23869606 48.60 23872612 99.79 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS VENDOR TOTAL i48.39 JAN THRU JUNE; 2000 01-~!~0-2200 JRNL-CD 1010 02-10-01 THRU 03-10-01 SM COPI 01-4320-3800 JRNL-CD 1010 02-24-01 THRU 03-24-01 COPIER 01-4140-2140 JR.NL-CD 1010 I2333 010036 495.I3 JACKETS 01-4280-2240 315.77 JACKETS 73-7300-2240 315.77 JACKETS 78-7800-224~--- .67 JRNL-CD iO~O 3/13/01 3/13/0% 1,i26 INFRATECH vENDOR TOTAL 1%26.67 I2360 598514 85.00 3Ll~/O! 3/~01 85.00 INTERNATL CONFRNC BLDG OF* VENDOR TOTAL 85.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES 01-4190-4130 JRJ~L-=£D I2400 7100 657.07 FRONT DRIVE SHAFT, ETC 01-4340-3810 3/13/01 3/13/01 657.07 JRNL-CD lOlO 7202 i60.30 SAWSALL 01-4340-2300 3/13/01 3/13/01 i60.30 JRNL-CD 1010 7197 69.40 REPLACE FRONT AXLE 73-7300-3810 ~: 3/13/01 3/i3/01 69.40 JRNL-CD lOlO 7203 15~.94 SA~SALL, ETC. 73-7300-2310 - 153.94 SA~SALL, ETC. 78-7800-2310 3/13/~! 3/13/0! 307_88 JRNL-CD 1010 7036 33.84 AMP CHARGER 22-4170-3820 3/!3/0! 3/13!0~ 33_84 J~.L-CD 7037 99.48 AMP CHARGER (3) 22-4170-3820 3/13/01 3/13/01 99_48 JRNL-CD :~-~t~--- 6876 25.86 01-05-01 AUTO REPAIR 01-4340-3810 3/!3/0! 3/13/01 25=86 JRNL-CD 10%0 6906 . 13.00 01-10-01 AUTO REPAIR 01-4140-3810 3/13/01 3~3/0! !3~00 J~NL-¢D ' 1~!0 6926 i3.00 Ol-I2-OI AUTO REPAIR 01-4140-3810 ~113/N1 ~(13/N1 ~ nn ,~um-~ .................. 1Nlfl PAGE 9 -- AP---GO-2--O I PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF--HOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. ! N V (~I-CE---N~ R DATE DATE STATUS ACCOUNT 69~ 25-~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 25.86 6929 25.86 3/i3/01 3/13/01 25.86 6-9&2 ~ 8.5 O 3/13/01 3/13/01 88.50 7005' 128.62 3/13/01 3/13/01 128.62 ZOO8 3/13/01 3/13/01 01-12-0! AUTO REPAIR 01-4140-3810 JRNL-CD 1010 01-!2-01 AUTO REPAIR JRNt-CD 1010 0~-22-4~i--AUTO BELAIR ~t~4-t40-3S!0 JRNL-CD 1010 0!-2~-91 AUTO REPAIR JRNL-CD 1010 2~,86--0%-~5-~!---A~T~REPA[R ~-~4~3A1-0 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010 70~1-5 7022 3/i3/01 3/13/01 3/13/01 3/13/01 3/i3/0i 3/13/01 25.86 JRNL-CD 1010 32.25 01-26-01 AUTO REPAIR Ol-',l~gl9 32.25 JRNL-CD 1010 32.2~ 02-09-~D4~TO~EP~R 0~--~4~8-1-0 32.24 JRNL-CD 1010 122~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 61~. O0 02 - 2-3~- O-1--AL;IO--R E PA I- R 61.00 JRNL-CD 1010 3/i3/0i 3/13/01 L~O-O 02~-~--01 AJJ-T-O~q~-R-A~R ~t--¢t4~8-10 - 15.00 JRNL-CD 1010 __iSmANn PARK qKFLLY VENDDR TOTAL 18~'0-B-8 J2573 010228 256.76 JOHNS VARIETY & PETS VENDOR TOTAL 256.76 2000 TOYS FOR TOTS 01-4150-2300 JPNL-CD 1010 _q J2579 1218098 1,540.75 LIQUOR . ?1-7100-9510 -~=i 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,540.75 JRNL-ED 1010 ~'si 1218099 1,394.35 WINE 71-7100-9520 .~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,394.35 JRNL-CD 1010 ~:'~j 1220665 1,519.85 LIQUOR ' ~' ?1-7100-9510~ _~ i220666 443.20 WINE 71-7100-9520 ~ 3/13/0i 3/13/01 443.20 JRNL-CD 1010 ~ i233162 1,277.19 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 ~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,277.19 JRNL-CD 1010 1223163 723.70 WINE _ 71-7100-9520 PAGE 10 P U ~.P-C02-O1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD .... 0 l~Cg--N .......... DATE ................ I223164 452.95 3/].3/01 3/13/9! /:52.95 1225830 81.90 i225831 1,330.58 1225832 1,871.54 3/13/01 3/13/01 !~7!.5~ 1225833 905.85 JOHNSON BROTHERS LIQUOR VENDOR TOTAL i1541.86 J2610 010226 98.92 3/13/01 3/13/01 98.92 R C H A S E CITY OF MO'JMD WINE JRNL-CD LIQUOR JRML-CD WINE JR~L-CD LIQUOR WI NE - JRNL-CD JOURNAL 71-7100-9520 71-7100-9510 lOlO 71-7100-9520 1010 71-7100-9510 ~0~0--- 71-7100-9520 ~10 COOKIES,COFFEE,PAPER PRODUCTS JRNL-CD 01-4020-4120 1010 JUBILEE FOODS VENDOR TOTAL 98.92 xTAqg ~Ac; 89-A ~-47:50 3/13/01 3/13/01 247.50 ~ 65_&9~ B 22-~50 3/13/01 3/13/01 27.50 36589-C 4A.00 3/13/01 3/13/01 44.00 36589-D !.~Tx 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,373.36 ~6589-E 3/13/01 3/13/01 498.18 365flg-F 3/13/01 3/13/01 297.00 3/13/01 3/13/01 500.50 36589-H 27~ ~ fid 3/1~/01 3113101 -' 30.00 36591-R I .5~A 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,584.00 ~6591 -C ],. A~A _ 7A- 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,626.76 0!-0! M!$CELLANE~3CLS-B-I-~LABLE JRNL-CD O-.L~].--LONGP4RE PURCHASE JRNL-CD 0%~-0! GRA-~CY CONTRACT JRNL-CD Ol-0! ~EDEV AREA #! JRNL-CD 0!-n! HET;~O PLAIN CONTRACT JRNL-CD 0!-fl! PnL~TON LAU 51J!T JRNL-CD JRNL-CD. I~!-~1 GR6ME~CY CONTRACT JRNL-CD JRNL-CD JRNL-CD Ill-BT RFrKFR' P~RMTT JRNL-CD 55-~&80-310r 1 1010 1010 55-5883-3100 1010 01-2300-!0~6 1010 55-5884-3100 1010 1010 55-5883-3!00 1010 n!-~!!n-3!n0 ._ 1010 fll-&l~-~ld~ _ -. -_~o. 1010 PAGE 11 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L __~_P-C_O~-t~l_ CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO= !~vO!CE N~BR DATE DATE STATUS AM~IUNT DESCRIPT!ON ACCOUNT NUM~E-R-- 3/i3/01 3/i3/01 450.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-E 415.82 01-01 POLSTON LAg SUIT 0[-4110-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 415.82 JRNL-CD 36591-F 271.82 01-01 TRUE VALUE DEMOLITION 55-5881-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 271.82 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-G 2,059.83 01-01 EXECUTIVE MISCELLANEOUS 0Z-4110-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 2,059.83 JRNL-CD 1010 3659[-H 210.00 0[-01 POLSTON LAW SUIT 01-4110-3100 3/i3/01 3/13/0I 210.00 JRNL-CD 1010 3659i-I 42.00 01-01 ADMINISTRATIVE MISCELLAN 01-4110-3100 3/13/0I 3/13/0l 42.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 36591-J 90.00 Ol-Oi APT TOWER LEASE 01-4110-3100 3/13/01 3/13/0I 90.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-~ 252.00 Ol-Oi FIRE DEPT AGREEMENT 22-4170-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 252.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-L 60.00 Ol-Oi PUBLIC SAFETY MISCELLANE 01-4140-3100 3/13/01 3/i3/01 60.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 3659i-M 624.00 01-01 POLICE DOG ORDINANCE 01-4140-3100 3/i3/0I 3/13/01 624.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 36591-N 672.00 Ol-Oi POLSTON LAW SUIT O1-4iiO-3iO0 3/i3/01 3/13/01 672.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-0 96.00 01-01 TRUE VALUE DEMOLITION 55-5881-3100 ~/13/01 3/13/01 96.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-P 180.00 01-01 SEWER MISCELLANEOUS 78-7800-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 180.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-~' 72.00 0i-01 WESTEDGE IMPROVEMENT 01-4110-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 72.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 36591-R 450.00 Oi-O1 METRO PLAINS DEVELOPMENT 01-2300-i096 3/i3/01 3/13/0i 450.00 JRNL-CD lOiO 36591-S 570.00 01-01 P/Z MISCELLANEOUS 01-4190-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 570.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-T 120.00 Ol-O1 POLSTON LAW SUIT Oi-4iiO-3iO0 3/i3/01 3/13/01 i20.00 JRNL-CD 1010 36591-U 30.00 01-01 PARKS MISCELLANEOUS 01-4340-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 30.00 JRNL-CD 1010 KENNEDY & GRAVEN VENDOR TOTAL 13169.27 PAGE 12 P U R C H A S E J O U R N A L AP-CO2-Ol CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD 3/i3/0i 3/13/0! 41.ii JRNL-CD 1010 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. VENDOR TOTAL 41.11 3/Z3/01 ~/13/01 22.99 JRNL-CD 1010 3/13/01 3/13/01 203.61 JRNL-CD 1010 3/13/01 3/13/0~ ~10.92 JRNL-CD 1010 5-31~L~ 17.02 M!SCELLANEC)US Eg'J!PME~T 22-~!70-2299 3/13/01 3/13/01 17.02 JRNL-CD 1010 3/i3/0i 3/13/0i 72.33 JRNL-CD lOlO 3/13/01 3/i3/01 6.92 JRNL-CD 3/i3/01 3/13/01 5.37 JRNL-CD lOlO M3010 OI0201 654.50 OI-O1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 01-4399-3100 HADDEN, FRANK AND ASSOC[A~ VENDOR TOTAL 654 50 M3015 6848 350 O0 10-26-00 FATS TRAINING 01-4140-4110 3/13/01 3/13/01 350 O0 JRNL-CD HAPLE GROVE, CITY OF VENDOR TOTAL 350 O0 M~O1A A910 ~2;60 0~-!9-0! DELIVERY CHARGE 7!-7100-9600 3/I3/01 3/~3/0~ ~2.60 JRNL-CD Rg~ 64_4~ 0~-2~-0! DELIVERY CHARGE 71-7!00-9600 3/I3/01 3/13/0~ 64.40 JRNL-CD 8q~ ?!=00 O~-P6-O! DELIVERY CHA~GE 71-7100-9600 3/13/01 3/13/01 21.00 JRNL-CD' 1010 MARl [N,~ TRIICK[NG VEN~O~ TOTAL 08:0 M3030 233292 127.60 BEER 71-7100-9530 247015 .. ~,094.45 BEER 71-7100-9530 249210 1,793.05 BEER 7~-7100-9530 PAGE 13 --AP-C02-O! P U RC H A S E J OU ¢I-T-Y OF HO,JHD VENDOR INVOICE NO. I-I~VO!CE NMBR DATE DUE HOLD DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCR!PT!ON R N A L 251457 895 3/13/01 3/13/01 %~3!6.50 BEER 1,316.50 JRNL-CD 2.10 JRNL-CD ' MARK V!! D!qT-R-IBiJTOR VENDOR TO~-AL 35564 35565 35566 35567 35568-A 35568-8 35569 35570 35571 3557i 35573 35574 35575 35576 35577 35578 7 I- 71-00---9-S-3 0 1010 1010 1,006.00 01-01 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT i~O06_~RNL-CD 01-2300-1095 1,480.00 01-01 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT ~;480.00 JR~IL-CD 405.00 Ol-O1 P/I ENG SERVICES 4~00 JP.4N~CD 45.00 01-01 P/Z ENG SERVICES /,S;O0 J~L-CD 45.00 01-01 WATER ENG SERVICES 45:00 J~NL-CD 45.00 Oi-Oi SEWER ENG SERVICES 470.00 01-01 PARKS ENG SERVICES 4ZO~OO J~NL~-CD 1,214.00 01-01 SURFA[E WATER ENG SERVIC 1,214=00 J~ Ni_~CD 315.00 01-01 4546 DENBIGN MORIARITY 315_00 J~NL-CD 45.00 Ol-Oi STORM WATER UTILITY 45=00 JRNL-CD 1,848.00 01-01 BECKER PROPERTY 3 PTS 1,8~8_00 JRNL-CD 650.00 01-01 METRO PLAIN DEVELOPMENT 650=00 J~NL-CD 450.00 01-01 CTY RD 15 REALIGNMENT LSO=OO J~NL-CO 135.00 01-01 DOWNTOWN TIF DISTRICT 135_00 JRNL-CD 4,170.50 01-01 TRUE VALUE ENG SERVICES ~o!?0;50 JR~L-CD 144.00 01-01 HASBRO ENG SERVICES Iii I? l-F 01-2300-1095 ~O&--O 01-4190-3100 01-4190-3100 1 73-7300-3100 1-0-1-0~ 78-7800-3100 iOlO 01-4340-3100 -201 01-4280-3100 !0!0 01-2300-1035 !0!0 75-7500-3100 lO!O 01-2300-1098 01-2300-1096 !0!0 55-5877-3100 lO!O 55-5880-3100 1010 01-2300-1093 !0!0 01-2300-1089 PAGE 14 AP-C02-O1 PURCHASE JOURNAL C!TY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD Nh: INVO!CE NJ.kB~ DATE _r~TE S-T-A-TJJS .- AJ~UNT DESCRIPTION ACCOUMT N'JMBB~-- 35570 360_00 0!-01 LANGDON BAY DEVELOPMENT 0!-2300-1095 3/13/01 3/13/01 360.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ~558~ 90_00 0!-0! POST OFf!CE ENG SERVICES 55-5~79-3!00 - 3/13/01 3/i3/01 90.00 JRNL-CD 1010 3~58I 45_00 O!-03.--CHESTNUT HILL BREN_C-HF.~L ~!-2300~!!%3 -- 3/13/01 3/13/01 45.00 JRNL-CD 1010 35582 45.00 @!-gl PONg ARENA PARK!NG 01-2300-i1!7 3/13/01 3/i3/01 45.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 1f583 707_00 ~l~t--~4~D~,--~-72~k~7& 01-~30~-!!!~----- 3/13/01 3/13/01 707.00 JRNt-CD 1010 35-584 60~50 ~-i~i--~T~T~O~--REDE-VE~ORME --~5803-~1~0 ..... 3/13/01 3/i3/01 60.30 JRNL-CD 1010 35585 ~]~.00 O~Y D~PMENT 01-2300-!0~--- 3/13/0~ 3/13/01 6,113.00 JRNL-CD 1010 35586 270.00 ~-0! 5TORM~ATER EN~ERV!C~S 7~~ 3/13/01 3/13/0i 270.00 JRNL-CD MCCOM~ERA~O~SSOC~VENDO~IOAAL 2~%5L.80 M3269 010223 68.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP 80-8000-4100 MN ASSN OF CEMETERY OFFIC* VENDOR TOTAL 68.00 M3370 010109 180.00 REGISTRATION FEB 21~22, 2001 70-4270-4110 - 3/13/01 3/i3/01 180.00 JRNL-CD 1010 ,o~ MN POLLUTION CONTROL AGENC VENDOR TOTAL 180.00 ~'- 3/13/01 ' 3/13/0'1 72.50 JRNL-¢D 1010 ~ MN VAJ_L__¥ T~'C. TlrN~ .............. ~ A~BOPRT0 v~nnra TnTAL 72_50 ~ M3489 010215 18.96 01-01 W~TER AND SEWER 71-7100-3740 ~j ~/!~/O! ~/!3/0! 18_06 JRNL-CD ~1-0--- ~--' MOUND, CITY OF VENDOR TOTAL 18.96 ~ M3490 010228 -- - 4,833.50 02-01 SALARIES 22-4170-1390 "~. 700.00 02-01 DRILLS 22-4170-1380 ~" - 1,250=00 O_~-O! ~AINTENANCE 22-4!70-!380 '~'~.: 3/13/01 3/13/01 6,783.50 JRNL-CD 1010 ~'~___I'401IND FIeF DFPARTHFNT VFNDI~R TOTAl_ A783=Sfl M3500 010313 - 8,823.33 03-01 FIRE RELIEF 95-9500-1400 ~/I~t/~1 ~/1~/~1 R.R~'~ 't'( IP~II .ct% 1~I,, PAGE 1S ~P-C02-O-1 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD N~689 882781 NAIIONAL GRAPHIC SUPPLY VENDOR TOTAL PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF 8823.33 243.16 243 .i6 FILH JR;;L-CD 01-4140-2100 .~ N3706 010223 3/13/01 3/13/01 35.88 REIMBURSE MILEAGE 35.88 JRNL-CD 70-4270-4120 1010 NELSON, JOYCE VENDOR TOTAL 35.88 96-. 6~5---DOG--SI-GN-S 3/13/01 3/13/01 96.65 JRNL-CD V~DOR~T-A L 96~65 $/-1-~-/-01 3 / ! 3 / 0 ! ~CCUM, DANIEL VENDOR TOTAL 35.00 1010 35.00 REIMBURSE EYE GLASSES 01-4140-2240 35.00 JR-NL-CD ~ N3801 82256978 329.00 AXLE KIT, ETC. 78-7800-2310 ~ 3/i3/0i 3/i3/0i 329.00 JRNL-CD 1010 NORTHERN TOOL AND EQUIPMEN VENDOR TOTAL 329.00 ~_N38]0 30~08~4 7~00 MF~O TECH TR~I~N-~J4G 7~-73~t~10 75.00 METRO TECH TRAINING 78-7800-4110 3/i3/01 3/13/0i i50.00 JRNL-CD IOlO 3051463 85.00 REPAIR HETRO 850 73-7300-4200 3/13/01 3/13/01 85.00 JRNL-CD 1010 NORTHERN WATER WORKS SUPPL VENDOR TOTAL OFF11'FTFAM VENOn~ l~ OF~TCF [ !QUT~LATn~q VENDOR TnTAL I-~ P395i 16698 ~_~P ~' PETT~IBONE z_ r~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 V.F. NDOR~OI-~L 235.00 27o:!6 THRU n!-~6-O! M!NUTE SECRETARY 0Z-4020-~200 279.16 JRNL-CD 1010 665.63 WORK STATION 01-4190-5000 665=62 WORK ST~T!ON 0!-4!90-2200 1,331.25 JRNL-CD 1010 133!:25 473.92 MINUTE BOOKS WITH FILLER PAGES 01-4020-4120 94~78 MINUTE BOOKS WITH FILLER PAGES 0!-~:!90-~!20 568.70 JRNL-CD 1010 568.70 PAGE 16 PURCHASE JOURNAL AP-{O2-Oi CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO~ !NV~CE NMB~ DATE D^TE STATUS ^MOU~!T DESr~tm~tv.,n" ACCOUNT NUHBER- P3994 146864 1,244.00 WINE 71-7100-9520 3/13/0! ~3/0t ~ .~zz nn Im~l! --rn ~n~ 1~6889 ~05.00 ~INE 71-7100-95~0 3/13/0i 3/!3/0i 205.00 BL-CD 1010 PAUSIIS & SONS WINE ¢OMPAN VENDOR TOTAL 1449.00 P3995 5828-13 536.79 SE~ER UTILITY Q g A 75-7500-3100 3/13/01 3/13/01 536.79 JRNL-CD 1010 PBS GRAPHIC ART DESIGN VENDOR TOTAL 536.79 P/~P ! 69!!76 67--7-~00 L-I-QUOR 71---7-~ 00~510 3/i3/0i 3/I3/0i 677.00 JRNL-CD IOiO 6 Q ! 1 ? 7 4-9-.60 H ~S-C E L L AJ~F.-OUS 7~1 - 7 3/13/01 3/13/01 49.60 JRNL-CD 1010 6937!~ 299 .!5 L_TQUOR 71-7100-9~0 3/i3/01 3/13/01 299.i5 JRNL-CD 1 69~ 2~4 %Z%,~00 ~-I~N E ~ 1 ~ 7 %00~952 O 3/13/01 3/i3/0I i71.00 JRNL-CD lOlO 3/i3/01 3/I3/0i 49.60 JRNL-CD iOlO 69526~ ~.O0 ~]~E 71-7100-9520 3/13/01 3/13/01 66.00 JRNL-CD 1010 697350 90_90 LIGUOR 71-710g-~5~0 3/13/0~ 3/13/01 90.90 JRNL-CD 1010 3/13/01 3/13/01 328.85 JRNL-CD 1010 P4018 ~992~ .... 556.65 CIGARETTES 40112 -747.75 CIGARETTES PINNACLE DISTRIBUTING VENDOR TOTAL 1~04.40 71-7100~9550 1010- 71-7100-9550 1010 P4049 805804 92.i5 JAN FEB MAR PEST CONTROL 01-4320-4200 3/13/01 3/13~01 92.15 JRNL-CD 1010 ~ 71977~ II Il ......... PAGE 17 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L _~P-C02-01 CITY OF MOUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO_ !NvoIcE NWR~ OATE DATE STATUS AMOUN? DESCR!pT!ON ACCOUNT NUMBER-- PLUNKETT'S, INC VENDOR TOTAL 92.I5 P4050 PLii069 196.46 COUPLING PROBE, ETC. 73-7300-2310 3/13/01 3/13/01 196.46 JRNL-CD 1010 PIRTEK HOSES AND ASSEMBLIE VENDOR TOTAL :--~05 025-1869!-00 1 MA-IJ~[TENANCE CLA~%SJFIED 3/13/01 3/13/01 JRNL-CD 1010 PRESS AND-NEWS PUBL!CAT!ON VENOOR TOTAL Q4171 933295-00 71-7100-9520 933677-00 933697-00 7Z-7100-9510 935749-00 196.46 47.20 47,20 180.03 WINE 'L&O .O3~JRNL--CD 69.83 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 3 Z-l-3 ZO1 3/-]~3,~0-1 69-.8-3---JR-NL~- CD -t-0-1~- - 1,332.57 LIQUOR i ,-~-32. S7 JRNL-CD 2,343.51 LIQUOR 71-7100-9510 3/~tS/--~L1 3 ~ ZO 1 2 ,J4-3-~5~1---JRN~ C D 10-L~ 935750-00 73.50 MISCELLANEOUS 71-7100-9550 3Z13ZJll--3Z13 LO1 7-3 ~50--.J~NL-~ CD t (~t~- - 936116-00 135.53 WINE 71-7100-9520 ~134.97 QUALITY gINE & SPIRITS VENDOR TOTAL R4209 1464 i10.77 02-01 TRASH SERVICE 01-4320-3750 3/13/01 3/i3/01 ii0.77 JRNL-CD 1010 RANDY'S SANITATION VENDOR TOTAL 110.77 ~gO 83070 80.64 !CE 71-7100-9~50 3/13/01 3/13/01 80.64 JRNL-CD 1010 8~537 63:37 !CE 7!-?!00-955~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 63.32 JRNL-CD' lOlO RON'S ICF COMPANY vENDOR TOTAL !&3_g6 S4400 2402 50.06 SIGNS -- - 73-7300-2300 50.05 -SIGNS Z~-~7~00~-230.0-- - JRNL-CD 1010 3/13/01 3/13/01 100.11 SIGNS OF THE SEASON VENDOR TOTAL ~00:!! S4450 30263 1,180.O0 ~/1~/o! ~/~/nl 1,lSd. 00 _ SPOglS qIGN , - VFNDn~--TnT*' - DISPLAY BOARD,'ETC. -- 01-4340-5000 JRNL-CD 10-10 PAGE 18 --^P-C02-01 VENDOR HO. I~VOICE HMBR S4498 152288001 PURCHASE JOURNAL r,~v n~ HOUND INVOICE DUE HOLD n,,'r= ri.T= ¢ ?.'r,,c ..n,,~,-r DESC~I?TIDN 190.40 MAINTENANCE POSITION CLASSIED 01-4340-3510 STAR TRIBUNE VENDOR TOTAL 190.40 S4605 214540 2,890.00 THRU 02-10-01 PRO SERVICES 55-5878-3100 3/i3/01 3/i3/0i 2,890.00 JRNL-CD 1010 STS CONSULTANTS LTD VENDOR TOTAL 2890.00 S4-620 ~6~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 272.00 JRNL-CD 1010 '~---SUN---N~WSP-A~R V~NDOR T~AL 2~00 S4630 010225 2,829.07 THRU 02-25-01 GAS CHARGES 01-4280-2210 22~45 ~HR~~A~HA~G~S 412.33 THRU 02-25-0i GAS CHARGES 78-7800-2210 360.53 THRU 02-25-0I GAS CHARGES 01-4340-2210 3/13/01 3/!3~0! 3~828_38 ~L-CD 1010 SPEEDWAY SUPERAHERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL 3828.38 S463i 010226 1,455.36 THRU 02-26-0I GAS CHARGES 01-4140-221C 3/i3/0i 3/13/01 1,455.36 JRNL-CD iOIv SPEEDWAY SUPERAMERICA LLC VENDOR TOTAL T4~7~ 30J~26 T-¢HEK ~Y~TFMS LLC VE~DnP TOTAL T4730 418 393 ~/!3/n! 3/!x/n1 394 THE LAKER VENDOR TOTAL i455.36 25.00 25.00 ~5.00 77.30 77~30 40.89 ~0:8o 42.51 160.70 .... O~--WE-B~I-T E 0-! - 4320 --~-! 00 JRNL-CD 1010 02-24-01 ORDINANCE 01-4020-3510 JRNL-CD 1010 02-03-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATIO JRNL-CD 55-5879-3100 1010 55-5879-3100 !0!0 02-03-01 POST OFFICE RELOCATIO ]~NL-CO i ~l T47313089 120.00 MAINTENANCE CLASSIFIED AD 01-4340-3510 3/13/01 3L1~3/01 120.00 JRNL-CD 1010 -- 120.00 MAINTENANCE CLASSIFIED AD 01-4340-3510 . 3/13/01 3.Z13/01 120.00 JRNL-CD _1.010 3o9o THE LAKER/PIONEER VENDOR TOTAL 240.00 3/13/01 3/13/01 5r204_45 BEER~ 7~-?!00-~530 5,204.45 JRNL-CD lOiO PAGE i9 P U R C H A S E J 0 U R N A L __A.p-c 0 ~_-01 CITY O~OUND VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD NO. !NVOLC~--NJ~BR DATE DATE STATUS AMOUNT DESCRIPTION ACCO'JNT NUHBER -- 3/i3/01 3/13/01 44.55 JRNL-CD 1010 219811 3,159.55 BEER 71-7100-9530 3/13/01 3/13/01 3,159.55 JRNL-CD 1010 THORPE DISTRIBUTING COHPAN VENDOR TOTAL 3/13/01 3/13/01 vENDOR TOTAL 3/13/01 3/i3/01 T RULV-ALUE--MQ UND ¥ F_~N DQ R--IiLT-A L T4965 272820 '~L1,3J_O 1 'f/!3/0! t~L THYSSEN LAGERQUIST ELEVATO VENDOR TOTAL 8408.55 L12=50 5~F~--~ORJ~(kRDER 01-4~5-3500 i12.50 JRNL-CD 1010 112.50 148.76 Ol-Oi MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 73-7300-2300 46.07 01-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 73-7300-2250 46.i0 01-01 HISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 78-7800-2250 ~66 0!-0! ~SCE~.L~E-OUS--SUP~g5 ~!-/~2-80-2500 60.87 01-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 73-7300-2200 17.02 01-01 MISCEtLANEOU5 5UPPtIES 01-4320-2300 ~8:08 0!-0! M!SCEI ~ANEOUS--SUPPLIES 0!-43~300 128.45 01-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4320-3830 38.31 01-01 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 01-4320-2200 &~-!7 0!-01-~,t-LSC~LLANE~IU-S~UP-I~LIES ~2-4170-2200 608.57 JRNL-CD 1010 60&~57 153.84 153.84 03-01 ELEVATOR SERVICE 01-4320-4200 JRNL~CD 10!0-- T4985 291091-0 291539-0 3/13/0I 3/13/01 291271-0 290342-1 291738-0 3/13/01 3/13/01 3/13/01 3/13/01 3/13/01 3/1-3/01 35.94 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2100 35.94 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2100 35_94 M!SCnLLANEOU5 OFFICE SUPPL!ES Ol-~!(O-2lOO 35.94 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-2100 35.94 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-2100 11.9~ N!SCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-~280-2100 - 11.98 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2100 17.99 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2100 17:0~ ~!5CELL~NEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 7~iz~0-0~-21~0---- 239.63 JRNL-CD 1010 30:&8 ~AX CART 22-~170-2!00 -~0.48 JRNL-CD 1010 9~-~A ~iAC-ELLaNFOLI$ OFFICE 5UPPL!ES 0!-4!~0-~1-~0 - 98.36 JRNL-CD 1010 ~9_A1 PHnNE enid 71-3~t00-~!00 - 39.61 JRNL-CD 1010 1.~7 MIRCFII ANFnII~ ~FFTCE ~tlPPL!ES 1.37 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2100 -. _i.3Z_._pL[.SCELL~EQUR,,QF~ICF--~U~PLIF~ ...... 9~-&9~9-~ln~-~.__ PAGE 20 AP-Ch2-01 VENDOR INVOICE DUE HOLD Nh_ tNvn!rE NMRR DATE gATE ST.~,IUS 291989-0 P U · ANOUNT 1.37 .46 .68 3!!3/0! 3!!3/0! 22.34 2.80 34_27 R C H A S E J O U R N A L CITY gE MOUND 3/i3/0i 3/13/01 DESCR~LI~N MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES M!SCELLANEOU$ OFF!CE SUPPL!E$ CALCULATOR COPY HOLDER JRNL-CD A CC-OUNT N LJ~B~R-- 9.93 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 9_93 M!SCELLAN~U-S--OFF!CE S4JPPL!E$ 9.93 HISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 9.93 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 9=93 M!SCELL-A-NE-OUS--OFF!CE SUPPL!ES 3.31 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 3.31 HISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 4-~9~--MI~SCELLANEOUS--OE~CE--SUP~D~E~ 4.98 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 66.23 JRNL-CD 01-4340-2100 71-7100-2100 73-7300-2100 78-7800-2100, -- 01-4340-2100 01-4040-2100 lO~O-- 01-4040-2100 0!-~090-2!90 01-4140-2100 01-4190-2100 ~!-4340-2!09 01-4280-2100 71-7100-2100 78-7800-2100 1010 290342-0 8.03 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4040-2100 8.03 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4090-2100 8.03 ~T~SCEL~N-EC~JS--OE£~CE-SUPPLI-E-$--O!-A!40-21~O 8.03 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4190-210 8.03 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 01-4340-210 Z. 6L~[SCELLANEO~E~C~U~b[E~ ~280~t0~ .... 2.68 MISCELLANEOUS OFFIEE SUPPLIES 71-7100-2100 4.02 MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 73-7300-2100 4~02 ~CEL~AN~O~OEE~C~SU~S ~-~2-~---~ 22.44 INKJETS 01-4280-2100 22.44 INKJETS 73-7300-2100 2~44 ~ETS 78-7800-Z~--- 120.87 JRNL-CD lOlO 3/13/01 3/13/0! ~RgOg~-I 1:c;7 CA~S-SET T E CLEANING 0 !- 40 ZO- 2 !0-0----- ~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 1.97 JRNL-CD 1010 :~[ TI./TN CiTY nFFTCF %IIPPI Y Cfi VFNOOR TOTAL 631.42 i:~ U5030 7158116' 423.06 CLAMPS 73-7300-2300 --i.~ 6868053 395.22 EPOXY ~TH ALLOY 73-7300-2300 US FILTER VENDOR TOTAL 8~8.28 :~ U5050 5816[ 93.90 PANTS, VAN AUKEN, JEFF 0[-~350-22~0 ~3~ 3/[3/0~ 3/~/0~ 93.90 JRNL-CD ~0~0 ~ 609~0 62.95 5~EATER, VAN AUKEN, JEFF ';' 3/13/01 3/13/01 62.95 JRNL-CD " -1010 60943. 73.89 PANTS, BELT, ITC VAN AUKEN 01-4150-2240 3/13/01 3/i3/01 73.89 JRNL-CD 1010 PAGE 21 VENDOR - HO. !NVO!CE NNBR UNIFORMS UNLIMITED PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF HO'JND INVOICE DUE HOLD VENDOR TOTAL 230.74 ACCOUNT ..... ~i U5134 CTS00708558 191.59 WTR & SgR REV BDS 1993B 234.16 WTR & SWR REV BDS 1993B _'L US BANK VENDOR TOTAL 425.75 ~ V5241 15609 560.00 03-01-01 THRU 03-01-02 SOFTWAR J~, 3/13/01 3/13/01 560.00 JRNL-CD 73-7300-6120 78-7800-6120 22-4170-4175 1010 585.00 LONSPRE PURCHASE TITLE INSURAN 01-4110-3100 ~Z]_3L~O_t_ 58~.]lO----J-R-NL-CD i~- WALDRON LAW OFFICES VENDOR TOTAL 585.00 W5443 284743 5.73 FITTINGS 0Z-4280-2310 3/i3/01 3/13/01 5.73 JRNL-CD iOlO WATERTOWN PARTS CENTER VENDOR TOTAL 5.73 ~92 OlO~Q1 ~.~20=6n 03-nl FLEAN!N~ 0~ BUILD!Nh 01-4320-~2!0 110.05 03-01 CLEANING OF BUILDING 01-4280-4200 110.05 03-01 CLEANING OF BUILDING 7~-7300-4200 110_05 03-0! CLE~N!NG OF BUILDING 78-7800-4200 1,650.75 JRNL-CD 1010 VISIONARY SYSTEMS LTD VENDOR TOTAL 560.00 V. 52~2~Z0086 10~99 N E-X---~5-50--~ ~S- 0-~.-~. 280~3220 3/13/01 3/13/01 106.99 JRNL-CD 1010 1J30-90 ~4--rl 5 D~TA C.~B L E 73-- ~ 20 3/i3/01 3/i3/0i 64.i5 JRNL--CD iOiO ViRTIIAI PHONE ]NC VEN~0R TOTAL [7[-!A ;250 010 217 .~ 3/13/01 3/13/01 .i~: WFRT MFTR(1 RHT'I F) TNC~ MATNT: VEN[)(~P Tr~TXL !650~7~ .~ W5571 28014 558.05 ;:~ WESTONKA MECHANICAL CONTR~ VENDOR TOTAL 558.05 COLD SHOT PIPE KIT 73-7300-5000 J~NL-CD' 1010 W5630 12200 3/1'~/B1 '~/11~/01 2,550.25 01-01 SNOW PLOWING 01-4280-4200 850.00 01-01 SNOW PLOWING 40-6000-4200 3~400_25 J~NL-CD 10~0 4103 2,563.00 5/13/0! ~/!3/01 2~563_00 4100 _. -- 1,144.00 3/13/0! ~11 ~/nl 1,144 _OO 02-17-01 gATERHAIN BREAK 73-7300-~00 JRNL-CD !0!0 02-02-01 WATERMAIN B LYNWOOD J~NL-CD 73-7300-3800 1010 PAGE 22 AP-COP-O1 VENDOR INVOICE NO- !~vO!CE ~MBP DATE ' X5695 010201 PURCHASE JOURNAL CITY OF MOUND DUE HOLD p DATE STATUS DESCR!PTION ACCOUHT HUHBER -- 02-01 0542-505-000-001 01-4280-3710 JRNLICD !0!0 3/13/01 3/13/0! A M g U."]T 5,233.23 5,233.23 · XCEL ENERGY VENDOR TOTAL 5233.23 " Z6802 15314 1,533.91 REPAIR TO UNIT #1 22-4170-3820 - 3/13/01 3/i3/01 1,533.91 JRNL-CD 1010 15337 1,903.08 REPAIR TO #25 22-4170-3820 3/13/01 3/13/01 1,903.08 JRNL-CD 1010 '~ JERRY'S TRANSMISSION SERVI VENDOR TOTAL 3436.99 --Z6~12 3/13/01 3/13/01 lg~O0 F IJ4-~T--~I4)--~S 100.00 FIRST AID KITS 78-7800-2310 200.00 JRNL-CD 1010 200.00 30.00 ~0-.00 2001 MEMBERSHIP DUES 0!-4!90-/:139 JRNL-CD 1010 560.20 CASSETTE PLAYER 01-4320-2200 56&,20 JRN~-CD ~%(~ JAKUBIK, MATTHE~ VENDOR TOTAL ~--l.~O 010313 3/13/01 3/13/01 --I-NTERNA-T-LJDNAI__A~OC~I_A3_I_ON VE-N. DCLR TOTAL Z682i INV37854 SZL3~O1 3~L3ZO1 ALPHA VIDEO AND AUDIO, INC VENDOR TOTAL 560.20 Z6822 010305 500.00 2000 CAR gASHES 01-4140-3810 3/13/0I 3/I3/0i 500.00 JRNL-CD iOlO PHILAPEA AND ASSOCIATES VENDOR TOTAL TOTAL ~LL VENDORS 500.00 CITY OF MOUND RESOLUTION NO. 01- RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE PROPOSED ADOPTION OF THE MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FOR DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. I AND THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING PLAN FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1-1. BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, as follows: Section 1. Public Hearinq. This Council shall meet on April 24, 2001, at approximately 7:30 p.m., to hold a public hearing on the proposed adoption of the modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the proposed modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1, which is a redevelopment district, all pursuant to and in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 469.174 through 469.179, inclusive, as amended in an effort to encourage the development and redevelopment of certain designated areas within the City; and Section 2. Notice of Public Hearing, Filin.q of the Modifications. City staff is authorized and directed to work with Ehlers and Associates, Inc., to prepare the modification to the Development Program for Development District No. 1 and the modification to the Tax Increment Financing Plan for Tax Increment Financing District No. 1-1 and to forward documents to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions including Hennepin County and the Westonka School District No. 277. The City Clerk is authorized and directed to cause notice of the hearing, together with an appropriate map as required by law, to be published at least once in the official newspaper of the City not later than 10, no more than 30 days prior to April 24, 2001, and to place a copy of the Modifications on file in the City Clerk's office at City Hall and to make such copy available for inspection by the public. The foregoing resolution was moved by Councilmember Councilmember , seconded by The following voted in the affirmative: The following voted in the negative: Adopted by the City Council this ~ day of March, 2001. Minnesota Statutes 2000, 340A.408 Page 1 of 2 Minnesota Statutes 2000, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 340A 340A.408 Retail license fees. Subdivision 1. 3.2 percent malt liquor. (a) The license fee for an on-sale and off-sale 3.2 percent malt liquor license is the fee set by the county or city issuing the license. (b) One-half of the license fee received by a county for a retail license to sell 3.2 percent malt liquor within any town in the county shall be paid to the town board where the business is located. Subd. 2. Intoxicating liquor; on-sale. (a) The license fee for a retail on-sale intoxicating liquor license is the fee set by the city or county issuing the license subject to the limitations imposed under this subdivision. The license fee is intended to cover the costs of issuing and inspecting and other directly related costs of enforcement. (b) The annual license fee for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a municipality to a club must be no greater than: (1) $300 for a club with under 200 members; (2) $500 for a club with between 201 and 500 members; (3) $650 for a club with between 501 and 1,000 members; (4) $800 for a club with between 1,001 and 2,000 members; (5) $1,000 for a club with between 2,001 and 4,000 members; (6) $2,000 for a club with between 4,001 and 6,000 members; or (7) $3,000 for a club with over 6,000 members. (c) The license fee for the issuance of a wine license may not exceed one-half of the license fee charged for an on-sale intoxicating liquor license, or $2,000, whichever is less. (d) The town board of a town in which an on-sale establishment has been licensed by a county may impose an additional license fee on each such establishment in an amount not to exceed 20 p~rcent of the county license fee. Subd. 3. Intoxicating liquor; off-sale. (a) The annual license fee for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a city, when combined with any occupation tax imposed by the city, may not exceed the following limits: (1) $1,000 for cities of the first class; (2) $200 for cities over 10,000 other than cities of the ~q .stjhttp ://www.revi sor.l eg. state, mn.us/stats/340A/408.html 03/05/2001 Minnesota Statutes 2000, 340A.408 Page 2 of 2 first class; (3) $150 for cities of between 5,000 and 10,000 population; and (4) $100 for cities with less than 5,000 population. (b) The annual license fee for an off-sale intoxicating liquor license issued by a county or town shall not exceed $500. Subd. 3a. Fee increases; notice, hearing. No city, town, or county shall increase the fee for a liquor license governed by subdivision 1, 2, or 3, except after notice and hearing on the proposed increase. Notice of the proposed increase must be mailed to all affected licensees at least 30 days before the date set for the hearing. This subdivision supersedes any inconsistent provision of law or charter. Subd. 4. Lake Superior, St. Croix river, and Mississippi river tour boats; common carriers. (a) The annual license fee for licensing of Lake Superior, St. Croix river, and Mississippi river tour boats under section 340A.404, subdivision 8, shall be $1,000. The commissioner shall transmit one-half of this fee to the governing body of the city that is the home port of the tour boat or to the county in which the home port is located if the home port is outside a city. (b) The annual license fee for common carriers licensed under section 340A.407 is: (1) $50 for 3.2 percent malt liquor, and $20 for a duplicate license; and (2) $200 for intoxicating liquor, and $20 for a duplicate license. Subd. 5. Refunds. A pro rata share of an annual license fee for a retail license to sell intoxicating or 3.2 percent malt liquor, either on-sale or off-sale, may be refunded to the licensee or to the licensee's estate if: (1) the business ceases to operate because of destruction or damage; (2) the licensee dies; (3) the business ceases to be lawful for a reason other than a license revocation; or (4) the licensee ceases to carry on the licensed business under the license. HIST: 1985 c 305 art 6 s 8; 1987 c 152 art 1 s 1; 1989 c 104 s 1; 1991 c 249 s 11,31; 1992 c 486 s 8; 1992 c 513 art 3 s 59; 1996 c 418 s 7 Copyright 2000 by the office of Revisor of Statutes, State of Minnesota. http ://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/stats/340A/408.html 03/05/2001 Westonka Community Action Network · Family Support Services · Meals on \X/heels · Human Services · .lob Development & Placement 1155 County Road 19 Minnctrista, MN 5:3364 (952) 472- 0742 (952} 47%5589 (FAX) SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound independent Rocldord L0retto St. Bonifacius Maple Plato Spring Park Minnetonka Beach Tonka Bay Mmnetnsta Western 0rono OFFICERS Dorothy McOueen President ComnTumt/ Volunteer Sandy Simar Vice President Head Start Manager Susan Meyers Secretary Con;murat;, [/olunteer Marvin Johnson Treasurer Mayor of independence BOARD OF DIRECTORS Craig Anderson M/nnet,'~sta Pohce Chief Larry Bailey P~mctof West Hennep~r,, ~ubhc Safe~/ Mary DeVinney Wesrcn~'a Food Shelf Len Harrell Mound Poflce Chief Helmar Heckel ~ast¢' B,?vwind Christian Church Paula Larson 0;'.'~:~.' ~ar$on Prinliog Sharon McMenamy-Oook £¢n;n;omtv Volunteer Marlys Nelson P~/so~a, Banker Sandy 01stad Par~,~ ~urse Charles Pugh Commun~t) Volunteer Bob Tomalka Commundv Volunteer Mark Winter V~ce President Crow River Bank ADMINISTRATION Edith Travers Execuht e Director Beppy Goodtellow Famn', A~vocate Vohmteer Coord,nator Audrey Ogland Admm~srraht, e Ass/stant Moa,ts on Wheels Coordinator Shirley Tulberg Career Counselor/Job Developer February 28, 2001 Mayor Pat Meisel And City Council Members City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Dear Mayor Meisel and Council Members: At last night's City Council meeting, you requested a copy of WeCAN's budget before you would support our request for Consolidated Block Grant Funds from Hennepin County. I am enclosing a copy of our current year's budget. As I stated in the Council meeting, we typically invoice Hennepin County Block Grant funds for a portion of the executive director's salary. Other salaries are part of program funding. I also am enclosing a copy of our most recently audited financial statement, which was for the fiscal year ending May 31, 2000. These two items should give you a good picture of WeCAN's revenue and expenses. As you could see from the summary data I provided with the initial letter of request to you, over thirty-five percent (35%) of the services we provide are to households in Mound. WeCAN provides essential services to Iow-income residents in the area, and it is important that funding be available to continue providing these services. If you support WeCAN's mission of helping families achieve greater self-sufficiency, I would appreciate receiving a letter of support or resolution from the City of Mound which affirms that support as soon as possible. If you need any additional information prior to the March 13 City Council meeting, I will be happy to provide it for you. I also will be in City of Mound February 28, 2000 attendance at the March 13 meeting to answer any questions you or other council members may have. Respectfully, Edith J. Travers Executive Director CC: Kandis Hanson City Manager Enclosures WeCAN Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 INCOME FY2001 Grants $ 10,000.00 I United Way of Minneapolis Area $ 48,400.00 ICounty Contract $ 25,553.00 CDBG $ 11,250.00 Emerg. Ass't. Reimbursement $ 25,000.00 WHCC Contract $ 7,100.00 i Donations / Dues $ 45,000.00 I Meals on Wheels Fees for Service $ 40,000.00 !Fundraising Events WeCAN Walk to End Hunger $ 8,500.00 Prayer Breakfast $ 1,500.00 Interest Earned $ 1,300.00 TOTAL REVENUE $ 223,603.00 EXPENSES FY2001 Salary / FICA $ 93,152.00 Benefits $ 7,400.00 Workers Comp. / Unemp. Comp $ 1,490.00 Staff Travel $ 2,500.00 Rent / Utilities $ 14,000.00 Phone / Internet $ 3,000.00 Insurance $ 1,200.00 Equipment Purchase / Repair $ 6,000.00 Printing $ 4,500.00 PR / Outreach $ 1,000.00 Mailing $ 4,000.00 Program Supplies $ 5,000.00 Fundraising Expenses WeCAN Walk - 40% to churches $ 3,400.00 Prayer Breakfast/Events $ 1,000.00 Professional Fees Audit $ 4,500.00 Job Link Contract $ 4.650.00 Accounting $ 1,000.00 Aid to Families Emergency Assistance $ 30,000.00 Family Support $ 10,000.00 Meals on Wheels $ 25,000.00 Training,Networking.Conferences $ 1,750.00 Miscellaneous Expense $ 750.00 Depreciation Expense $ 7,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 225,292.00 Revenues Over Expenses $ (1,689.00) 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 Wes enka Comm'unk¥ Action Network \, ' '.\'h..,-.i. " , · Family Support Service, · . ,ca~., ;m · ~k,:.'",' ~ ..... , · I i ~; C,~unrv Road 19 Minnctn.ta, MN 55~04 ¢952) 472- 0742 ~9~2} 472.55~q,FAX} SERVICE AREA Greenfield Mound Independen~ Rockford Lore~o St. Bonlfacius Mapie Pram Spnng Park Minne~on~ Beach TonY, a Bay Minnetnsta Western Orono OFFICERS Dorothy Mcflueen President Sandy$imar Vice President Susan Meyers S~ecretary Marvin Johnson Treasurer BOARD OF D~ECTO~S C~g Anderson 'ir, ['.'~st ~enr~ec n ~llc Safer, ~rv DeVinney Len Harrell Helm~ Heckel Paula karson Or, 'e, _,~rson Prmhn¢ Sharon McMenamy-gook Marius Nelson Sandy Olstad Charles Pugh Bob Tomalka ComnTu~lh,' Yo,'u~te~r Mark Winter V~ce President. Crony River ~ank ADMINISTRATION Edith Travers Beppy Goodiellow ~amn, 4d~OC,?te }'olu,~tee' :corEinatot Audrey Ogland t!e,? ~ ¢~: ',Vhee!s Coordinator ~hirley Tulberg ~5' 2,'~,"? ct'Job Deve/c;er February 2, 2001 Mayor Pat Meisel And Citv 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 c~ OLL! c~C/3 0 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 7, 2001 TO: Kandis Hanson, Mound City Manager FROM: Daniel Parks, PE - MFRA SUBJECT: City of Mound - Surface Water Management Plan Update MFRA # 10293 Attached to this memorandum are the most recent comments from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) on the City's Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). I believe we are making progress towards plan approval; however, there are still a few items that will need to be resolved with the City and watershed. The City's SWMP is on the agenda for the MCWD Board of Mangers meeting on Thursday March 22, 2001. I suggest you and I attend the meeting. The MCWD is taking public comments on their new wetland buffer rules (larger buffers) until early April, so it is important that the SWMP be approved by the MCWD in the near future. As requested, I will attend the March 12, 2001 City Council meeting to provide an update. I have asked for a meeting with watershed staff before the Council meeting to further discuss the MCWD comments. As of today that meeting is not yet confirmed. The following are my comments on the MCWD's most recent comments and recommendations: The watershed wants the City's ordinances updated before plan approval. Although I don't agree that the updates are necessary for them to approve the plan, they will likely hold that as their standard. At your direction, I have talked with both Jon Sutherland and Loren Gordon about moving ahead with the ordinance updates. 2. The watershed wants the City's SWMP to retain runoff rates for development including the 1-year storm event. We can easily include that item in the Plan. The watershed states that the City must develop a wetland management classification system based on the functions and values assessment being prepared by the MCWD. Since the assessment has just been started, I am uncertain what this will entail. I have indicated in the Plan that the City will "consider" developing a program. The MCWD's Plan only "encourages" the development of a wetlands management classification and does not require it. I will actively discuss this with watershed staff and only propose a program if it is mandated by the MCWD or provides a benefit to the City. The watershed is "requiting" wetland buffers. The current SWMP "encourages" buffers. I believe that the City will need to change the wording to receive Plan approval. The current SWMP buffer identifies average buffer width rather than minimum widths. I believe that average could be construed as consistent with the current MCWD rules. MCWD staff prefers a minimum width. I will actively press staff for acceptance of the average width as identified in the City's proposed SWMP. o The watershed is requiting that excavation in certain wetlands provide a one-to- one replacement in upland areas. Their requirement is more stringent than Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act. I have suggested that the City comply with State law rather than the watershed's additional rule. The additional rule has the potential to impact mitigation needs of the new County Road through town and development of the downtown area. If you have any questions, please call me at (763) 476-6010. parks/jobs/moundswmpmemo3.7.01 · ~R-O2-201al 15:01 MINNEHRHR CREEK ~RTERSHED 6124710682 P. 01×02 MEMORANDUM Date: Subject: Wenck Glenda Spiotta Minnehaha Cro~k Watershed District Lisa Tilman March 2, 2001 City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan Changes Review Wcnck File #0185-04-267i INTR. ODUC'TION On behalf of the Minneha~ Cr~k Watershed District, Wonck Associates has completed our review of the proposed changes to thc City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP). The City of Mound addressed the District's June 13, 2000 review comments in a len~r from Daniel Parks of MFRA dated February 2, 200 l. Thc purpose of this memorandum is to discuss the proposed Plan changes and provide comments on conformance with the requirements of local plans as defined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8410, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules, and the District Watex Resources Management Plan. SUMMARY ]'he City of Mound has proposed thc following in response to review comments: · The City will upda~ existing ordinances or will establish new ordinances to implement ~ Plan and tn assume permitting authority for Rules B, C, D, and N. The City is not rexlmsting authority for permitting of Kule G or my District Rules other than B, C, D, and lq. · The City has provided a hydrologic analysis of peak !5 and 100-year subwatershed flow r~t~. Ra~ conlrol will be requir~l on a subwatershed basis. Rates will be "generally maintained al existing conditions." Subwatershocts draining directly into Lake Mirm~onka will be r. ontrolle~l on a case-by-case basis. · The Ci:y of Mound will incorporate the District's function and v~lue asse~'ment ~,'hen it is completed and "will consider" d~veloping a wetland managem~n! classification system. · The City 'h~il{ encourage" wetland buffers of an average width equal to District's c, urrcnl requirements. The minimum buffer width cannot l:~ less than 50% of the required avcxage and tl~ average ¢~lculation cannot includ¢.a buffor width grouter than ! 50% oftl~ r~luired average, · Thc City will roquire that excavation for wildlife enhancemern irs wctlands ~mpty wi,.h DNR rw, ommer~toM ~l will manaa{~ wetlm~ll ia with i~ Wstland Conm'vaflon .,.~t. .f~R-02-2001 15:02 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED Glenda Si~iotta Minnehah~ Creek Watershed District March 2, 200 l ?age 2 of 2 The proposed changes to the City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan adequately address ~ome of the previous review comments. However, additional changes are necessary To bring the Plan into compliance with District requirements. RECOM_M~NDATIONS The following recommendations address the proposed changes to the City Plan in response to initial Plan review comments oft. he Disurict. · Existing ordinances and proposed changes should be reviewed for compliance with District Rules befor~ Plan approval and transl~r of permi: authority. · Runoff ra~s can be controlled on a subwatershed basis, but must be maintained at existing conditions the 1-ye. ax storm ~s ,,veil as the larger 5 and 100-year events already analyzed. · The City must develop a wetland management system for all wetlands as identified in thc function and value assessment provided by ~ae District. Higher function wetlands should bc given grcat~ prore, ction under thc management system than wetlands of low quality. Potential manage~nt classifications could include requiring pre-treatmen~ of stnrmwater entering high quality wetlands, larger buffer requirements for wetlands with high function and value, and lower levels of impact allowed on higher quality wetlands. · To be cons/sten: with thc impl=mentahon or,he District's Rule D~ wetland buffers must bz required, not simply %ncou~agcd", for wetlands impa~n=d by filling or excavation and for wetlands on pmpexti~s with new cleveloprncnt or dcvelopm=nt cl~nge.. A~tion~/[y, under the ~mintstr~ion of Rule D, pr~-exi~tin8 permanent structures in thc wetland buffer st the time of buffer establishraen~ are taken into consideration. · The average buffer requirement is less stringent than the District requirement because buffers of less than ! 6.$ feet would be allowed regularly, this may be a caus¢ for concern, an average buff~ requiremcn~ based on wetland function and value or an average buffer requirem~t with larger average widths would be preferable. · To assume permitting authority for Kule D. the City must atso r~uixe that excavation in any wetland where excav'eXion is not regulated under the Wetland Conservation Act (wetlands other than semi-~rmanently or pe. nnanently flooded ~ of'Type 3, 4, or 5 ~-tl~,~) must provide replacement of one ~cm of new w~tland for cacb acre impact~ by ~cav~ion. TOTflL P. 0~ Nlinnehaha 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 Uonica Gross Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Schroeder Prinle0 on recycled paper containing at least 30% post coosumer waste February 5, 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 redlined versions, and the November 21, 2000 Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) describing the proposed changes and the masons 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 xvhether 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. Written public comment on tlie 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 MN 55331 (612) 471-0590 x284 (612) 471-6290 (fax) klIHNEHAHA CREEK W'ATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO RULES B. D. G and N UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTES §103D.341 November 21, 2000 DEFINITIONS The following terms are added: "Degraded wetland" means a 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 manipulation. "Highly susceptible wetland type" means a wetland characterized os a sedge meadow: open or coniferous bog; calcareous fen; Iow prairie: coniferous or hardwood swamp; or seasonally flooded wetland. "Least-susceptible wetland type" means o degraded wetland characterized as a grovel pit; cultivated hydric soil; dredged material or fill; or o material disposal site. "Moderately susceptible wetland type'~ means a wetland characterized as shrub- cart; older thicket; fresh wet meadow not dominated by reed canary gross; or shallow or deep marsh not dominated by reed canary gross, cattail, giant reed or purple Ioosestrife. "Slightly susceptible wetland type" means o wetland characterized as o floodplain forest; fresh wet meadow dominated by reed canary grass; or o shallow or deep marsh dominated by reed canary gross, cattail, giant reed or purple Ioosestrife. The term "Subwotershed" is amended to read os follows: "Subwotershed' means one of the fifteen major subwote,hed planning units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A map of subwatershed planning units is attached to and incorporated into these Rules. MC~VD froposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 RULE B: EROSION CONTROL A new paragraph SCb)(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.O or larger 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-disturblng activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this rule, the permlttee 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. Fencing of sufficient height and visibility to prevent land-disturbing activity from intruding on temporary wetland buffer shall be maintained between the buffer and land-disturbing activity until that activity has ceased. The permlttee 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. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to: (o) 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 and enhancing degraded or drained wetlands and fostering the creation of new wetlands; MC%VD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 2 (c) Limit impacts to the quantity, quality, function and bioloEicol diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by emphasizinE impact avoidance followed by sequencinE in the followinE ord~r: minimization, rlctification, and r~duction or ~limination of direct and indirect impacts ko exiskin~ wetlands; r~storakion of de~Erad~d wetlands; and r~plac~mlnt of de~rad~d or ~liminat,d w~tlands. 2. WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT REQUIREMENTS. The Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes §~10$G.221 throuRh 10$G.2275, restricts the draininR, fillinR and excavation of wetlands. Where the District is the local Rovernment 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. NotwithstandinE, wetland replacement shall occur in the same subwatershed as the associated wetland impact. :3. CHAPTERS 103B AND 10$D REQUIREMENTS. The follOwinG requirements ore established pursuant to authority in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 105B 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. (o) Excavation. (1) Excavation in wetlands shall be subject to the followin~ terms: (o) Excavation shall accord with the sequencinE 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 poro;roph 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 wetland, each considered as a whole. Modification or conversion of nonde;roded wetland from one wetland type to another does not constitute replacement. Restoration of de~raded 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~k~O 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 security acceptable to the District must be provided to Euarantee the successful Establishment of the replacement wetland. (e) ~/etland created or restored under a replacement plan thereafter shall receive the full protection accorded wetland under the Rules. (f) Excavation is not subject to Rule D if, as draininE or ftllinE, it would be Exempted from the %Vetland Conservation Act under a provision of I~innesota Rules 8420.0122, 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 resultinE from excavation for wildlife enhancement, wetland restoration or stormwater manaEement shall constitute replacement in kind on a findinE by the Board of ManaEers that: (a) The wetland that will be disturbed has been substantially deEradEd 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 resultinE 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 aEencies shall be Eiven substantial weiEht by the Board. Both this paraEraph and paraEraph :~(a)(1)(b) shall apply where there is no inconsistency. To the Extent of on inconsistency, the less restrictive language shall ~overn. IdCq~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 exlstlne veEEtal:ion shall require a permit but shall not require a replacement plan. The applicant must dem0n~trate that the ~ediment or fill substantially results from human action and that the proposed activity ~ill meet the requirements of this paraEraph. In addition to other appropriate conditions, the applicant must demonstrate that the activity ~ill employ proper measures to prevent Erosion and ~edimentation into the ~,tland; ~ill not block fish pa~saEe; and ~ill be conducted in compliance ~ith ali other applicable federal, state and local requirements. (5) Where 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 3 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 §§10$G.241 throuEh 103G.251, and section 3 of this Rule, the provisions of the protected waters statute shall prevail. (b) Buffer REquirements. (1) Any activity requirin~ o permit under Rule G, D, G or N of these Rules shall provide for o permanent buffer around Each wetland on the disturbed parcel. Any activity rEquirin~ o permit under Rule E of these Rules shall provide for o permanent buffer around Each wetland in which authority to dredge is ~ronted. Buffer shall be Established by Easement, declaration or other rEcordoble instrument that shall be approved by the District and recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before land disturbance under the MeWD 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 paragraph 3(b)(8) of this Rule. (2) The buffer shall be of the followin~ width: Wetland Size (acres) up to 1.O 25 feet 1.0 or IoreEr SO feet M¢~'D Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 Width (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 average slope exceedlnE 12 percent over a distance of $O feet or more. NotwithstandinE 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. (: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 writin8 by District staff. In actin~ on a permit application under subsection :3¢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 existln~ buffer is not adequate. C4) 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 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 crosstnE is Exempted from the prohibition of this paraEraph. The Rule G requirement that wetland and buffer impact be minimized shall apply. es) The buffer may be disturbed temporarily pursuant to authorized activity in the wetland, in conformance with o plan approved in v, ritin~ 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 Hovember 21, 2000 6 afforded the wetland. The non-wetland feature shall not count toward buffer width. (7) If the District permit is sought for activity on a residential parcel that is not being subdivided or subject to a new primary use requiring o rEzoning, special use permit or variance; and that does not involve work in the wetland in question, a partial Exception to the application of paragraph :~(b) shall be granted as follows: (a) The buffer shall be delineated and recorded as set forth in paragraph 3Cb)(1) and of the width specified in paragraph 3(b)(2); (b) Ho new permanent or temporary impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer, but the requirements of paragraph 3(b)(3) otherwise shall not apply; and (c) Paragraphs 3(b)(4) through 3(b)(6) shall continue to apply. (8) A buffer Established pursuant to this rule shall be indicated by a permanent, free-standing marker at the upland edge of the buffer. There shall be one marker for each 200 feet of upland edge 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 ground. It shaft indicate that it marks the Edge of a buffer established to protect the adjacent wetland and shall briefly state or summarize the activities not permitted within the buffer. This paragraph shall not apply when the buffer requirement is imposed on a single residential lot, except that the recordablE instrument filed pursuant to paragraph 3(b)(1) of this Rule shall include the language specified in that paragraph concerning monumentation, which shall apply in the Event that the lot subsequently is subdivided. 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the Combined Joint Notification (¢dN) form. One set - full size; one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11"x17". (a) Site plan showing: (1) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of the applicant: (2) Existing and proposed elevation contours; including the existing runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet; NtGWD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 7 (:3) Area of the wetland portion to be f-ill,d disturbed. (b) Complete delineation of the existinE wetland(s), includinE data sheets with detailed information on field indicators (soils, hydroloE¥ and veEEtation) and summary report. ~Vetland delineations should be performed durinE the normal ErowlnE season for this area of the State (May 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. ~Vetland boundaries shall be staked in the field. (c) Identification and area of the total watershed area presently contributinE 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 mitiEatlon plan, and a function and value assessment for the disturbed and replacement wetlands usinE MNRAM 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) Wetlands proposed to be excavated must also submit a cross section and construction specifications that include the foliowinR desiRn criteria: (1) Excavated wetlands of an irreeular shaped and an area of at least 2500 square feet; (2) For wildlife enhancement, excavated wetland depth not to exceed 5 feet with an undulatinE bottom; (3) Ratios 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 MCW'D Proposed Itules Itevisions November 21, 2000 8 (5) A stand-alone veEetation restoration plan that includes the disturbed area beinE seeded or planted to native Erasses, forbs or woody veEEtatlon For a minimum oF 150 feet around the dugout. (F) information as to state, county and local protection status or desiEnation oF the subject wetland. RULE G: STREAM AND LAKE CROSSINGS The title of Rule G is amended to read as follows: Rule G: Stream, Lake and Wetland CrossinEs MCWD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 9 RULE N: STORM~VATER MANAGEMENT SEction 2 is amended to add a new paragraph (i) as follows: (i) Impact on Downstream Lakes and Wetlands. 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, 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 may be dlschar~Ed from a commercial or industrial facility or operation onto or into the ~round, 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 1.5-year precipitation event for the lake or wetland susceptibility class. Susceptibility Permitted Bounce Inundation Inundation Class Period for 1.$- Period for lO- YEar Event and lO0-Year Event HiEhly susceptible Pre-development ExistinE ExistinE wetland Moderately Pre-development Existin~ plus 1 Existin~ plus 2 susceptible + O.5 feet day days Slightly Pre-development Existin~ plus 2 Extstin~ plus 14 susceptible + 1.O feet days days wetland Least-susceptible No limit ExistinE plus 7 ExistinE plus 21 wetland/Lake days days Source: State of Minnesota Stormwater Advisory Group, "StormwatEr and Wetlands PlanninE and Evaluation Guidelines for AddressinE Potential Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff on Wetlands" (dune 1997). MC~kVD Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 10 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT BOARD OF MANAGERS PROPOSED REVISIONS TO RULES B. D, G and N UNDER MIHflESOTA STATUTES §105D.$41 (Redlined Version) November 21. 2000 DEFINITIONS The following terms are added: "Degraded wetland" means a 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 manipulation. "Highly susceptible wetland type" means a wetland characterized as a sedge meadow; open or coniferous bog; calcareous fen; Iow prairie; coniferous or hardwood swamp; or seasonally flooded wetland. "Least-susceptible wetland type" means a degraded wetland characterized as a gravel pit; cultivated hydric soil; dredged material or fill; or material disposal site. "Moderately susceptible wetland type" means a wetland characterized as shrub- carr; aider thicket; fresh wet meadow not dominated by reed canary grass; or shallow or deep marsh not dominated by reed canary grass, cattail, giant reed or purple Ioosestrife. "Slightly susceptible wetland type" means a wetland characterized os a floodplain forest; fresh wet meadow dominated by reed canary grass; or a shallow or deep marsh dominated by reed canary gross, cattail, giant reed or purple Ioosestrife. The term "Subwatershed" is amended to read as follows: "Subwatershed" means one of the fifteen major subwatershed planninR units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. A map of subwatershed planning units is attached to and incorporated into these Rules. MC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Hovemb~r 21. 2000 RULE B: EROSION CONTROL A new paragraph $(b)(B) is added as follows: (8) Documentation that no veEetation or soils will be disturbed, and no excavated, fill or construction material will be stockpiled, closer to any identified wetland than the followinE: Wetland Size (acres) Distance (feet) up to 1.O 25 feet 1.O or lar~er 50 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-disturbinE activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this rule. the permlttee 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-disturbinE activity has ceased. Thereafter. the permittee shall perform these responsibilities at least weekly until veEetative cover is established. FencinE of sufficient heiEht and visibility to prevent land-disturbinE activity from intrudin( on temporary wetland buffer shall be maintained between the buffer and land-disturbinE activity until that activity has ceased. The permitt, shall maintain a IoE 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 ManaEers to: (a) Achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, function and bioloRicol diversity of Minnesota's ~ wetlands; (b) Increase the quantity, quality, function and bioloEical diversity of Minn.ota°s wetlands by pr.ervinE existinE wetlands, r.torinE ~ and MCWD froposed Rui. Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 of new wetlands; /4~A~Jk LLkA AiI.AL~L.. AiIAI"L.. AA~d L. IA ~A I J~UA.f'.~L.* Al ..*ALI.Aaa,. (c) Limit impacts to the quantity, quality, function and bioloRical diversity of Minnesota's wetlands by emphasizinE impact avoidance followed by sequencinE in the followinE order: minimization, rectification, and reduction or elimination of direct and indirect impacts to existin~ wetlands; restoration of de~raded wetlands; and replacement of de~raded or eliminated wetlands. 0 C/~.III A?IdNId - _.,_ :~:~:~., ........... MCq~D Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 MC%VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 4 2. WETLAND CONSERVATIOH ACT REQUIREMENTS. The Wetland Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes §§10:~G.221 through 10:~G.2275, restricts the draiflinE, ftlline and excavation of wetlands. Where the District is the local Eovernment 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. NotwithstandinE, wetland replacement shall occur in the same subwatershed as the associated wetland impact. 3. CHAPTERS 103B AND 10$D REQUIREMENTS. The followin~ requirements are established pursuant to authority in Minnesota Statutes Chapters 103B and 103D. An activity subject to these requirements needs o 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 followin~ terms: (o) Excavation shall accord with the sequencine principles of paraeraph 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 paraEroph 4(dj 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 os a whole. Modification or conversion of nondeeroded wetland from one wetland type to another does not IdC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Howmb~r 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 euarantEe 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 MCWD Rules. (f) Excavation is not subject to Rule D if, as drainin~ or filling;, it would be Exempted from the Wetland Conservation Act under a provision of Minnesota 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 Waterfowl# (1992). (:~) 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 findin~ 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 paragraph 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 resultine wetland will not substantially decrease over time due to project impacts or other human activity. MC~VD fropo~ed Rul~ REvilionl R~dlined Version NovembEr 21. ~000 The views of the technical evaluation panel and of relevant resource agencies shall be Eiven subskantlal weiEht by the Board. Both this paragraph and paragraph 3(a)(1)(b) shall apply where there is no inconsistency. To the extent of on inconsistency, the less restrictive language shall Govern. (4) Removal of accumulated outfoll 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 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 passage; and will be conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state and local requirements. ($) Where excavation is subject to both the Wetland Conservation Act and section :3 of this Rule and the District is the responsible local ~overnment 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 2 shall prevail. In the event of an applicant's inability to comply with both the protected waters statute, Minnesota Statutes §§10:3G.241 throueh 10:3G.251, and section :3 of this Rule, the provisions of the protected waters statute shall prevail. (b) Buffer Requirements. MC~V'D Proposed Rules Revisions Itedlined Version November 21. 2000 (1) Any activity requirin~ 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 requirin~ 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 reeistrar before land disturbance under the IdCWD 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 IorEEr $0 feet When the buffer includes a portion of a steep slope, the buffer shall extend to the upland EdIzE of the steep slope. A steep slope is defined as land with on ovEro~E slope Exceedin~ 12 percent over a distance of SO feet or more. Notwithstandine the widths specified above, the buffer shall Extend at least to the 1OO-yeor high water devotion of the wetland. An applicant may use a 1OO-yeor hiEh water Elevation identified by the District where that devotion 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 cuttinE 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 writin~ 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 veEetation 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. Ca) 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 neEliEiblE, the design 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 authorlzinE a wetland crossinE under Rule G, the authorized crossinE is Exempted from the prohibition of this paralEraph. The Rule G requirement that wetland and buffer impact be minimized shall apply. MC~VD froposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, :2000 eS) The buffer may be dlskurbed temporarily pursuant ko authorized a¢l:ivlty 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 afforded the wetland. The non-wetland feature shall not count toward buffer width. (7) If the District permit is soueht for activity on a residential parcel that is not beine subdivided or subject to a new primary use requirin~ 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 eranted as follows: (a) The buffer shall be delineated and recorded as set forth in paraEraph 3Cb)(1) and of the width specified in paraEraph :3(b)(2); (b) Ho new permanent or temporary impervious surface shall be placed within the buffer, but the requirements of paragraph otherwise shall not apply; and (c) I'ara~raphs 3(b)(4) through 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 sinEIE residential lot, except that the recordable instrument filed pursuant to paraeraph 3(b)(1) of this Rule shall include the lanEua~e specified in that paraEraph concerninE monumentation, which shall apply in the event that the lot subsequently is subdivided. MC~D froposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 9 67 4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The followinE exhibits shall accompany the Combined Joint Notification (CdH) form. One set - full size; one set - reduced to a maximum size of 11"x17". (o) 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), includin~ data sheets with detailed information on Field indicators (soils, hydroloey and vegetation) and summary report. Wetland delineations should be performed durine the normal ErowtnE season for this area of the State (kiay 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 n44d-t~ shall be staked in the field. (c) Identification and oreo of the total watershed oreo presently contributine stormwater runoff to the wetland. ed) A replacement plan, if required, outlinin~ the steps followed for the sequencin~ process ~ with on explicit avoidance analysis, documentation supportin8 the proposed mitigation plan, and a function and value assessment for the disturbed and replacement wetlands usine IviNRAM or another assessment method approved by the District. A description of the nature and amount of the proposed f~Lm~k~r~i~Ldisturbance and dek&ik ~ a__n annual monitorin~ 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 os the surface soil. (e) Identification, within wetland and buffer areas to be disturbed, of the location and species of each tree Ior~er than four inches in diameter at a point four feet above the ~round, indicotin~ those trees proposed to be removed. MC%VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 10 · :: ........ ;:.-.~: must also submit a (f) ~Vetlands proposed to be excavated ' cra, section ~nd con~truc~ion ~peciFicatlon~ that include the design criteria: (1) ~ Excavated wetlands ~ of an irregular shaped and ~.~ :~:: :f ~n area of at least 2500 square feet; (2) For wildlife penal enhancement, excavated wetland depth not to exceed 5 feet ~ with an undulating bottom; (:3) Ratios of basin side slopes for -;!!-~::.f: excavated wetlands between 3:1 ke and 10:1 (horizontal:vertical); (4) T-kG An identified spoil disposal site --" ~ ~'- :'~-"~:': ~ not below the 1OO-yEor water 14v41 of o waterbody, except as separately authorized under applicable Iow. ~; and (~) A stand-alone vegetation restoration plan ~ that includes the disturbed area bein~ seeded or planted to native Era.es, forbs or woody vegetation for a minimum of 1SO feet around the dugout. . .. ~.~ .... ~ ....... d :~F~::~ r ..... - ...... (F) InFo~Q~ion .... ~'~:. ~ or designation of the subject wetland '- ;::~c:~:~ _, P'JLE G: STREAM AND LAKE CROSSIHGS The title of Rule G is amended to read as follows: Rule G: Stream~ earl Lake and Wetland CrossinGs RULE N: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT Section 2 is amended to add a new paragraph (i) as follows: MCV/D froposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 11 (i) Impact on Downstream Lakes and Wetlands. No activity subject to ,, permit under IdC:WD 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 ~Jownstream lake or wetland beyond the limit specified below for the lake or wetland susceptibility class° durinE a precipitation event of critical duration with a return frequency of 1.5, ten, or 1OO years in the subwatershed drainaEe area in which the site is located. No water may be discharEed from a commercial or industrial facility or operation onto or into the Eround, 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. MC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version November 21, 2000 12 Susceptibility Permitted Bounce Inundation Inundation Class Period for 1.5- Period for 10- Year Event and lO0-Yeor Event HiGhly susceptible Pre-development Existing Existing wetland Moderately Pre-development Existing plus I Existing plus 2 susceptible + O.S feet day days SliGhtly Pre-development Existing plus :2 Existing plus 14 susceptible + 1.0 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 ~Vetlands Planning and Evaluation Guidelines for Addressing Potential Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff on Wetlands" (,June 1997). MC~VD Proposed Rules Revisions Redlined Version Kovember 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 CrossinEs (Rule G), Stormwater ManaEement (Rule N) November 21. 20O0 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 MCWD's judEmEnt that the revisions are both beneficial and reasonable. The proposed revisions all concern the MCWD's rERulatory proRram for wetland protection. Both the statutes creatin~ and ErantinE powers to watershed districts (Minnesota Statutes Chapters 10:)B and 10:~D) and the WEtland Conservation Act (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 10:)G) invest the MCWD with the authority to protect wetlands and reEulate wetland disturbance. In about one-half of the municipalities within the watershed, the MCWD acts as the local Eovernmental unit (LGU) responsible for implementinE the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). The MCWD, in addition, protects and manaEes wetlands throuEh rules adopted under authority of the watershed law, Minnesota Statutes §10:~D.:)41. The proposed revisions concern MCWD rules applied under both sources of authority. The revisions are proposed on the basis of Extensive MCWD Board of Mono~Ers and staff experience in implementin~ the MCWD's Existin~ wetland rules as well as its related activities to inventory, restore and protect wetlands within the watershed. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §10:)D.:241, these proposed rules now are bEinE issued for public comment. The MCWD solicits and welcomes ail comments from state and rEEional resource protection aEEnciEs, local EovErnments, rEEulatEd parties and all other members of the public. Comments are solicited on the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rules. Specificity in comments rEEardlnE proposed lanEuaEE or sueeEsted alternative lanEuaEe is particularly desirable. A public hEarinE 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. Me,VD 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 granted under the k~¢WD Rules, a condition of that permit is the establishment of permanent buffe~ around all wetlands on the subject property. The buffer is established by way of o written declaration that is executed by the landowner and filed in the office of the County Recorder or Reeistrar. However. certain types of activity requirin~ on IdCWD permit may not bear o strong relation to wetlands on the property or create a substantial risk of impact to those wetlands. Specifically, shoreline protection installations under IdCWD Rule F and stream and lake dredGinG under Rule E may fall in this category. Further, while work requiring an MCWD Erosion control permit presents risks to site wetlands during site disturbance - including sedimentation of exposed or stockpiled soils, pollution from construction equipment and materials, and physical damaGE from Equipment - these risks cease when the construction disturbance ends. AccordinGly, as discussed below, the IdCWD proposes to revise the Rule D buffer requirement so that it is triEGered only when o permit is required under the MC~,VD's floodplain alteration, wetland protection, wotErbody crossing or stormwoter management rule, or when o wetland is proposed to be dredged under Rule E. The MC:WD proposes to amend the buffer requirement so that the establishment of permanent wetland buffer is not a condition of the erosion control permit. However, os 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 during 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: 25 feet for a wetland one acre or smaller, and SO feet for a larGEr wetland. The applicant would be required to specify in its erosion control plan that during the course of land disturbance, the buffer area would remain undisturbed and no fill or other construction materials would be placed within the buffer. FEncinG 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 triGGErs a Rule D buffer requirement. Specifically, if a proposed activity triGGers the permanent buffer requirement by virtue of a permit condition under Rule C, D, E, G or N, permanent buffer would be established MC~/D Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 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 lanEua~e of the Rule D Statement of Policy would be substantially revised. This revision would serve two purposes. First, the present rule affirms the WCA "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 degraded wetlands, and to replace de~raded or eliminated wetlands. Solely for the purpose of clarity, the proposed rule would consolidate the six statements of policy into a sinEle statement. Secondly, the proposed IonEuoEe would emphasize the importance the MC: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 o requirement for on 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 MCWD Eoal, to emphasize that wetland quantity, quality and bioloElcal 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 Conservation Act, Minnesota Statutes ~§ 10:3G.221 throuEh 10$G.2275, restricts the draininE, fillinE, and excavation of wetlands. WC:A is implemented by a "local Eovernment unit~ (LGU), which within the Metropolitan Area may be a city, township or watershed manaEement orEanization. AmonE the :~0 cities and townships wholly or partly within the MC:WD, about half act as the WC:A 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. kIC~/D Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 Chapters IO~B and IO~D of the Minnesota Statutes (referred to toEether in this document as the "watershed Iow") also empower watershed districts to regulate wetland disturbance. IdCWD Rule D contains provisions adopted under authority of both WeA and the watershed law. When a wetland disturbance is proposed in o municipality for which the MC:WD is the WCA LGU, it reviews the application under both its WGA and its watershed law authority. When the activity occurs tn a municipality that itself acts as WCA LGU, the ~WD applies only those provisions of Rule D that it has adopted and implements under its watershed law authority. Existin~ Rule D does not clearly identify and separate WCA rules from the Eenerolly applicable provisions of the Rule. This leads to confusion on the port of applicants and others as to how the Rule is applied. A central purpose of the proposed revision is to reorganize and clearly distinEuish these two sets of requirements. A new proposed section 2 pertains only to WCA implementation and is inapplicable in o case where the MCWD is not the WCA LGU. The requirements of section :3 apply whether or not the MCWD is the WCA LeU 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 (BWSR), Minnesota Rules Part 8420. The BWSR rules specify that a municipality or watershed district actin~ as a LEU, by exercisin~ its own regulatory authority over water resources, may supplement WeA in respects broader or more stringent than the BWSR requirements. Current Rule D does so in one respect, and the proposed rule would make no chon~es. WCA requires that where wetland disturbance is to be miti~Eated by off-site wetland creation or restoration, the replacement must occur in the same subwotershed as the disturbance. However, WCA is more lenient with respect to impacts for public transportation projects within the metropolitan area, allowin~ 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 ecological 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 WC.6. LGU, requires that disturbances from transportation projects be mitigated 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 stringent than the BWSR rules. MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 WEtland Excavation. In GEneral, WCA does not apply to wetland excavation.~ Under its watershed law authority, the MCWD presently regulates wetland excavation through application of the same state rules and procedures that apply to wetland draining and filling under WCA. As applied to Excavation in wetlands, the existing rule diverges 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 higher replacement ratios Generally required under WCA for filled or drained wetland; (2) all wetland replacement, including replacement for transportation projects, must occur in the same subwatershed as the impact; (:~) Excavation for the purpose of wildlife habitat enhancement is Governed 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 199:2). The proposed rule would amend the regulation of wetland Excavation in a number of respects. First, the rules Governing excavation in wetlands would be Greatly simplified. The present rule incorporates by reference the full body of WC:A rules applicable to wetland draining and fillinG, as they may be amended from time to time, and applies them to Excavation in wetlands. The MCWD is proposing to move to a simpler regulatory structure that parallels the WC:~, framework but, rather than incorporating that framework in all its detail, utilizes five key requirements to Govern the evaluation and mitigation of excavation impacts: 1. Paramount is the WCA sequencing 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 existing rule is maintained. In addition, however, the applicant, using MNRAM or another method of assessing wetland function and value approved by the MC:WD, would need to demonstrate that increased wetland function and value from the replacement would exceed the loss of function and value resulting from the excavation. This is part of the x 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. lea). MC%VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness 6 Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 MC:W'D~, effort, mirrored to a deEree by BW'$R~, recent amendment of the W(~A rules, to move away From complicated replacement calculations based on wetland type and location, and toward a direct Focus an prEservin~ and increasin~ those icolo~ically and socially valuable wetland characteristics included under the concept of wetland function. The proposed rule also would incorporate WCA terms statin~ that modification of a non-de~raded wetland cannot con~titute replacement and that r,toration of dEeradEd wetland shall be credited for one-half of the acreaEe r,tored. :3. Consistent with the WCA rules, the proposed rule specifies that replacement must be completed, or a security ensurine completion provided to the MCWD, before wetland disturbance may commence. 4. Also as in the WC: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 MC:WD jurisdiction. 5. Finally, the proposed rule extends to excavation the express W'CA exemptions set forth at Minnesota Rules 8420.O122, to the same dE~rEe as if a proposed disturbance were caused by drainine or fillinE. AlthouEh a number of the W(::A exemptions by their nature apply only to draininE or fillinE activities, some may apply to excavation as well. The M(::WD has reviewed the application of the WC:A exemptions to these cases, and judees the rationale behind these exemptions to be equally applicable to wetland excavation. The proposed rule also would revise the Rule D requirements pertaininR to excavotlon 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 1992 publication, "Excavated Fonds for Water Fowl.". in addition, they must meet certain desiRn requirements set forth in section :), and particularly paragraph :)(e), of Rule D. Two concerns prompt the MC:WD's revision of the reEulatory framework Eovernine excavation for wildlife enhancement. First, althouEh 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. MCWD review of proposed excavation within the Eenerol framework of the rule con help to enhance water resource benefits and MC~VD Statement 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. ,6,s 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 MC:~VD 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 IdC:~D proposes no longer 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 az 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 BWSR definition of a "deGraded wetland" as "a wetland that provides minimal wetland function and value due to human activities such os drainage, diversion of watershed, fillinG, ExcavatinG, pollutant runoff and vegetative or adjacent upland manipulation"; 3. An assessment by MNRAM or another methodology acceptable to the Id¢~/D demonstrates that the Excavation would result in an overall increase in wetland function and value; and MCW'D Statement of Heed and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions Hovember 21, 2000 4. The project is desiEned, and subject to conditions of operation, such that the enhanced wetland function and value will be maintained over time. As stated earlier, the MeWD by this provision proposes to recoEnize that those excavation activities typically are for beneficial environmental purposes. Further, the named activities typically occur in deEraded wetland, and, where the excavation is carefully desiEned, often will enhance the quality of the wetland. The Me%VD wishes to encouraEe efforts to return hydroloEical function to dEEradEd 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 MeWD 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-klnd 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 M¢,,VD is proposinE new lanEuaEe rEquirinE a permit for removal of accumulated outfall sediments or fill, but ExcusinE these activities from the replacement requirement. In issuinE permits for this activity, the MC:WD 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 §10$G.2241, subdivision 11. The MeWD expects that imposed conditions also will mirror those applied to minimize impacts durinE dred~inE. MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 Finally, the MCWD recognizes that its reEulaUon of wetland excavation under the watershed law may overlap in a ~iven case with reEulaUon under the protected waters statute or weds. Specifically, the protected water stc~tute, Minnesota Statutes i§10:~G.241 throuEh 10:i.251, Eoverns excavation in public waters wetlands. WCA applies to excavation in "permanently and semi-permanently flooded areas of type :lo 4 and $ wetlands." Mtnn. Stat. §10:)G.222, subd. lea). Ji, s state laws, the protected water statute and WC~ will apply irrespective of the more or less strinEent requirements of a watershed district or other local body of Eovernment. the same time, both laws allow supplementary re~ulaUon of wetland disturbance, pursuant to watershed district or local authority, that beyond state requirements. ~ccordtnEIy, the proposed rule notes explicitly that where both state and MCWD requirements appIyo compliance with each shall be required. Though a conflict is not anticipated, should there be a situation where an applicant cannot simultaneously comply with both sets of requirements, state law will ~overn. Buffer I~equirements. The MCWD proposes substantially to revise its requirements pertaininE to the establishment of vegetative 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 $$ feet for a wetland larEer than $ 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 incorporaUnE 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 servinE a buffer function be included within the buffer area, and what effect do these have on the determination of buffer width? MC~VD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 lO The klC:~/D also proposes a number of substantive chanEes to the current buffer requirement, including 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 triGGEred. Pursuant to the plain lanGuaGE of the present rule, the buffer requirement applies whenever a proposed activity requires an kI¢~VD permit. ~/hEn an applicant is issued a permit subject to an kIC:WD rule, that permit is conditioned on the Establishment and maintenance of a permanent buffer around each wetland on the subject property. At this time, the IYICWD 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 concerning dredGinG (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:~D 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 klCWD's preservation of flood storage capacity (Rule C), wetland protection (Rule D), watErbody crossing (Rule C;) 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 durlnE 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. ~,VhEn is the Buffer Established? The proposed revision also would clarify that the buffer must be established before any site disturbance authorized by the kl¢~/D 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 klC:~VD 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 MC~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 an MC:WD-approvEd plan that minimizes disturbance during the work and Ensures buffer restoration when the work is complete. W'hot ore the Buffer Widths? The rule also proposes to increase the required buffer widths. Presently, the rule requires a buffer 16.5 feet around o 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 :~5-foot buffer around a wetland larger than five acres. The proposed rule would increase the buffer for a wetland one acre or smaller from 16.5 to 95 feet, and would Establish the buffer For all larGEr wetlands at 50 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 EnRinEEr, WEnck Associates, concerning the Effectiveness of buffers of differing widths. On a review of well over 1OO publications reporting 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 limiting habitat and other functions that buffers provide. However, the marginal benefit of additional wetland buffer width, according to many studies, declines measurably beyond 50 feet. AlthouGh a number of studies SURREst that a buffer of 1OO or Even 200 feet brings significant additional benefit and is technically supportable, the MCWD proposes to institute a SO-foot maximum buffer width as a reasonable balance between obtainlnR the benefits that a buffer provides and limiting impacts on landowners' land use options. The WEnck Associates report, containing a bibliography and related materials, is a part of the rulEmakinR record and is available through the MCWD. The report also suGGEsts that buffer width may vary depending on other factors such as slope steepness and the sensitivity of the subject wetland. The proposed rule reflects the judgment of the IdCWD that the additional complexity of a rule that accounts for these variables, and the additional burden on applicants and MC~D staff to implement a more complicated rule, outweighs the additional refinement such a rule would provide. The MC%VD invites comments on this question. MC~VD Statement of NEEd and IteasonabiEnEss froposed Kulu Revisions November 21, 2000 12 4. %k'hen May a Non-Buffer Feature Be Incorporated %k'tthin the Buffer? The proposed rule also clarifies that o non-buffer Feature may be enclosed within a buffer if the Board finds that this v, ili not significantly reduce the protection afforded the ~vEtlond. This provision contemplates, for Example. o trail that provides public access into o wetland for Educational purposes or a stormwotEr 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 intrudin~ feature, for Example by limitin~ the width of a trail, suspendinE it or usinE a pervious trail surface. The rule also makes clear that the non-buffer feature does not contribute to buffer width. The buffer width, not countin~ the intrudin~ Element, would need to meet the Rule D standard. Indeed, in a ~ivEn case, on increased buffer width might be warranted to offset any loss in buffer efficiency occasioned by the intrusion. 5. ~/hot Activities ore Restricted in the Buffer? The proposed rule specifies in detail the activities that ore prohibited within the Established wetland buffer. Prohibited activities include veEetation cultivation and management: placement or storage 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. ~/hilE approval would need to be documented in v, ritine, it is contemplated that staff review of o proposed action would be informal and would not impose a substantial burden on the landowner. In addition, olthouEh o structure may not be placed within a buffer, it may Extend over o buffer on on MC:XVD determination, in the permit or otherwise in writinE, that the structure's impact on buffer VeEEtotion and function will be nEEliEiblE. This provision would accommodate a suspended trail, a deck or o similar feature. BEcause buffer function includes components such as habitat, however, mere preservation of veEetation and its pollutant filtErinE or flow moderotine function miEht not suffice to demonstrate neEliEible impact. (:ach case would be evaluated on its own facts. 6. V/hen May o Landowner BE I~EquirEd to Establish Buffer VeEetotion? The proposed rule would authorize the IdC:W'D, when applyinE the buffer requirement, to direct a landowner affirmatively to Establish and maintain buffer veEEtotion. This provision is MC~D Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21. 2000 intended to apply where the existinE land surface within a newly delineated buffer is not adequately vegetated or otherwise is in a condition that substantially undermines buffer function. The rule states that conditions imposed by the kIC:WD must be "reasonable." For example, the MCWD would not intend to require relocation of a permanent existing structure or demolition of impervious surface that is in good condition and providing beneficial use to a landowner. Conversely, a landowner might be required to remove a gravel or similar artificial, unconsolidated surface from within a buffer, rework or top-dress soil, or seed or plant the buffer area. Under the proposed rule, a landowner also may submit for kICWD approval a plan to establish and maintain buffer where the existing buffer is degraded 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 vegetative buffer and the additional detail with which the klCWD's authority might be specified in the rule. 7. How Will the Buffer Be Documented? Finally, the proposed rule states that the buffer requirement will be implemented through an easement, declaration or other recordable instrument approved by the kICWD. The instrument would be filed in the office of the County Recorder or Registrar before activity authorized by the klCWD permit could commence. This proposed language is consistent with the klCWD's long-standing implementation of its buffer rule and serves merely to document klCWD practice for the benefit of applicants and other interested parties. The klCWD 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 redesign to accommodate a buffer area of undisturbed vegetation may be limited or absent, in addition, although the proposed rule would reduce the number of circumstances in which the District buffer requirement would be triggered, the requirement still would apply in instances where the work requiring 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 IdC:~VD Statement of Heed and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions Hovember 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 existinE 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 triEEered by work not in the wetland and its application to residential property with limited redesiEn options to,ether create the potential for undue hardship. Accordingly, the District is proposin~ to create o partial exception from the buffer rule. Under the partial exception, the buffer requirement would continue to apply in oil circumstances in which it otherwise would: to oil wetlands on a parcel when a permit is sought under Rule C~, D (wetland protection), G (stream, lake and wetland crossings) or N (stormwoter manaEement) 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 on acre in size, and 50 feet for a Ior~er wetland. The buffer would be permanently delineated in on easement or declaration filed with the County P, ecorder or ReEistrar. The relief offered by the exception would lie in the lesser restrictions imposed on buffer use. Under the Eeneral rule, a buffer must be maintained as larEel¥ undisturbed veEetatlon. VeEetation manaEement is primarily for the purpose of maintaininE the buffer and must be approved by the District. W'here the exception applies, the property owner is prohibited only from creatinE new permanent or temporary impervious surface within the buffer. The District believes that this prohibition will prevent what is Eenerally the most damaEinE 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. I'araEraphs :i(b)(4) throuEh :~(b)(6) of the rule would apply as well to situations where the partial exception is applicable, to the extent that the,/allow use of a buffer more Eenerous 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 requirinR a rezoninR, special use permit or variance. That is, the MC~VD Statement of Need and IteasonablEness 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 design may accommodate the full buffer requirement, it also would not apply where the property owner, since the effective date, has not sought and is not seeking to deviate substantlally from the established residential use. it is the District's judgment that in this case, the owner's expectation to have the existing use of the buffer area protected no longer would apply. Second, the exception would apply only if the District permit triGGerinG the buffer requirement does not involve work in the wetland in question. Under the framework of laws established by the Minnesota legislature, including W(::J~, the protected waters statute and the watershed laws, a property owner does not have the absolute right to enGaGe in activity that disturbs wetland. Rather, 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 seeking approval to disturb a wetland also agree 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 stating that the area adjacent to the wetland is a designated buffer for the purpose of protecting the wetland and briefly indicating the activities that may not occur within the buffer. In order to ensure visibility, the rule would require that the marker be free-standinG and at least three feet in height. Thus, for example, placing 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 200 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 being 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 imposing 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 MCW'D Statement of Heed and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 16 subdivided lots and employees of, visitors to, or residents of commercial, industrial, instltutionol, mixed-use and multi-unit residential properties. An owner of o residential lot who is subject to the buffer requirement by virtue of obtoininE 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 paroeraph 3(b)(1), however, would specify that the requirement will apply to each lot of record on future subdivision. Required Exhibits. A number of revisions to the application requirements of Rule D are proposed. Several of these chan~es are necessary to implement the substantive revisions discussed above. Others are believed by the MC:WD to be desirable on the basis of experience in implementinE Rule D. The proposed revisions are as follows: 1. W'here 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 IdNRAM or another MC:W'D-approved method, for all disturbed and proposed replacement wetlands. Ecological 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 IYIC:~D's focus on wetland quality as a consistent approach to implementinE its wetland protection proEram. 3. 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 IdCW'D, however, believes that the principle has Eeneral merit for enhancinE the restoration and viability of all disturbed wetland area. ~/here 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 exceedinE a specified size (trunk diameter of four inches at a heiEht 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 MCWD better to understand the impact of a proposed wetland disturbance and consider options to reduce that impact. S. The following design requirements currently apply only to excavation for wildlife manaGEment. Under the proposed rule, they would apply to all wetland Excavation: (a) The wetland must be Excavated to an irregular shape and an area of at least 2,500 square feet. (b) The wetland side slopes must maintain a ratio (horizontal to vertical) of between $:1 and 10:1. (c) Any spoils disposal site must be identified and must be above the 1OO-yEar high water level of the wetland and any other watErbody, unless placement below that level otherwise is authorized. ed) A separate vegetation restoration plan must be included with the application. The proposed revision clarifies that the plan may provide for seeding or planting and may use not only native Grasses, but forbs and woody veGEtation as well. Rule G: Stream and Lake The MCWD's Rule G regulates disturbance of the bed and bank of a watErbody for placement of a road, highway or utility. The disturbance must be designed for a minimal impact and must be shown to serve a public benefit, retain hydrologic and navigational capacity, preserve wildlife passaGE along the bank and not adversely affect water quality. On May 25, 2000, the MCWD expanded the rule to apply not only to stream and lake crossings but to wetland crossings as well. However, it neglected to amend the title of the rule accordingly. The proposed rule would amend the title of Rule G to read "Stream, Lake, and WEtland CrossinGs." Rule N: Stormwater ManaGement. 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 configuration of the watErbody as well as the size and topography of its drainaGE area will determine water level behavior. This characteristic Equilibrium of a lake or wetland, in turn, MC~q~VD Statement of Heed and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions Hovember 21, 2000 18 determines the bloti¢ and plant ¢ommunitles that will ~stobllsh themselves and the nature of the aquatic and riparian habitat the waterbody will provide. Alteration of a waterbody or the land thGk drains to it, or 4 point discharge to the waterbody, ~an alter the water level behavior of the waterbody and undermine the natural communities that the waterbody supports. ~onversely, in certain environments Enhanced water level fluctuation may enhance the establishment and maintenance of natural communities alon~ 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, leadin~ to erosion and sedimentation impacts. The defininE characteristics of this hydroloEic Equilibrium are bounce and inundation period. The former is defined os 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 ~roup, consistin~ of state water resource a~en¢ies and related stakeholders, established acceptable bounce levels and inundation periods for wetlands and lakes. In a dune 1997 report, "Stormwater and ~,Vetlands Plannin~ and Evaluation Guidelines for ,Eddressin~ I'otential Impacts of Urban Stormwater and Snowmelt Runoff on Wetlands,# the advisory ~roup recommended that these limits vary dependin~ on the sensitivity, or "susceptibility," of the lake or wetland to water level fluctuations. Descriptive wetland types are placed in four categories, ran~in~ from "highly susceptible" to "least-susceptible." All lakes are placed in the "least-susceptible" category. The MC:~VD presently regulates chan~es to lake and wetland water levels only in paragraph 4(¢) of Rule N, which prohibits land-disturbin~ activity requirin~ a Rule N permit from "adversely affectl'in~] water levels off the site durin~ or after construction." This Ion~-standin~ provision, at least in part, expresses a concern to prevent impacts to the rights of adjacent or downstream landowners. Its ~Eneral standard does not reflect the equally important ecoloiEical basis of the rule or provide a means to determine when an impact is 'adverse." In addition, it applies only to off-site waterbodies. The Id¢%VD 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 discharRE of water to a lake or wetland, for example from o commercial or industrial process, raises similar concerns. The proposed rule is intended to allow the IdC:~D to review these actions to help ensure that they do not harm receivin~ waters, MCWD 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 Give Guidance 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 MCWD Rules. Rather, the proposed standards would apply only to those activities already required to obtain an MC~/D permit under the MC~VD Erosion control (Rule B), floodplain preservation (Rule C), wetland protection (Rule D) or stormwater mana8ement (Rule N) rule. However, any proposed increase of a commercial, industrial or private stormwater discharge to a receiving waterbody that is a lake or a wetland also will be required to meet the specified standards. At this time, the klC:~D believes that municipal stormwater discharges will be adequately and mutually addressed by the M¢~D and the subject municipality through the water planning process of Minnesota Statutes 66103B.231 and 103B.235. To ensure that short-term, storm-induced change in lake or wetland water level does not adversely affect the banks, veGEtation or habitat of the water body, the rule proposes that a change to peak flow bounce for 1.5-, 10- and 1aa-year storms from land-disturbinG activity be limited to an amount ranGinG from no increase over the present bounce for highly susceptible wetlands, to no limit for least-susceptible wetlands and lakes. Similarly, inundation period for highly susceptible wetlands must be maintained at the Existing 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 1aa-year events. Point discharges from commercial and industrial activities would be subject to the bounce and inundation period limitations applicable to the 1.S-year storm event. Comment 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 discharges should be excepted or unnamed discharges included; the susceptibility framework that is proposed, and the specific standards set forth. MCWD Statement of Need and Reasonableness Proposed Rules Revisions November 21, 2000 2O February 2, 2001 Ms. Glenda Spiotta Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road, Suite 37 Navarre, Minnesota 55331 SUBJECT: City of Mound Surface Water Management Plan Review Responses MFRA#10293 Dear Gtenda: Last summer the MCWD reviewed the proposed Mound Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) and provided the City with review comments. The comments were contained in a letter from your engineering consultant dated June 10, 2000. Through the fall months the City met with you and your staff to better understand the comments and how to best incorporate them into the SWMP. City staff has also discussed the comments and various options with the Mound City Council. Attached to this letter is a point-by-point response to the MCWD's comments. After we have a~eement that the response or action meets the watershed's requirements the SWMP will be updated accordingly. We trust that the responses and actions can meet both the needs of the MCWD and the City. On behalf of the City we are requesting that the MCWD review the attached and provide us with your comments. If possible, we would like the Board of Managers to consider approving the SWMP later this month or early in March. If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at (763) 476-6010. Sincerely, MFRA Daniel M. Parks, PE cc: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Loren Gordon, HKGI /dmp ~,~:~0 £3%' ,4'~_~,~,.,,e ;qorY: · P,(;',':~c'~,~h I~l,',nf~esohl · .55447 MCWD-Mound SWMP Review Comments and Responses (2/2/01) 1. All ordinances providing the basis for the transfer of permitting authority should be included in the plan. 2. Adoption of applicable ordinances by the City must take place before permitting authority for Rules B, C, D, G, and N is transferred to the City of Mound. The City is undertaking a review of its ordinances for consistency with the provisions of the SWMP. Existing ordinances will be updated or new ordinances will be established to implement the SWMP and assume the permitting authority from the MCWD for Rules B, C, D, and N. The City will not assume the permitting authority for Rule G. 3. Areas and elevations for stormwater storage should be included in the SWMP. The SWMP has identified 18 major subwatershed areas within the City of Mound. The subwatersheds are shown on the map in Appendix F. Most of the land area in Mound drains directly into Lake Minnetonka and its many bays surrounding the City. There are three major subwatersheds that do not directly discharge into Lake Minnetonka. Those areas drain into Lakes Dutch, Langdon, and Saunders. Ultimately, all surface water runoff from the City of Mound reaches Lake Minnetonka. The highwater levels for Lake Minnetonka have been identified by FEMA and the MCWD. As part of this SWMP, a detailed hydrologic analysis determined the 100-year highwater elevations for Lakes Dutch, Langdon, and Saunders. In addition, a basic hydrologic study was conducted for the other 15 subwatersheds. The study provides information such as drainage areas, runoff conditions, and peak 5-year and 100-year flowrates. The results of that analysis is included in Appendix L. The SWMP did not include an analysis of smaller subdistr/cts unless there had been previous flooding problems, or if required for storm sewer improvements. There are a number of previous developments within the City that have created ponding areas. Those subdistricts and ponding area were analyzed with the development proposal and established normal and highwater level conditions. Although not specifically included in the SWMP, that information is available for review at the City. Future developments within the City will need to comply with the requirements of the SWMP for rate control and water quality improvements. Minimum floor elevations will need to be at least 2 feet above projected 100-year flood levels, or the RFPE. In the case where there is no 100-year highwater level established, either a highwater level will be determined as part of the development or there will be a minimum separation of 3 feet required between the lowest floor and an established Ordinary Highwater Level (OHW). 4. Existing and allowable volumes and rates of stormwater runoff for each subwatershed should be established. The City of Mound is nearly entirely developed and the future stormwater rates and volumes will be nearly the same as existing rates and volumes. Peak stormwater rates for the 18 major subwatersheds within the City are included in Appendix L. The subwatershed disharge rates will be controlled on a regional basis (where feasible) and generally maintained at existing conditions. Discharges from the three lake subwatersheds will be controlled by the existing or proposed lake outlets. Discharge rates for subwatersheds draining directly into Lake Minnetonka will be controlled on a case- by-case basis with development proposals. 5. An inventory of wetland functional values and a management classification system should be included. In 2001, the MCWD will conduct a wetlands functions and values assessment for property within the City of Mound. The City will provide the MCWD with available wetland information and participate in determining wetland ranking criteria and reference wetlands for ecological functions. When completed, the MCWD assessment will be included in the SWMP as an Appendix. After completion of the assesment, the City will consider developing a management classification system for the inventoried wetlands. o A wetland management policy and ordinance must be established to meet or exceed Rule D requirements including required buffers and mitigation for excavation in wetlands. The city will incorporate the following wetland protection measures in the SWMP. A. Wetland Buffers The City will encourage natural wetland buffers around existing wetlands or replacement wetlands in major development proposals. The buffer shall be a native vegetative strip with average widths based on the size of the abutting wetland as shown in Table 6 below. The minimum buffer widths shall not be less than 50% of the table value and the calculation of the average width shall not include buffer widths greater than 150% of the table value. TABLE 6 - WETLAND BUFFER WIDTHS Adiacent Wetland Size (Ac) 0-1.0 16.5 1-2.5 20 2.5-5.0 25 >5.0 35 Buffer Width (it) (Same buffer widths as MCWD Plan) B. Excavation in wetlands The City will manage wetlands in conformance with the Minnesota Wetlands Conservation Act (WCA) of 1991, its amendments and rules (MN Rules Chapter 8420). In addition, the City will require the following: Wetland excavations for the purpose of wildlife enhancement will comply with the criteria described in the MDNR publication "Excavated Ponds for Waterfowl" (1992). Wetland replacement at the ratio of 2-acres of replacement wetland for each 1-acre of wetland excavation will be required in semi-permanently or permanently flooded areas of Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands. 7. Policies for stream and lake crossing permitting should be included in the Plan. The City will not assume the permitting authority for MCWD Rule G - Stream and Lake Crossings. That permitting will remain with the MCWD. APPENDIX L HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY ~" I Direct Runoff (cfs) Outlet Discharge (cfs) Land Lake , Subwatershed Area Area 5-year 100 -year 5-year I 100-year ID (acres) (acres) CN ToC~ 1. Dutch Lake 16302 175 69 NAs NAs NAs 5.5 19.2 2. Lake Langdon 3762 140 75 NAs NAs NAs 4.4 14.8 3. Saunders Lake 4552 45 77 NAs NA3 NAs 1.2 3.2 4. Halstead Bay 45 72 0.5 41.7 115.1 5. eriestBay 95 75 0.75 I 79.2 203.4 6. West Cooks Bay 98 75 0.5 108.3 276.1 7. East Cooks Bay 78 77 0.5 96.0 233.2 8. Lost Lake 207 51 92 1.0 292.9 541.0 9. So. Harfisons Bay 129 80 0.5 183.9 418.7 10. No. Harrisons Bay 118 72 0.5 109.3 301.8 11. Jennings Bay 90 77 0.5 110.7 269.1 .. West Arm 29 75 0.3 42.8 107.5 13. Seton Lake 64 75 0.5 70.7 180.3 14. Emerald Lake 130 75 0.75 108.4 278.4 15. Black Lake 82 70 0.5 66.6 195.5 16. Spring Park Bay 24 75 0.5 26.5 67.6 17. Phelps Bay 160 75 0.75 133.4 342.6 18. Whipple Wetland 91 65 0.5 50.0 178.0 1. ToC: Time of Concentration (hours) 2. Includes areas in Minnetrista 3. Not applicable-routed through numerous subwatersheds March 1, 2001 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.ci.shorewood.mn.us · cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us City and County Managers/Administrators; Executive Directors Craig W. Dawson, Shorewood City Administrator Legislation To Restrict Sale of Phosphorous-containing Lawn Fertilizers Within the past few weeks, Shorewood Mayor Woody Love has sent a letter to elected officials in your organization requesting support (preferably through a City Council resolution) to initiate legislation to related to phosphorous-containing lawn fertilizers. Late last year, Shorewood adopted an ordinance that, with a few exceptions, aggressively restricted the use and sale of such lawn fertilizers. Shorewood believes that such action in necessary to safeguard and improve the water quality of the metropolitan area and, for that matter, the state. We have been encouraged with the amount of verbal support we have received thus far. We are still awaiting resolutions from city councils to affirm this support. In speaking with staff at the League of Minnesota Cities and the Association of Metropolitan Municipalities, I have been told that these organizations will be supportive of our proposed legislation. As we have refined our strategy further, the proposed legislation will be clean and simple: · It will focus on water quality. · It will restrict the sale and use of such fertilizer. (Organic fertilizers would not be affected.) · It will relate only to lawn fertilizer- not agricultural or gardening uses. · It will be state-wide in scope. · It will have reasonable exceptions. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture has jurisdiction over distribution and use of all fertilizers. The legislation is not intended to reduce the Department's authority; rather, it is designed to establish what is necessary to assure water quality. Someone pointed out that in the early 1970s, the sale of laundry detergents containing phosphates was banned nationally as a basic measure to improve water quality around the country. Consequently, appropriate substitutes were included in detergents. The use of phosphates ended because they could no longer be sold. A similar case can be made with phosphorous: by regulating its sale, its use will largely disappear. Our legislation will be introduced within a few weeks. A statement of your support by March 15 will greatly enhance the likelihood of its success. If you have questions, please call me at (952) 474.3236. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER City of Mound - Surface Water Management Plan Page 47 ~7. Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects (MCWD Rule IN) The City will assume responsibility for this permitting and will require land development projects to comply with City standards that meet or exceed MCWD requirements. C. Management Programs The City will implement or encourage the following water resource-related management protection programs. 1. Best Management Practices ao The City will continue sweeping paved public streets at least two times per year with highest priority given to streets draining directly to waterbodies. bo The City will develop and implement a public stormwater facility inspections and maintenance plan and require similar plans for private stormwater systems. Stormwater facilities will be inspected every other year with deficiencies identified and prioritized. Deficiencies will be corrected as deemed necessary by the City and in accordance with available funds and City priorities. The Stormwater Facilities Maintenance List is contained in Appendix K. Co do The City will vacuum storm sewer sump manholes on a yearly basis. The City will endeavor to provide a yard waste management program for the communities leaves and brush. Citizens will be encouraged in City newsletters to develop their own compost areas and at locations well away fi.om waterbodies and wetlands. Public Education The City will prepare and implement a public education program to foster sound water resource protection practices within the community. Public education will include at least two public information newsletters per year distributed to the citizens and made available for review at City Hall. Information will include topics such as restricting phosphorus use, proper lawn waste disposal, wetlands awareness, City of Mound - Surface Water Management Plan Page 48 etc. In addition, the City will develop additional strategies necessary to protect the City's water related amenities. V///3. Phosphorus Ordinance Within one to three years the City will consider a lawn Phosphorus ordinance. In the interim the City will provide the public with information on the limited necessity of phosphorus in lawn fertilizing and the determination of phosphorus needs based on soil tests. 4. Water Quality Monitoring The City will support efforts of the MCWD, Metropolitan Council and other agencies collecting water samples in the City and maintain available water quality information in the City's Water Resources Library. D. Stormwater Design and Performance Standards The following design and performance standards will assist in proper stormwater management, reduce flooding impacts, and help in the planning for urban development and redevelopment. 1. Maximum Flowrates Maximum stormwater discharge rates will be controlled on a subwatershed basis, where feasible, to not exceed the existing subwatershed flowrates. Subwatershed discharges may exceed existing conditions provided the stormwater conveyance system in the downstream subwatershed is adequate to convey the additional discharges. In the case of discharge across municipal boundaries, the downstream community will be made aware of the proposed discharge increase. 2. ,Ponding Facilities Stormwater ponding facilities shall be designed and constructed to meet water quantity and water quality requirements of this SWMP. Detention ponds shall be designed for the 100-year critical storm event with multi-staged outlets to control the 1-year, 5-year and 100-year storm events. On-site water quality ponds shall be wet detention basins which meet the wet detention pond recommendations or equivalent performance standards outlined in the MPCA's handbook entitled 'Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas." Equivalent performance standards will be treatment standards obtained by wet CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD · SHOREWOOD. MINNESOTA 55331-8927 · (952) 474-3236 FAX (952) 474-0128 · www.ci.shorewood.mn.us · cityhall @ci.shorewood.mn.us February 8, 2001 Mayor Pat Meisel City of Mound 5341 Maywood 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 man.,,' 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. 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. URP, A,%' RESIDF,~;TIAL RU,%'OFF 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 percent, 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, Minnetonka and Eden Prairie. Similar results could be expected throughout the metropolitan area. High ~ Very High=P> 50 lbs/acre ~-~ H ig h = P < 50 lbs/acre When phosphorus fertilizer is applied to lawns with very high / ~ ~ ~., .. ....D .- o ~, I ~. ~, .... 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. M HN HF V~N VHF 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 I00 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 Barren, Hennepin Parks, 1999 RESOLUTION NO. 00- A RESOLUTION RELATING TO RESTRICTIONS ON THE 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 1T 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 turf 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 ::ODMA\PCDOCS\LIB 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: 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. bo 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~PCDOCSXLIB 1 \633905\ I cITy OF SHOREWOOD ORDINANCE NO. 366 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 300 OF THE SHOREWOOD CITY CODE, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATION Section L Title 300 of the Shorewood'City Code is hereby amended to include: "CHAPTER 310 LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATION CONTROL 310.01. PURPOSE: The City has considered expert testimony and has reviewed existing data to determine the current and projected water quality of various lakes within its community. The data indicates that lake water quality may be maintained and improved if the City is able to regulate the amount of lawn fertilizer and other chemicals entering the lakes as a result of storm water runoff or other causes. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish regulations that will aid the City in managing and protecting its water resources that are enjoyed by its residents and other users. 310.02. DEFINITIONS: For the purpose of this section, certain terms and words are defined as follows: Subd. 1. COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR: A person who is engaged in the business of applying fertilizer for hire. FERTILIZER: A substance containing one or more recognized plant nutrients that is used for its plant nutrient content and designed for use or claimed to have value in promoting plant growth. Fertilizer does not include animal and vegetable manures that are not manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products exempted by Rule by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture. NONCOMMERCIAL APPLICATOR: A person who applies fertilizer during the course of employment, but who is not a commercial lawn fertilizer applicator. PESTICDE: A substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate a pest, and a substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant regulator, defoliant or desiccant. 310.03 REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATORS: Subd. 1. License Required. No person, firm, corporation or franchise shall engage in the business of commercial lawn fertilizer applicator within the City unless a license has been obtained from the City Administrator or a designee as provided herein. Subd. 2. License Application Procedure. Applicants for a commercial lawn fertilizer applicator license shall be submitted to the City Manager or a designee. The application shall consist of the following: a. Application Form. Application forms shall be provided by the City and shall include the following instructions: (1) Name, address and telephone number of applicant and any individuals authorized to represent the applicant. (2) Description of lawn fertilizer formula proposed to be applied on lawns within the City. (3) A time schedule for application of lawn fertilizer and identification of weather conditions acceptable for lawn fertilizer application. b. Product Material Safety Data Sheet. A copy of Material Safety Data Sheet, including product chemical analysis of the intended lawn fertilizer, shall be submitted to the City along with the initial application for a license, and, thereafter, at least seven days before fertilizer composition changes are implemented. c. Minnesota State Licenses. A copy of all licenses required of the applicant by the State of Minnesota regarding the application of pesticides and fertilizers. d. License Fee. The license fee as established in Chapter 13 of the Shorewood City Code. The license shall expire on the 31 st day of December. The license fee shall not be prorated. Subd. 3. Conditions of License. Commercial lawn fertilizer applicator licenses shall be issued subject to the following conditions that shall be specified on the license form: a. Random Sampling. Commercial lawn fertilizer applicators shall permit the City to sample any commercial lawn fertilizer applications to be applied within the City at any time after issuance of the initial license. b. Possession of License. The commercial lawn fertilizer license, or a copy thereof, shall be in the possession of any party employed by the commercial lawn fertilizer applicator when making lawn fertilizer applications within the City. c. Possession of Product Material Safety Data Sheet. A copy of the Product Material Data Safety Sheet of the lawn fertilizer used shall be in the possession of any party employed by the commercial lawn fertilizer applicator when making lawn fertilizer applications within the City. d. State Regulations. Licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Minnesota Fertilizer and Soil Conditioner Law as contained in Minnesota Statutes Sections 17.711 through and including 17.729 and amendments thereto. The licensee shall also comply with the provisions of the Pesticide Control as contained in the Minnesota Statutes Chapter 18B. 310.04 GENERAL REGULATIONS. Subd. 1. Time of Application. Neither commercial applicators nor noncommercial applicators may apply lawn fertilizer when the ground is frozen or when conditions exist that will promote or create runoffs. Subd. 2. Sample Analysis Cost. The cost of analyzing fertilizer samples taken from commercial applicators shall be paid by the commercial applicators if the sample analysis indicates that phosphorus content exceeds the levels authorized herein. Subd. 3. Fertilizer Content. No person, firm, corporation, franchise, or commercial or noncommercial applicator, including homeowners or renters, shall apply any lawn fertilizer, liquid or granular, within the City of Shorewood that contains any amount of phosphorous or other compound containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except: a. the naturally occurring phosphorous in unadulterated natural or organic fertilizing products such as yard waste compost; b. or as otherwise provided in Section 310.05. Subd. 4. Sale of Fertilizer Containing Phosphorous. Effective 1 January 2002, no person, fi~Tn, corporation, franchise, or commercial establishment shall sell any lawn fertilizer, liquid or granular, within the City of Shorewood that contains any amount of phosphorous or other compound containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except: a. Effective 1 January 2002. small quantities of such fertilizer may be sold for use as provided in Section 310.05. 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. b. Effective 1 January 2001, 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. Effective 1 January 2001, for each sale of such fertilizer the seller shall provide the buyer with a copy of this Chapter of the Shorewood City Code. Subd. 5. Impervious Surfaces and Drainage Ways. No person shall apply fertilizer to impervious surfaces, areas within drainage ditches, or waterways. Subd. 6. Buffer Zone. Fertilizers and pesticides shall not be applied: a. to any established natural buffer zones as outlined in Section 1102.06 Subd. 2. of this Code. b. below the Ordinary High Water Level of any lake as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; or c. within ten (10) feet of any wetland or water resource. Subd. 7. Warning Signs for Pesticide Application. All commercial or noncommercial lawn fertilizer applicators that apply pesticides to turf areas must post or affix warning signs on the property where the pesticides are applied. The warning signs shall comply with the following criteria and contain the following information: a. The warning signs must project at least eighteen (18) inches above the top of the grass line. The warning signs must be of a material that is rain resistant for at least a forty-eight (48) hour period and must remain in place for at least forty- eight (48) hours from the time of initial application. b. The following information must be printed on the warning signs in contrasting colors and capitalized letters measuring at least one-half inch (1/2"), or in another format approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture. The signs must provide the following information: (1) The name of the business, entity, or person applying the pesticide; and (2) The following language: "This area chemically treated. Keep children and pets off until (date of safe entry)" or a universally accepted symbol and text approved by the Minnesota Commissioner of Agriculture as recognized as having the same meaning or intent as specified in this subparagraph. The warning signs may include the name of the pesticide used. c. The warning sign must be posted on a lawn or yard between two (2) feet and five (5) feet from the sidewalk or street. For parks, golf courses, athletic fields, playgrounds, or other similar recreational property, the warning signs must be posted immediately adjacent to areas within the property where pesticides have been applied and at or near the entrance to the property. 310.05. EXEMPTION TO PHOSHPOROUS REQUIREMENT. The prohibition against use of fertilizer containing any quantity of phosphorous under Section 310.04 shall not apply to: Cc_>--/ a. newly established or developed turf and lawn areas during first growing season; or b. turf and lawn areas which soil tests confirm are below phosphorous levels established by the University of Minnesota Extension Services. The lawn fertilizer application shall not contain an amount of phosphorous exceeding the amount of phosphorous and the appropriate application rate recommended in the soil test evaluation. Phosphorus applied as lawn fertilizer pursuant to the aforementioned exemptions shall be watered into the soil where it is immobilized and generally protected from loss by runoff. Any person, firm corporation, franchise, or commercial or noncommercial applicator, including a homeowner or renter, shall notify the City at least 24 hours prior to applying lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous of the reason for using fertilizer containing phosphorous and the amount of phosphorous contained in the lawn fertilizer to be applied. 310.06. PENALTY. Any person violating this Chapter shall be guilty of a petty misdemeanor. The City may revoke a commercial applicator's license for repeat violations of this Chapter." Section 2. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon publishing in the Official Newspaper of the City of Shorewood. OF THE CITY OREWOOD ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ~;ITY 3)F~ORE'¢~ this 24* day of July 2000. WOODY LOVE, MAYOR ATTEST: BRA~)~L~Y].~sEN, J~TING CITY ADMINISTRATOR CITY OF PLYMOUTH To: Company: Phone: Fax: Peter Meyer City of Mound (952) 472-062~ O From: Company: Phone: Fax: Shane Missaghi City of PlymcL~th 763-509-5527 76,3-509-55',: Date: Pages including this cover page; COMMENTS: March 8, 2001 8 Attached is the information that you requested. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to call. Shane 3:33PM CITY OF PLYMOUTH EHG ORDINANCE NO. 95- AN ORDINANCE AMENDLNG CHAPTER X .4uN'I) ~ OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCEi~NING LAWN FERTILIZER APPLICATION CONTROL THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDA.FNS: SECTION 1. provide: CHAPTER XI of Plymou2q City Code is amended by adding Section 1170 to 1170 - Lawn Fertilizer Application Control 1170.01. Purpose.. The City has conducted s~dies and has reviewed existing data to dete.,'min¢ the current and projected water quality of various lakes wi.5-dn its communi~'. The data indicates that lake water quality may be maintained and improved if the City is able to regulate the amount of la~.n fertilizer and other chemicals entering the lakes as a result of storm water runoff or other causes. The purpose of this ordinance is to define re=mxlations which will aid the City. in managing and protecting its water resources which are enjoyed by its residents and other users. I170.02. Definitions. For the pm-pose of this sec:: :r., certain terms ar2 v,'c,:ds are defined as fellows: "Commercial Applicator" is.-~ l:¢:son who is .': -. . =. _ =: = =3d m the busLness c. ~rP,.- ,.-~ 7emhzer for hire. "Fertilizer" means a substance containing one or more recogrfized pla:_: nct~-ien:s 'J',at is u~ed for its plant nuU'ient content and designed for use or cl';aimed to have value in promoting plant ~owth. Fertilizer does not include animal and vegetab1.- manures that are ~t manipulated, marl, lime, limestone, and other products exempted by Rule by the Minnesota Cow.missioner of Agriculture. "Noncommercial Applicator" is a per,on who applies fertilizer dm4_ng tine course of emplo?ment, but who is not a commercial lawn Fertilizer ap?Sextet. "Pesticide" means a substance or mixture of substances intended to prevent, destroy, repel, or mitigate a pest, and a substance' or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant reg-ulator, defoliant or desiccant. 1170.03. Regulations for Commercial Lawn FertiLizer Applicators. Subd. 1. License Required, No person, ,,L-m, corporation or 2-~cl,Jse shall engage ir,. the business of commercial lav, n fertilizer applicator within the Ci~ un.less a license has beer. obtained from the CiR' Mar. ag~ or a designee as provided herein, Page 1 of 6 MAR, S.EO01 S:S~PM CITY O~ PLYMOUTH Subd. 2. License Application Procedure. Applicazits for a cOral-mercia] la~,~l fci~lizer al:rplicator license shall be submitted to the City Manage: or a designee. The application shall consi;t of the following: .~ppl/cation Form. Applications forms shall be provided by t.,he CiD' and shall include the folloa.'ing instructions: (1) Name, address and tclcphon¢ number of applicant and any individuals authorized to represent the applicant, (2) Description of lawn fertilizer fo~.-'mula proposed to be apFlfecl om Iawr. s within Cne Civ.'. (3) A time schedule for application oi lawn fertilizer ~:d. ide=,U2c~don of wzarher cond.it/ons acceptable for lawn fertilizer application. Co) Product Material Safety Data Sheet, A cop), of Material Sa.feD' Data Sheet, including product chemical analysis of~e imended lawn fer.'.i!izer, shall be subrrdue~ to the CiD' along ~ith the initial application for a license, and. Zereafter, at least seven days before fertilizer composition changes are implemented. (c) MLnnesota State Licenses. A copy of ail licenses required of the applicant by tee State of Mkn.nesota regarding the application of p~sficides ~d fertilizers. (d) License Fee. Thc license tee as established in Chapter 10 of the Pl~raouth CiD' Code. The license shall expkre on the 31st day of D~::mber. TEe license fee shall not be prorated. Subd. 3. Conditions of License. Commercial la~m £errilizer applicator licenses sb.~ll be issued subject to the follevdng conditions which shill be spec[fled on the lic~se form: (a) Random Sampling. Commercial lawn fertilizer ~pplicators shall perm Jr the Civ:' ~o sample any commercial lawn fertilizer applica.'.ions to be a~lied ~5~Jn ~e CiV at any th-ne after issuance of the initial license. Possession of License. The commerci-i :'~,~n £en. ilize: license, o: ~ cop>' ~ereof s~l be in the possession of my pa_u? ~'aptoye:~ b,. :he =omrr,.er¢i~ iax~u £c~JEze: applicator when mdc/rig lawn fertilizer applications MIZia 5z¢ C:b'. (c) Possession of Product Material Safety Dau Sheet. A copy of product Material Data Safety Sheet of t. he lawn fertilizer used shall be 2: the possession of any parD,' employed by the cornmercial la~m fertilizer applicator ween making lawn fertilizer applications with/n the Ci~'. (d) State R%~ulations. Licensee sh~l comply x~Sth the provisions o£ Cae Mirmesota Fertilizer and Soil Condd. fioner Law as contained in M~rmesou Stavates Sections 17.7!t through hncluding 17.729 and amendments thereto. The Iicensee shall also corn?fy ~5:h tee provisions of the Pesticide Control as contained in Ge Minnesota Statutes Ch2.pter 1 BB. Page 2 o f 6 PhosJ>hate Free Fe.,dllz:r Ordinance~ Cir.: .:.f ?,~.,mz'.. :}: ' MAR. 8.E001 3:S4PM CITY OF PLYMOUTH EMG ~0.4Z9 P.4 1170.04. General Regulations. Subd. 1. Time of Application. Neither commercial applicators or noncommercial applicators may apply lawn fertilizer when the ground is frozen or when conditions exist wkich will promote or create I'UrlOI~$o Subd. 2. Ssmple Analysis Cost. The cost of analyzing fertilizer samples taken from eornmercial applicators shall be paid by the commercial applicators if the sample analysis indicates that phosphorus content exceeds the levels authorized herein. Subd. 3. Fertilizer Content. Neither a commercial applicator nor a noncormmercial applicator shall apply any lav,'n fertilizer, Iiquid or granular, witk/n the Cis' of Plymouth which contains any amount of plmsphorous or other compound containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except: (a) the naturally occurring phosphorous in unadulterated natural or organic fertilizing products such as yard waste compost (b) or as other~'ise lxovided in Section 1170.05. Subd. 4. Impervious Surfaces and Drainage Ways, impervious surfaces: areas within drainage ditcl~s, or a'atem'ays. No person shMl apply fertilizer to Subd. 5. Buffer Zone. Fertilizers and pesticides shall not be applied: a) to emy established natural buffer zones ,2 outlined in City Wetland Ordi.r~ncc No. 95-2; b) c) below the Ordinary. High Water lines as established by the Minnesota Depa..mment of Narara. Resources; or with t.,n (10) fe~t o£any wetland or water resource. Sub& 6. Warning Signs for Pesticide Ar,...~l~catio~______~n. All commercial or noncommercial lawn fertilizer applicators who apply pesticides to turf areas must post or affix wa.ming signs on the property where the pesticides are applied. Thc ~va_m[ng sins shill comply v~izh .'.he fo'.l~'~-kng criu:5~ and conta/n the f'ollov~'lng in.formation: (a) The warning signs must project at leas: citroen (18) inches atove the top of the grass line. The warning signs must be of a mate. fi~ ~at is rain resistant for at least a forty-eight (48) hour period and must r~main in place up to forty.eight (48) hours from the time of initial application. Co) The follo'~,~ in.formation must be printed on the warning si~,s in con~'asting colors and capitalized letters measuring at least on2-half inch (1/2"), or in another Ion-nat approved by the Minnesota Commlssioner of Agriculture. The signs must proof, de the following information: (1) The name oft. he business, entitS', or person applying the pesticide; and (2) The follovdng lanTaage: "This ?-'ca cherrdcally treated. Keep children and pets off until (date of safe entry)" or a u. dvcrsally accepted symbol and text approved 'm.' . Phosphate Free Fer,"di:.:r Ordinances Mi.rmesota Commissioner of AgNculture as recogrdzcd as Wing thc same meaning or intent as specified in th/s subparagraph. The warning signs may include the name of pesticide used. The warning sign must be posted on a lawn or yard between eve (2) feet and five (5) feet from the sidewalk or street. For par};.<, golf courses, atYJet~c 5olds, playgrounds, er other similar recreational prope~': the warmng signs must be l:Osted kmmedia'.ely adjaemt to areas v~5~n the proper wtere pesticides kax'e l:cen applied ~_nd a: or ne~_~ ¢.e entrances to the property,. 1170.05. Exemption to Phosphorous Requirement, phosphorous shall not apply to: The limitation pertai~,ing to quantity of (a) newly established or developed turf and lawn areas during first growing season; or turf and lawn areas which soil tests co~wn are below phosphorous levels established by the University. of Mimaesota Extension Sera!cos. The lawn fertilizer application shall not contairt an amount of phosphorous exceecl.in5 the mount of phosr~horous Md the appropriate application rate recommended ia the soil test evaluation. Phosphorus applied as lawn fertilizer pursua.nt to the fforementioned exemptions shall be watered into the soil where it is immobilized and generally protected fi:em loss by runoff. At least 24 hours prior to applying lavm fertilizer '&.-:: exceeds the phosphates lirr2:s specified in this Chapter, the City must receive notice from the c~'.'n~ercial license ap?ii:ator of '~h-- la'am fertilize' application, the reason for exceeding the phespl'mrous 2:ni'~.:ions provicled in i~s Chapter ~d the amount of phosphorous contac, fried in *.he lawn fertilizer ta be appi~¢d. 11'/0.06. Penalty. Any person violating this Ch,-pit: shall be gu/19, of a petty rrdsdemeanor, The City may revoke a commercial applicator's license for repem violations of th.is Chapter. SECTION 2. CHAPTER X of Pl.vmouth CiD' Code is amended by add. lng Section 1010.01 sub& 7 to provide' Subd. 7. Commercial Lawn Fertilizer: Applicator License (a) $100.00, which includes the use of one vehicle (b) $ 25.00 for each vehicle used in the application of Fertilizer in the City.' of Plymouth in excess of first vehicle SECTION 3. TI'tis ordinance shall be effective ~ of january 1, 1996. ADOPTED by the Cit3' Council this day of ,199_. ATTEST: Joycel>'n H. 'I'ie.,mey, .Mayor Page 4 of 6 J~hosphate Fr~ Fe. rti!iz~r Ordinances CiO' cf ,*tymou:h MAR. ~.2~Wdl i::36PM CI]Y OF P'LYMOUTH EMG MO.4~'~ Laurie F. Ahrens: City Clerk CITY OF PL'I~IOUTH t-12ENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO, 99- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER Xl OF THE PLYMOUTH CITY CODE CONCERND,;G LAV~'N FERTILIZER APPI.ICATION CONTROL THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH ORDAINS: SECTION I. Subdivision 3 of Section 1170.04 of the Plymouth City Code is mended to read as follows: Subd. 3. Fertilizer Content. No person, fro-n, corporation, franckise, or commercial or noncommcrciaI applicator, including homeovmers or renters, shall apply any la,an fertilizer, Liquid or granular, v, iGin the City of PlymouG which contains an}, amount of phosphorous or other compound containing phosphorous, such as phosphate, except: (a) the naturally occurring phosphorous in unadulterated natural or organic fertilizing products such as yard waste compost; Co) or as otherv4se provided in Section 1170.05. SECTION 2. Section I170.05 of the Plymouth Ci~' Code is mended ro read as 1170.05. Exemption and Notice Requirement. The prohibition against use of fertilizer coring any quantity of phosphorous under Section 1170.04 shall not apply to: (a) newly established or developed tm-f and iax~n areas during first ~'o~ing sea3on; or O) turf and lawn areas which soil tests confirm arc below phosphorous levels established by Ge University of Minnesota Ex'tension Serqces. The lawn fertilizer application shall not contain an mount of phosphorous exceeding the mount of phosphorous and the appropriate application ra~e recommended in the soil test evaluation. Phosphorus applied as lav, m realizer pursuant to ~e aforementioned exemptions shall be watered into the soil where it is immobilized and generally protected firom loss by runoff. An>' person, firm, corporation, franchise, or commercial or noncommercial applicator, including a homeowner or renter, sh~ll notify the City at least 24 hours prior to applying lawn fertilizer containing phosphorous of Ge reason for using fertilizer comaining phosphorous md the arno,..'.ut of phosphorou contained in the lawn fertilizer to be applied. ....... Page'~ Of 6 Ci~' of'PO'mouth Phosphate Free Ferrlli:,~:r Ordinancex SECTION 3. Ih. is ordinance shall be effective ~_med~ately upon its passage. ADOPTED by the City Council this day of ,1999. ATTEST: Joycelyn H. Tierney, Mayor Laurie F. Akrens, City Clerk Page 6 '~f 6 Phosphate ~,ee Fertili:,er Ordt~ances Ci~' of Plymouth "-.:. : .... 'L :::u~ CiT? OF FLY'MOUTH EHG PC.z£9 F'.,E LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 Minnetonka Blvd. Deephaven, MN 55391 745-0789 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEWSLETTER Gregory S. Nybeck October 27, 2000 · Update on Special Deputy Litigation: In previous Newsletters, we have informed you that there have been a number of challenges to the authority of Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Special Deputies on Lake Minnetonka. Just to remind you, the District has been successful on all of these challenges with the exception of one, where the District Court ruled in favor of the defendant. The Distdct appealed the decision of the Distdct Court to the Minnesota Appellate Court in the fall of 1999, which resulted in the Appellate Court upholding the decision of the District Court. The District petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court earlier this year to further review the case. The Minnesota Supreme Court agreed to the petition by the District and oral arguments were heard on 5/30/00. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the lower courts and upheld the authority of Special Deputies to make arrest for boating infractions on Lake Minnetonka. Further details of the Minnesota Supreme Court ruling are available at the District office. / · .¢ncreased Water Patrol Presence for 2001 Boatinq Season: Previous communications have been forwarded to LMCD Member Cities regarding a proposal to increase Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka, 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, District staff has not received feedback from a number of LMCD Member Cities on whether they voluntarily would like to participate in this proposal for the 2001 boating season. Feel free to contact the District office if you have questions or if you would like to further discuss this proposal. Exotics Management: The 2000 EWM harvesting season commenced on 6/12/00 and continued through 9/1/00. During the season, 895.75 acres of milfoil and other aquatic plants were harvested, which included 197.00 acres of second cuts in a number of bays. During the 2000 season, there were 358.25 harvester loads, which generated 202.75 truck loads. Consistent with past years, harvesting priorities during the season were based upon impediment to public boat navigation on the open water, with higher priority given to areas of the lake that were matted. In the fall of 1999, the District established an EWM Harvesting Program Improvement Task Force to evaluate the program to investigate improvements for the 2000 season. The first recommendation of this Task Force was the purchase of a new aquatic plant harvester. This harvester, which was delivered to Lake Minnetonka on 7/14/00, greatly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the program. Other recommendations of this Task Force, which were implemented during the 2000 season, include: 1)launching the harvesters in the water earlier, 2) operating five harvesters rather than four, 3) operating these harvesters for a greater number of hours during what has been typically been the peak season, and 4) operating a skeleton harvesting crew from mid August through at least Labor Day. The District plans on reassembling this Task Force this fall to further review the 2000 season and to make recommendations on how to improve the program for the 2001 season. Feel free to contact the District office if you would like a copy of the 2000 EWM Final Harvesting Report. The District launched a zebra mussel billboard campaign this past May at four Lake Minnetonka locations. Additionally, District staff worked with EWM/Exotics Task Force Chair Herb Suerth on the distribution of an educational poster and informational brochures at commercial facilities around Lake Minnetonka. The threat of BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dal31en Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Lili McMillan Orono Tom Skramstad Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland ,i~eldon Wert Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · DEEPHAVEN. MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 · FAX 612/745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR September 12, 2000 TO: FROM: LMCD Mayors and Council Members LMCD Member Cities LMCD Board of Directors Interested Parties Bert Foster, LMCD Vice Chairman Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director SUBJECT: Update on Proposal for Adding Two Water Patrol Deputies for 2001 Boating Season In the attached letter, dated 7/24/00, the LMCD brought to your attention a proposal for a way to increase Hennepin County Shedffs Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka, for the 2001 boating season, by two full-time Deputies. We requested feedback from the LMCD member cities, by R/15/00, on two questions relating to this proposal. These were: 1) whether the member cities would support an increase of Water Patrol presence for the 2001 boating season, and 2) whether the member cities would be willing to share in some of the costs for it. Overwhelmingly, the member cities have indicated that they support an increase in Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka. Many cities indicated a willingness to share some of the cost and two cities had some concems regarding cost sharing. The comments received from these two member cities included: 1) Lake Minnetonka is a regional amenity and that that increased presence of Water Patrol should be funded at Hennepin County level, and 2) there is a need to provide justification for increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka. A meeting was held at the Hennepin County Shedff's Water Patrol Headquarters on Thursday, 8/24/00, to discuss the proposal, to review and address the feedback received from LMCD member cities, and to further define the details of the proposal. There was a wide range of local and regional representation at this meeting, including: · Hennepin County Commissioner Penny Steele · Tom Church, Principal Assistant to Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambornino · Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour, Shorewood Mayor Woody Love, and Spring Park Mayor Jerry Rockvam · Four staff members of Hennepin County Shedff's Office · Four staff members from LMCD member cities · LMCD Directors Foster and UcUillan, and LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck After significant discussion, three key points were identified that justify the need for increased Water presence. They include: 1. A cultural chanqe of boating activities on Lake Minnetonka. The boats are larger, are driven in a manner that make larger waves, and are sometimes ddven by people who do no know the rules of the road and courteous operation. There seems to be an increase in aggressive operation on some boats of all sizes with a disregard for the law and their effect 50% Recycled Content Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-Imcd/ 20% Post Consumer Waste E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT on others. This cultural change has resulted in increased concems by the public, including dpadan owners and watercraft operators. This has resulted in a reduced quality of the experience of those that recreate on Lake Minnetonka. The group felt that this situation could be improved by increased Water Patrol presence by having increased patrol hours. 2. Si¢lnificantly reduce patrol hours due to increased complexity of processing violators. A BWI arrest, that used to take a Deputy off patrol for an hour to process the offender, now can take four to six hours. The increased processing time results from laws created to protect the rights of the public and has affected cdminal investigations. Arrests on the water, which are more difficult than land, now take much more time, which results in fewer actual patrol hours. The end result is less visible presence of the Water Patrol on the Lake. 3. The nc, cd to prepare for the Special Deputy litigation currently at the Minnesota State Supreme Court. Historically, the Water Patrol has supplemented their full-time, licensed Deputies with 30 volunteer special deputies. These special deputies man patrol boats, make stops, and issue tickets. They average approximately 250 hours of volunteer time per year; however, their authority to "investigate" has been challenged in court and is currently at the Minnesota Supreme Court. If the ruling goes against the Water Patrol, there will be a serious reduction in Water Patrol presence on the Lake. The group felt that the increase of two licensed paid Deouties would De at least some protection in the case of an adverse ruling. In the case of a fav~)rable ruling, the two new deputies would have the needed effect of increased patrol hours. ue group decided to try to estab sha two-year funding commitment, for $100,000 per year, to be ed exclusively for two additional Water Patrol Deputies to patrol Lake Minnetonka beg nning in the 2001 boating season. None of these funds have been voted upon, but the proposed breakdown is as follows: · 50% from Hennepin County. · 30% from the LMCD Member Cities. · 20% from the LMCD "Save the Lake' Fund (Private contributions resulting from LMCD solicitation letters). The LMCD member cities would need to fund the proposed $30,000 through voluntary contributions for 2001. For 2002, it could be funded either through voluntary contributions or by adjusting the LMCD levy to its member cities in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Section 103B.635. The increased levy would require adoption of a resolution by % of the member cities (11 of 14). Details of how much each member city would be levied, using the LMCD formula outlined in Minnesota Statutes 103B.635, is detailed in the attached spreadsheet. We are asking each city to add the amount shown on the attached spreadsheet to their 2001 budget. If the other sources of revenue do not become available, the LMCD will rethink the plan and be back to each group. Please feel free to call the LMCD Executive Director if you have questions. ITl × BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Bert Foster Vice Chair, Deephaven Eugene Partyka Secretary, Minnetrista Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Andrea Ahrens Mound Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Greg Kitchak Minnetonka Uli McMillan Crone Tom Skramstad Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland ,Sheldon Wed Greenwood 50% Recycled Conten! 20% Pos! Consumer Waste LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD. · BEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 612/745-0789 - FAX 612/745-9085 Gregory S, Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR July 24, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: LMCD Mayors and Councilmembers LMCD Member Cities Interested Parties Douglas Babcock, LMCD Chairman ~,~/~,_.~ ~/~.~/~ Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director Increase in Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka During the past year, the LMCD Board of Directors, the LMCD member cities, other agencies and interested parties, have been reviewing Lake Minnetonka's activity levels and changes in usage patterns. Notable changes have occurred in the area of charier boat licensing, specifically the increase to our maximum allowed number of full liquor licenses; and in area of increased size and scope of weekend anchoring at the north side of Big Island, including numerous, large, semi-organized events for which no LMCD Special Event permit was obtained. The Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Division was especially concerned about the lack of Public Safety access to the Big Island area during these weekend timeframes. While some action has been taken by the District to help achieve a better balance for alt users and uses, like adding marked navigation lanes to the Big Island area, there still are a number of concems being discussed by agencies and the public at large. The current concerns all hays brought forward a common thread, the need for increased law enforcement presence on the Lake, particularly during the summer season. Those of us familiar with the current state of enforcement on the Lake can easily conclude that the current levels and types of enforcement provided by the Water Patrol are of high quality and are very cost effective, especially when recognizing the volunteer Special Deputy program. But, we can also see that increasing full- time enforcement levels by during the summer months would do a great deal to improve th~, consistency of enforcement and the quality of experience for all aspects of lake use. At the June 28th regular meeting of the LMCD Board of Directors, a presentation was made by Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour proposing the need to explore additional Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka. A suggested course of action was to increase the presence by two full time Deputies, for'five months, for the 200t boating season. After significant discussion, the attached LMCD Resolution 99 was adopted by the LMCD at this meeting. Two objectives are established in LMCD Resolution 99. They include: 1) the LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially funded by the LMCD, the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be beneficial to Lake Minnetonka, and 2) the LMCD would agree to be the lead agency, in this type of endeavor. Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/-tmcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT This proposal and resolution was carded forward to the Mayors meeting on June 30th, which included a wide range of local, regional and state representation. Representation included State Senator Gen Olson, State Representative Barb Sykora, Hennepin County Commissioner Penny Steele, a representative of Hennepin County Commissioner Mary Tambomip. o, and a number of Mayors from the Lake Minnetonka communities. The general consensus of those present at this meeting believed the idea made good sense and that it should be considered for the 2001 boating season. It was also agreed that any increase in enforcement should be in addition to maintaining the levels of funding and enforcement currently provided by the Water Patrol. In no way was any new program to shift the current levels and funding of enforcement from Hennepin County to the Cities. To keep the momentum moving forward on this proposal and to assist the cities with 2001 budget planning, the LMCD would like feedback from its member communities on it by Tuesday, August 15th. Specifically, we are looking for whether the member cities would support an increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season and whether they are willing to share in the costs for it. Possible funding mechanisms for the member cities to consider include voluntary contributions or by adjusting the maximum the LMCD can levy to its member cities in Minnesota Statutes 103t3.635 by adoption of a resolution of % of the member cities (10 of 14 cities). It is estimated that the total costs for the increased presence of the Water Patrol for the 2001 boating season would be approximately $100,000. The share of the costs for each individual city would be determined using the existing LMCD levy formula. If a majority of cities were in support this proposal, the LMCD would create and lead a task force to formulate and finalize the details of this program. It would be our intent to present the results of the task force to all the member cities for approval before requesting any specific funding amounts for 2001. Please feel free to call LMCD Executive Director Greg Nybeck if you have questions or concerns regarding this proposal. Your timely response is greatly appreciated! LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERYATION DISTRICT RESOLUTION 99 RESOLUTION TO INCREASE HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S WATER PATROL PRESENCE ON LAKE MINNETONKA WHEREAS, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Board (LMCD) of Directors received public testimony and discussed the need for increased public safety on Lake Minnetonka at its June 28, 2000 Regular meeting; and WHEREAS, the LMCD Board of Directors discussed the idea of increasing the presence of Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Deputies by two during the 2001 boating season for five months; and WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol, working through a joint and cooperative agreement with the LMCD that is renewed annually, is authorized to enforce the provisions of the LMCD ordinances by the issuance of citations and such other means as permitted by state law; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: The LMCD believes that a supplemental law enforcement program, partially funded by each the LMCD, the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be beneficial to Lake Minnetonka. Adopted the .28th day of_June, 2000. The LMCD would agree to be the lead agency in this type of endeavor. Douglas Babcock, Chair ATTEST: FROM: DATE: SLrBggCT: A l¢~ez came om fi-om th~ LMCD to ali membex cities today ~~ ~ for ~onm ~e~E Co~ S~s Wm~ Pa~l price on L~ M~eton~. ~ le~ ~ i: ~sp~e ~ a p~po~ I ~ m ~e ~ 28 LMCD ~g, ~d w~ch ~ ~ ~s~ss~ m a ~e.~ea h is very- important tim, ~s :you review the proposal, it is clear that the i:~roposal in¥olves three $ouree~ of/k:ndi=s as follows: a. 33% fi.m8.~ By the LMCD ,0,-i~h~, its eurrem levl,,'. b. 33% fuad~ by ~e LMCD memb~ ei~ies, Given a projected coat ors100,000, tt~ Lake .~-e.~ Cities wo~djoinfly contribute $33,000 of the total cost If you have my ClUeStiens regarding th~ pmtmsaI, please do not hesitate r.o call me. AUG 0 2 2000 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT August 18, 2000 TO: FROM: Board of Directors Greg Nybeck, Executive Director SUJECT: Update on increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minntonka from member cities At the 6/28/00 Regular meeting, the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Board of Directors received a presentation from Orono Mayor Gabriel Jabbour regarding the need to explore additional Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season. The proposed course of action was to increase presence on Lake Minnetonka by two full-time Deputies, for five months, at a cost of approximately $100,000. The LMCD Board suppoded the proposal from Mayor Jabbour and adopted LMCD Resolution 99 at the 6/28/00 meeting. This proposal was also discussed at the 6/30/00 Mayors meeting, with a general consensus that it made sense and should be considered for the 2001 boating season. The attached letter from Chair Babcock, dated 7~24~00, was forwarded to the member cities asking for feedback from them on the proposal. Specifically, the letter asks whether the member cities would support an increase of Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season and whether they are willing to share in the costs for it. The letter requested feedback to the District office by Tuesday, 8/15/00. The attached follow-up letter, dated 7/25/00, was also forwarded to the member cities from Mayor Jabbour on the proposal. Because the 8/15/00 deadline for comments from the member cities has come and gone, staff would like to update the Board on feedback received. Written feedback was received from the Cities of Excelsior, Minnetonka Beach, Minnetrista, Mound, Mound, and Wayzata. Additionally, verbal feedback was received from the Cities of Greenwood, Orono, and Spring Park. Staff has attached a copy of the letters received, for your review, from the member cities that have provided written feedback. Based on the feedback received, staff believes the majority of the member cities, that have provided feedback, support increased Water Patrol presence on Lake Minnetonka for the 2001 boating season. Staff is not clear on the position of the City of Mound on this issue. With regards to whether they are willing to share in the costs of the proposal, there are mixed responses from the member cities. The Cities of Greenwood, Minnetonka Beach, Orono, Spring Park, Tonka Bay, and Wayzata have indicated that they would be willing to share in the costs of this proposal. The Cities of Excelsior, Minnetrista, and Mound have indicated that they would not be willing to share in the costs of this proposal. Prior to the 8/23/00 Regular meeting, staff will attempt to get feedback from the member cities that have not responded to the proposal. Staff believes the Board needs to discuss what direction the District would like to take this proposal based on the feedback received from the member cities. August 8, 2000 Greg Nybeck Executive Director Lake Mi~metonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, Mim~esota 55331 CITY OF EXCELSIOR 339THIRD STREET EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 TEL: 952-474-5233 FAX: 952-474-6300 Dear Greg: On August 8, the Excelsior City Council reviewed the LMCD's and Mayor Gabriel Jabbour's proposals regarding an increased law enforcement program on Lake Mim~etonka. The Council endorsed an LMCD-led effort to develop an increased law enforcement program on Lake Mim~etonka, and supported the idea of creating a task force or corrma_irtee to do so. The Council also stated that it would not support the notion that municipalities around Lake Mirmetonka should pay anything toward an increased presence of the Hermepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol on the lake. It believed that Hermepin County should pay to meet its obligation for the increased need to provide law enforcement services. Council did not want to "mix budgets" with the County's and others' revenues for what would appear to be the new required level of Water Patrol services. Please call if you would like clarification or elaboration on the Council's action. Sincerely, Cr on City lV~ager /iUG 1 0 2000 CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH RESOLUTION 2000-23 Resolution to Support the LMCD'$ Request To Increase Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol Presence on Lake Minnetonkn 2000 Pursuit to due cai1 md not, ce thereofi a regular meeting oft. he City Council of the City of the Villa. ge ofM. innetonka Beach, Minnesota was held on the 14t~ day of.~ugu~ 2000. The following members were present: Mayor Mike Bloom, Council Members Cn~oh, M~thews, Left and Treasurer Salvog. Council Member Left introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: Wherea~. the LMCD believes th~ a supplemental law enforcement program, parfiall:/ funded by each, *.he LMCD, the member cities, and the private sector is needed and would be beneficial to Lake Minnet. onka~ and ~ow, Chcreforc~ be it re~olved that the City Council of the Villnge of ~MJnnetonkn Beach does hereby support the LMCD's request to increase the presence of Hermepin County Sheriffs Water Patrol Deputies by obtaining additional funding ~orn the member cities, as well as other sources, provided that the additional deputies are dedicated solely to Lake Minnetonkz. The motion for adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by Council Member Gasch and, upon vote being taken thereon, th." foIloMng voted in favor *,hereof: Gasck, Left, Mathcws. Thc following voted against or abstained: None. Whereupon the resolution was declared duly passed and adopted this 14th day of August 20tXi. ATTEST: Mike Bloom, Mayor ,- Mtrilyn Regmer, City Clerk Date M u n i cipa 10ffi c 7701 C()ur~ty Road IlO Minne~risla, MN 55364-9552 11 -Aug-00 Greg Nybeck, Executive Director Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Boulevard Deephaven, MN 55391 RE: Funding for increased water patrol on Lake Minnetonka Greg: As we discussed on the phone Tuesday, 8/8/00, the Minnetrista City Council is not supportive of Lake Area cities paying for most of the cost of increased patrol time on Lake Minnetonka, as referenced in your 7124100 letter. Because Lake Minnetonka is a regional amenity and used by people from the greater area, there was Council support for Hennepin County to fund this proposed increase in patrol time. Please let me know if you need anything further. Si,~~ely, T~iVm/Cruikshank City Administrator CITY OF MOUND M]~MO ~341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNEE, O'fA 5S384.1687 ~;1~ 472-0800 FAX (612) 472..062(3 DATE: TO: FROM: August 9, 2000 Douglas Babcock, LMCD Chairman Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director Mayor Pat Melsei Mound City Council Members Kandis Hanson, City Manager Increased Water Patrol on Lake Minnetonka At it's August 8, 2000 meeting, the Mound City Council considered LMCD Resolution 99 requesiing LMCD member cities to subsidize thc cost of two additional pal~ol officers for Lake Minnetoaka, in the amount of $100,000.00. Members voted to not support the reso!udom l%int #1. It is the opinion of the Council that any increase in problems caused directly by charter boats and liquor consumption on charter boats may be directly eonmolled by LMCD. A,s the licensing agency, LMCD may control the quantity and type of operation with no increase in law enforcement costs to member cities. Violations could be addressed ttn-ough the licensing controls. Should these commercial operations in some way create the need for more polic: presence, those eom should be passed directly through to t. he licensee in the form of higher fees. It is not thc role of the City of Mound to subsidize private business in this manner. ~ It is the opinion oft. he City of Mound Council that this proposal is the result of a recent litigation thai has reduced the authority of water patrol volunteers. That outr~me is not the responsibility of local municipalities; that is a Hennepin Couaty problem. Point #3~ Over the years, Lake Minnetonka municipalities have been subjected to mandates for more accesses and more parking. These mandates have increased parking congestion and have otherwise squeezed the City of Mound, with no accompanying'. means of relief. This, too, is a regional problem, that has been made the burden ofi~ :':i~.. Page: Date: Subj: Two August 9, 2000 Increased Water Patrol on Lake Minnetonka locality. It is the opinion of the Council that those agencies that place requi~'ements on municipalities should bear the burden of the impacts. Point ~t4. It is a fact that cities surrounding Lake Mirmetonka pay a ~eater share of the tax u~d to regulate Lake M. innetonka already. It is the opinion oft. he Council thai marketing schemes tha~ draw consumers from well outside the Mound area should be funded by the users (i.e., licensing fees or surcharges) which, in turn, will fund the cost of increased water patrol. Licensing requirements could, in fact, require hired marine patrol as a condition of permit approval. LMCD member cities should not be expected to pay for increased law enfcrcement for these types ofiake activities. Point #5. If ~,is increase were to pass by rnajor/ty vote of/he LMCD membership, the City of Mom'ad has two remaining concerns. 1) Ii is critical that the two additional officers be dedicated 'co Lake Minnetorfica and ~hat :here are assurances that existing water patrol on Lake Mirmetonka not be rotat~ ta other locations. 2) An alert that LMCD's 33% participation in th/s program wi/1 result in a loss of services to member cities otherwise provided by those smme dollars. For these reasons, ~e City of Mound is opposed to supl~rting LMCD Resolution 99. Should you have ~arr. her questions or wish farther discussion, you are invited to contact the CiB~ Manager or v/sit witch Cou~,cil Members at a regularly scheduled meeting. Cc: City of Tonka Bay City of Deephaven City of Mirmetrista City of Spring Park City of Wayzata Cji3, of Minnetonka Beach City of Victoria Ci~' of Excelsior City. of Minnetonka City of Orono City of Shorewood City of Woodland City of Greenwood AUG I 0 2000 'Au~c'lS-O0 08:35A P.O1 490! Manilou Road, Tonka Bay, Minnesota 55331 (952) 474-799~, MAYOR Duu9 Keller UOUNC, IL Guy Sasanl~r John Se near, ail Jucld Mown/. Julia Newberry ADMIN IST~q A'FOR July 28, 2000 Mr, Grog Nybeck, Exec. Dir. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District 18338 Minnetonka Btvd. Deephaven MN 55331-3232 Dear Grog: At their regular meeting of July 25, 2000, the Tonka Bay City Council agreed 1o support, the LMCD's proposal to add additional police protection on Lake Minnetonka and to contribute financially. We look forward to hearing from you as plans to add the additional officers become better defined. if after reviewing this you have any questions, please contact me at 47'4-7994. Sincerely, Robert Rys u City Administrator RS:cfi AUG ,=ax (952) 47'4-6538- E-mAll: cltTof~on~<abay~aol.cnm City of Wayzata 6(}0 Rice Slrcct Wayzala. MN 55391-1799 Hennepin County Board of Commissioners A2400 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0240 Dear Commissioners: Council Members: l~,ohcrl R(~h.yn ( A,.I,cw I tumphrcy .h,~cph Mc('m'lhy Cily Allan (h'scn AUG I am writing on behalf of the Wayzata City Council to request your support for County assistance to address a critical safety issue on Lake Minnetonka. At its August 8th meeting, the Wayzata City Council discussed the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District's (LMCD) request for LMCD member cities to subsidize the cost of two additional water patrol officers for Lake Minnetonka. Although further details and clarification is needed from the LMCD before the Wayzata City Council can make a formal decision, the Council recognizes the need for additional water patrol staffing in response to the emerging public safety issue on Lake Minnetonka. The Wayzata Council is very concerned about the impact of the court's recent decision to limit the enforcement authority of the volunteer water patrol deputies. We all know from experience that for many people rules and regulations are only as good as the perceived level of enforcement. Thus, if enforcement efforts decrease while boat traffic continues to increase, the concern is that the public's safety on Lake Minnetonka will become more at risk. The Wayzata City Council understands that public safety on Lake Minnetonka is currently the primary responsibility of the Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol. We also feel that the financial impact from the increased traffic from boaters who live off of Lake Minnetonka should not be paid by an increased burden on the tax base of the cities surrounding Lake Minnetonka. However, we also realize the complexity of financing public safety services on Lake Minnetonka. Thus, the Wayzata City Council is willing, in the spirit of intergovernmental cooperation, to consider a one-year financial contribution for two additional water patrol deputies as long as the County Board commits to alternative long-term financial solutions that will reduce the burden on the general Lake Minnetonka area tax base for future funding increases. One long-term suggestion to consider would be to follow the policy at the Hennepin County parks where there is no fee for using the lake for swimming/fishing or using the trails, slides, swings, etc. but there is a fee to park your car. Similarly, LMCD member cities could require a Hennepin County park permit in order to park a boat trailer near a Lake Minnetonka public landing. Unlike County parks where County employees enforce the permit requirements, local police departments could be responsible for enforcing the permit requirements. The purpose of a City/County parmership would be to generate a Phone: 952-473-0234 Fax: 952-404-53 I8 e-mail: city~,wayzata.org home page: www. wayzata.o fair, reasonable and efficient source of revenue that could be used by the County to offset the increased costs of additional water patrol of-fleers on Lake Minnetonka. Thank you for your time and consideration. If you have any questions regarding this request, please do not hesitate to call me at 375-0336. Sinc Mayor, City of Wayzata Cc~ Douglass Babcock, LMCD Chairman Greg Nybeck, LMCD Executive Director LMCD member cities State Senator Martha Robertson State Representative Ron Abrahrns AUG £ 5 2000 LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLICE 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 DATE: 3/9/01 TO: IC&NDIS I-L~.NSON CC: ~L-kYOR MEISEL FROM: CHIEF LEN HARRELL < RE: WATER PATROL ISSUE -( Attached is the letter that was originally prepared when we were notified of the reduction in services by the Hennepin County, Sheriff's Office. I am still concerned that we are being requested to help support additional officers on the Lake at a time when we have needs for additional personnel that we have not been able to fund within our depa~m-~ent. ! need not remind you that our tax payers already pay county and city taxes for the services for which we are each responsible. Many years the county has increased taxes at a rate of more than double the city increase and then has also "passed on" increases in our booking fees and jail fees. Our radio costs are going to dramatically increase in the next eighteen months due to the new 800MgH radio system to be implemented and I expect that with the new jail we could also see some significant increases. I have requested a report from Lt. Schilling, at Water Patrol, regarding the demographics of where their enforcement activi~ has been most concentrated. I have been advised that he has statistics for enforcement on the entire Lake but not by specific areas of the Lake. My belief is that the bulk of their activity is around Big Island, Fletchers, The Mist, and the larger marinas on the Lake. Lt. Schilling will be checking on providing the demographic with their headquarters and was advised that the information was needed by Tuesday. I want to emphasize that we have a great working relationship with the Sheriff's Office and nothing in this memo should infer any discontent. The issue is limited dollars! October 27, 2000 Sheriff Patrick D. McGowan Hennepin County Sheriff Room 6 Courthouse 350 South Fifth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 Dear SheriffMcGowan: The city council for the City of Mound recently reviewed your letter of September 25, 2000 at our council meeting and felt compelled to notify you of our displeasure with the decision to discontinue transport service at night. The decision will significantly impact the smaller communities in Hennepin County who may only have one officer working and depend on the transport service. The impact for the City of Mound is that police officers would be "unavailable" for an additional hour to an hour and a half per transport. According to police department records, there were approximately thirty transports downtown in the first nine months of this year. Figuring for an entire year, the additional cost to our community could average over $5,000 in lost officer time. This is a significant concern for our community! It seems incongruent that the opening of the new Public Safety Facility should be done at the expense of other services previously provided. We have all had to deal with challenging budget constraints and now well into our process are notified of shortfalls at the county exacerbating our own challenges within the city. Sincerely, Patricia Meisel Mayor of Mound Cc: County Commissioners ---! February 22, 2001 Ms. Kandis Hanson, City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 SUBJECT: City of Mound Revised Dock Map MFRA #08905 Dear Kandis: At the request of Councilmember Mark Hanus, we have prepared an estimated cost to provide revised mapping which would more accurately represent the non-contiguous shoreline used by the City to calculate their Boat Storage Units (BSU). The aerial photography done by Mark Hurd in April of 2000 for Hennepin County would be used as the base information. Additional horizontal and vertical control would be furnished by our office as required by Mark Hurd. This information would be collected using MFRA's GPS data collection system. Mark Hurd would then use this data to delineate a line with distances along the shoreline at the OHW elevation of 929.4. They believe that this line can be established within a tolerance of 0.10 feet where the actual ~ound is visible from the aerial photography. In areas of heavy ground cover, where the shoreline at the 929.4 elevation is not totally visible, they can only provide their best estimation of the location of the OHW. If critical, these areas would need to be field verified. The data generated by Mark Hurd would be furnished to the City in digital format and could be combined with the database provided by Hennepin County. MFRA, with our present software and printing capabilities, can furnish the necessary maps. Hennepin County has previously notified the City that colored digital photo imagery will be available at a minimal charge from the 2 :~00 Mark Hurd aerial photography. The 929.4 contour line could also be overlayed on these colored orthophotos. The following is an estimate of the costs to provide the City with the finished product as previously described. This estimate does not include any field verification of the delineated OHW line. ?' "d' *'.', :','77 'g ' ' Ms. Kandis Hanson February._. '~ '~ 2001 Page 2 Mark Hurd MFRA - Photo Control MFRA - Produce Maps Estimated Total Cost If you have any question or need additional information, please contact us. Sincerely, MFRA John Cameron, City Engineer JC:rth cc: Mark Hanus Jim Fackler, Parks Director s:~ main :~.mou08905',correspondence'~han son2-20 S 5,500 5,000 3,500 S 14,000 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 Minnetrista Craig Eggers Victoria Tom Gilman Excelsior Herb J. Suerth Woodtand Katy Van Hercke Minnetonka Sheldon Wert Greenwood LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 18338 MINNETONKA BLVD.. DEEPHAVEN, MINNESOTA 55391 · TELEPHONE 952,r'745-0789 ' FAX 952'745-9085 Gregory S. Nybeck. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR February 7, 2001 Mr. Jim Fackler Park Director City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 RE: LMCD Budget Dear Mr. Fackler: In your letter of January 5, 2001, you requested that the LMCD provide you with a description of the services provided by the LMCD to the City, of Mound for the annual fee it pays. I should first note that the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District is not a joint powers organization of the cities around Lake Minnetonka. Rather, it is an autonomous, specio' purpose political subdivision of the state created by the state legislature with powers ant duties specified in state law. A copy of this law, Minnesota Statutes Section 103B.601 to 103B.645 (the District's "Enabling Act"), is attached for your information. The Enabling Act requires the District to prepare a budget for its activities. A copy of the District's budget for the year 2001 is attached. As you can see, the budget is not divided into services provided to individual cities around the lake. For example, a substantial part of the revenues of the District are expended in the harvesting of Eurasian Watermilfoil. The Board believes that this effort benefits all of the cities around the lake, but no effort has been made to quantify the benefit to any one city' in monetary, terms. 50°° Recycled Content 20°° Post Consumer Waste A si,mfificant source of revenue for the District is fees charged for various licenses and permits. As is generally the case with license and permit fees charged by cities, these fees are set at a level that will pay the administrative costs (staff time, publications, expenses and the like) associated with the permit issuance and administration of the permitting program. This reduces the burden on taxpayers who pay the taxes levied by the cities to support LMCD activities, and places the burden on the parties whose activities cause the District to incur these administrative expenses for the dock licensing programs. The same applies when the applicant paying the fees is a city,. Cities that do not hav municipal docks are not generally required to support administration of the licensing CLL-192402v I LK110-4 Web Page Address: http://www.tmcd.org E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT program for municipal docks in other cities. Recently the City of Mound has applied for a number of variances and dock license amendments that will result in the costs incurred by the District being charged to the City. That cost will be paid entirely by Mound rather than other cities around the lake, just as other cities have paid the costs for their applications in past years with no contribution from Mound. I hope that this explanation is helpful. If you have any further questions about the District's budget, revenues or expenses, please feel free to call. Thank you for your efforts to save the lake. Very truly yours, Bert Foster, Chairman LMCD Board of Directors CLL-192402v 1 LK1104 103B.641 Regulations of district. Subdivision 1. Authority and effect. (a) The district may adopt rules and regulations to effectuate the purpose of its establishment and the powers granted to the district. (b) The rules and regulations have the effect of an ordinance if declared by the board of directors of the district and stated in the rule or regulation. (c) The rules and regulations of the district may be enforced by the district by injunction in'addition to penalties under this section. Subd. 2. Adoption procedure. (a) A rule or regulation must be suitably titled. (b) A rule or regulation must be adopted by a majority vote of all of the members of the board of directors. The adopted rule or regulation must be signed by the chair, attested by the secretary of the board, and published once in an official newspaper. (c) Proof of publication must be attached to and filed with the rule or regulation. Each rule and regulation must be recorded in the rule and regulation book by 20 days after its publication. Subd. 3. Penalty. A person who violates a rule or regulation that has the force and effect of an ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a sentence of not more than 90 days plus costs or a fine of not more than $100 plus costs. 103B.645 Prosecution of violations. Subdivision 1. Complaint for violation. A prosecution for a violation of a rule or regulation shall be brought in the name of the district upon complaint and warrant as in other criminal cases. If the accused is arrested without a warrant, a written complaint shall be made, to which the accused shall be required to plead, and a warrant shall issue on the complaint. The warrant and all other process in such cases shall be directed for service to a police officer, court officer, marshal, constable, or sheriff of any of the municipalities in the district. Subd. 2. Complaint. It is a sufficient pleading of the rules and regulations of the district to refer to them by section and number or chapter, or any other way that clearly reflects the rules and regulations that are the subject of the pleading. The rules and regulations shall have the effect of general laws within the district and need not be given in evidence upon the trial of an action. Subd. 3. Appeal to district court. Appeals may be taken from the district court in the same manner as from judgments in civil actions. 103B.625 Executive d/rector. Subdivision 1. Appointment. The board may appoint an executive director for the district. The executive director shall serve at the pleasure of the board and shall receive compensation as determined by the board. Subd. 2. Duties and powers. Under the supervision of the board, the executive director: (1) is the executive and operating officer of the district; (2) is responsible for the operation, management, and promotion of all activities with which the district is charged and other duties prescribed by the board; and (3) has the powers necessarily incident to the performance of the duties of the executive director and other powers granted by the board, but without authority to incur liability or make expenditures on behalf of the district without general or specific directions by the board, as shown by the bylaws or minutes of its meetings. 103B.631 Performance of duties and expenses. Subdivision 1. Duties may beperformedbymunicipal employees. The duties of the district may be executed by employees of the municipalities. Subd. 2. Expenses. The expenses of the district shall be borne by the municipalities. The portion of the expenses of the district borne by each municipality must be in proportion to its net tax capacity provided that the portion of any one municipality may not be'more than 20 percent of the total expense or less than $200. 103B.635 Funcling of d/strict. Subdivision 1. Budget. The board must, on or before July 1 each year, prepare and submit a detailed budget of the district's needs for the next calendar year to the governing body of each municipality in the district with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each municipality. The governing body of each municipality in the district shall review the budget and the board, upon notice from a municipality, must hear objections to the budget. After the hearing, the board may modify or amend the budget. Notice must be given to the municipalities of modifications or amendments. Subd. 2. Municipal funcling of d/strict. (a) The governing body or board of supervisors of each municipality in the district must provide the funds necessary to meet its proportion of the total cost determined by the board, provided the total funding from all municipalities in the district for the costs shall not exceed an amoun~ equal to .00242 percent of the total taxable market value within the district, unless three-fourths of the municipalities in the district pass a resolution concurring to the additional costs. ~ (b) The funds must be deposited in the treasury of the district in amounts and at times as the treasurer of the district requires. 103B.615 District officers. Subdivision 1. Election and terms. (a) The board shall elect from its membership a chair to serve for a period of one year and shall also elect a secretary and a treasurer. (b) The officers hold office at the pleasure of the board. Subd. 2. Compensation. The board shall fix the compensation of the officers. Subd. 3. Other officers and -~loyees. The board may appoint other officers, agents, and employees who shall perform duties and receive compensation as the board determines and are removable at the pleasure of the board. 103B.621 Treasurer. Subdivision 1. Bond. Before taking office, the treasurer shall give bond to the district in an amount to be determined by the board. Subd. 2. Duties. (a) The treasurer shall receive and is responsible for all money of the district. The money of the district shall be considered public funds. (b) The treasurer shall disburse the funds of the district in accordance with rules of the board. Subd. 3. Investments. (a) If there are funds not currently needed, the treasurer may invest the funds in treasury bonds, certificates of indebtedness, bonds or notes of the United States of America, or bonds, notes or certificates of indebtedness of the state of Minnesota. The bonds, certificates, or notes must mature by three years from the date of purchase. If the board determines that invested funds are needed for current purposes before the maturity dates of the bonds, certificates, or notes, the board shall notify the treasurer and the treasurer shall order the sale or convert the bonds, certificates, or notes into cash in the amount determined by the board. (b) The interest and profit on investments shall be credited to and constitute a part of the funds of the district. Subd. 4. Financial stat--~nt. The treasurer shall keep an account of the funds received and disbursed. At least once a year at times designated by the board, the treasurer must file a financial statement with the municipalities forming the district showing in appropriate and identifiable groupings: (1) the receipts and disbursements since the last approved financial statement; (2) the money on hand; (3) the purposes for which the money of the district is appropriated; (4) an account of all bonds, certificates, or notes purchased and the funds from which they were purchased; and (5) the interest and profit that has accrued from investments. Subd. 5. Compensation for clerks. The district may pay to the treasurer compensation to cover hiring clerks to carry out the treasurer's duties. Subd. 3. Powers. Subject to the provisions of chapters 97A, 103D, 103E, 103G, and 115, and the rules and regulations of the respective agencies and governing bodies vested with jurisdiction and authority under those chapters, the district has the following powers: (1) to regulate the types of boats permitted to use the lake and set service fees; (2) to regulate, maintain, and police public beaches, public docks, and other public facilities for access to the lake within the territory of the municipalities, provided that a municipality may supersede the district's action under this clause by adopting an ordinance specifically referring to the district's action by one year after the district's action; (3) to limit by rule the use of the lake at various times and the use of various parts of the lake; (4) to regulate the speed of boats on the lake and the conduct of other activities on the lake to secure the safety of the public and the most general public use; (5) to contract with other law enforcement agencies to police the lake and its shore; (6) to regulate the construction, installation, and maintenance of permanent and temporary docks and moorings consistent with federal and state law; (7) to regulate the construction and use of mechanical and chemical means of deicing the lake and to regulate mechanical and chemical means of removal of weeds and algae from the lake; (8) to regulate the construction, configuration, size, location, and maintenance of commercial marinas and their related facilities including parking areas and sanitary facilities. The regulation shall be consistent with the applicable municipal building codes and zoning ordinances where the marinas are located; (9) to contract with other governmental bodies to perform any of the functions of the district; (10) to undertake research to determine the condition and development of the lake and the water entering it and to transmit their studies to the pollution control agency and other interested authorities, and to develop a comprehensive program to eliminate pollution; (11) to receive financial assistance from and join in projects or enter into contracts with federal and state agencies for the study and treatment of pollution problems and demonstration programs related to them; and (12) to petition the board of managers of a watershed district in which the lake conservation district is located for improvements under section 103D.705; a bond is not required of the lake conservation district. Subd. 4. Bylaws and board procedures. The board shall adopt a seal, bylaws for the regulation of the affairs of the district, and rules of procedure to govern the board's actions that are consistent with law. Minnesota Statutes 1998, 103B.601 Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Statutes 1998, Table of Chapters Table of contents for Chapter 103B 103B.601 Definitions. Subdivision 1. Applicability. The definitions in this section apply to sections 103B.601 to 103B.645. Subd. 2. Board. "Board" means the governing board of the directors of the district. Subd. 3. District. "District" means the Lake Minnetonka conservation district. Subd. 4. Municipality. "Municipality" means the home rule charter or statutory city of Minnetrista, Mound, Spring Park, Orono, Minnetonka Beach, Wayzata, Minnetonka, Woodland, Deephaven, Shorewood, Greenwood, Excelsior, Tonka Bay, or Victoria. 103B.605 District. Subdivision 1. Establishment. The Lake Minnetonka conservation district established under Laws 1967, chapter 907, and Laws 1969, chapter 272, is a corporate and political body and a political subdivision of this state, and may sue and be sued, enter into contracts, and hold real and personal property for its purposes. Subd. 2. District is an ~-~loyer. The district is an employer within the definition of section 176.011, subdivision 10, and is included in the provisions of chapter 176. Subd. 3. District is public corporation. The district is a public corporation within the definition of section 466.01 and is included in the provisions of chapter 466. Subd. 4. Dissolution. The district may be dissolved by the decision of the governing bodies of three-quarters of the municipalities in the district. The decision of a town shall be made by the board of supervisors of the town. 103B.611 Board. Subdivision 1. Composition. The district is governed by a board composed of members appointed by the governing bodies of the municipalities included in the district. Each municipality may appoint one member. Subd. 2. Term. The term of office of each board member is three years unless the appointing municipality recalls the member and either appoints another member for the balance of the terra or leaves the office vacant for the balance of the term. This subdivision applies both to members serving on the effective date of Laws 1995, chapter 184, and to members appointed after the effective date of Laws 1995, chapter 184. 0 0 0 0 CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I'D l~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ITl oo~ ~ ~ o~ 000 ~ 0 O0 000 ~00 O~ 000000 000000 . -~001 ~0 c0 O1 000'1 --~ O~ 0 O~ ~O 00 ~ 0 ~ ooo ~ 0 ~ ~ ~0 ~ ~0 ~0 ~0 ~0 ~00~ ~ O~ ~ O0 ~ ~00 O0 ~ ~00 O0 ~ 000 0000 ~ ~ 0~0 ~00~000~ 00000000 ~000000~ ~00000 ~ ~00000 ~ ~000000~ 0 ~ ~ O0 ~ 0 0 ~00000~ ~00000~~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ooo ~o o o 0 0 OOO OOOOO OOO O OOOOOOOOO I; ' ~ o o ~ ~ -~. ~o 'o'o ~ "'.4 (D~ ~ O O --~. 4:~ O O0 '"-4 (.O ~ o oo ~ooo ooo O O OO OOOOO OOO ~ O OOOOO OOOOO OOO ~OOOOOO ~O O~O OOOOOOO OO OOOO I; _ ~ .1::,. O O 0 0 0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 000 000 0 0000 C~ 0 C:) 000 000 4m. CD CO CO "~1 --~ ',O 4:~ O O CO OO 4m. 4~ ID) (iD (O OO O O O OO O O '-,I O1 CO '"4 0 '-,I ~OOOOOOOOOO~O I; o 'o o'o-o 'o -o 'o O O O O O O O O O OO O O O O O O OO O OO ~o~~~~ ~o~oooooooo~o O OO OOOO OO OOOO t- o ooo oooo ooo oooo ~ b bo ooooooo 0 0 O0 0000000 0 0 O0 0000000 ~ 0000 ~ 0000 0~ 0000 000 0000 000 0000 0 0 O0 0000000 ~ 0 O0 0000000 0 0 O0 0000000 0~ 0000 000 0000 01O01 O0 0000000 O0 0000000 O0 0000000 00 O000 0 0 00 000000 0 '130 0 0 O. r-. --.I 0 CI'1 m oO ©< m~ CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 March 5, 2001 MEMORANDUM To: Mayor/City Council ~L~ From: Jim Fackler, Park Director Subject: Rip Rapping. I have received three quotes for the proposed rip rapping for the 2001 season. Please review the specification information that was sent to prospective contractors and their quotes. As you will note staff was seeking costs to rip rap 886 lineal feet of shoreline and retained the right to reduce the lineal footage to meet 2001 budget limitation. In evaluating the quotes Concept Landscaping Inc. winter price is staffs recommendation to the City Council to accept. Listed are the per-LnFt cost; Concept Landscaping ................ $53.00 Minnetonka Portable Dredge ......... $56.00 Dock & Lift (With 10%) ............. $76.50 I have been in contact with Jim Smith, owner of Concept Landscaping. He can perform the rip rap installation at the winter price this March if the city Council approves the expenditure no latter than March 13, 2001. To fall within the 2001 Budget of $43,000 the 80 LnFt at Twin Park would be dropped. This would leave 806 LnFt at a cost of $42,718. enclosure: City of Mound Rip Rap Specification Quotes prmled on recycled paper RECEIVEB I~AR - ~ ~ MINNETONKA PORTABLE DREDGING Co. Bill & Tom Niccum 500 West Lake Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Bus. 474-9454 Fax 474-6712 Home 472-3457 Feb. 28,2001 City ofMound 5341Maywood Road Mound, Mn. 55364-1687 BID FOR 2001 PROPOSED RIP-RAPPING: This is a bid to place 886 Ln. ft. of Quarried Class 4 Fieldstone rip rap according to the revised rip rap specifications. BID PRICE IS $49,616.00 for 886 Ln.. ft. - $56.00 per ft. Thank you Bill Niccum DOCK & LIFT Tim & Mike Latterner 3790 Meadow Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 February 27, 2001 City of Mound Attn: Jim Fakler 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Shop: 952/471-8343 Office: 952/474-7934 Phone: 952/472-0600 Fax: 952/472-0620 Proposal for Rip-Rap: We will furnish all equipment, labor and materials to place approximately 886 feet of rip-rap, to be measured upon completion. Sites to be included are Beachside North (60 ft), Beachside South (60fi), Arbor Lane (68 ft), Avalon Park (150 ft), Waterbury Road (68 fi), Ridgewood Park (175 fi), Lagoon Park (75 fi), Twin Park (80 fi) and Three Points Blvd (150 ft). We will provide any necessary permits. Rip-rap will be installed as per specifications provided to us by the City of Mound. 886 feet rip-rap @ $85.00 per lineal foot ...................... $ 75,310.00 If we received a three year contract, the price per lineal foot would be reduced by 10%. Thank you for the opportunity to give you a bid on this project. If you have any questions or concerns, please give us a call. Sincerely, Tim & Mike Latterner Concept Landscaping, Inc. 3153 Priest Lane, Mound, MN 55364 City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 att Jim Fackler PROPOSAL biN. Contractor LIC. #000-8~°9°9~ Shoreline Contractor Bond #LF01-05553 (952}4724118 2/16/2001 2001 Proposed Rip-Rap Install 6" to 24" Fieldstone Boulder Rip-Rap, includes DNR approved filter fabric Mirafi 600X (500X is junk ,it rips), MN/DOT 3601-B filter rock, Class 4 Fieldstone Boulders along the following shorelines: item distance summer price *winter price A Beachside North 60' $3480.00 $3180.00 B Beachside South 60' $3480.00 $3180.00 C Arbor Lane 68' $3944.00 $3604.00 D Avalon Park 150' $8700.00 $7950.00 E Waterbury Road 68' $3944.00 $3604.00 F RidgewoodPark 175' $10150.00 $9275.00 G Lagoon Park 75' $4350.00 $3975.00 H Twin Park 80' $4640.00 $4240.00 I Three Poin~ Blvd 150' $8700.00 $7950.00 TOTALS51388.00 $46958.00 *Winter price: You save a lot of money if you release your projects prior to the end of September each year so that we can prepare the project in October/November and install the project in December/January. Note: Our competition has been known to mix Red-i~ock with their natural fieldstone and also use red rock for their 3601-B filter rock so as to be more competitive. We use "only" natural fieldstone. Our 3601- B filter rock is also natural fieldstone. The above prices are based on 200' or more and must be contracted by October 2001 for install no later than January 2002. We propose bevCoy to furnish material and labor---complete in accordance with the above specifications. Terms: Payment due upon Completion of each above listed project. All material is guaranteed to be as specified. Ail work to be completed in a workmanship like manner according to standard practices. Any alterations or deviations, vefl~al or written, from the above specifications involving extra costs are extra and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. Ail agreements contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Owner to carry fire tornado and other nec~ry insurance. Our workers are fully covenxl by workers compensation insurance. · Acceptance of ProposaloThe above prices, specifications and conditions ~ satisfactory and her~q~' ,,ccqmxt. You am authoriznd to do the work as sp~ciflnd. Payment will be tm~ as onflinnd above. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MN 55364o1687 PH: (952) 472-0600 FAX: (952) 472-0620 WEB: www.cityofmound.com February 1, 2001 TO: Prospective Contractor FROM: Jim Fackler, Park Director SUBJECT: 2001 Proposed Rip-Rapping. Listed below are rip-rapping locations that the City of Mound is seeking quotes for Spring/Summer 2001. PROPOSED SITES; Approx. LnFt A) Beachside North .............................. 60 LnFt B) Beachside South .............................. 60 LnFt C) Arbor Lane ................................... 68 LnFt D) Avalon Park ................................. 150 LnFt E) WaterbUry Road .......................... ' .....68 LnFt F) Ridgewood Park .............................. 175 LnFt G) Lagoon Park .................................. 75 LnFt H) Twin Park .................................... 80 LnFt I) Three Points Blvd ........................... 150 LnFt TOTAL = 886 LnFt prtnted on recycled paper February 6, 2001 (Revised) CITY OF MOUND MINIMAL SPECIFICATION FOR RIP RAP INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION .. Rip-rap is a term for the control of erosion along the shoreline of a lake which incorporates DNR standards. STONE ........ MnDot Spec. Class 4 (6" to 24" diameter with 1/2 the weight of the stone being 12" diameter or less) Quarried Fieldstone. BASE ROCK .... Filter blanket material layer of MN/DOT 3601-B. FILTER FABRIC ....... Geotextile Filter Fabric Mirafi 500X or equivalent. PLACEMENT .... Sort and lay all rock to achieve a flat smooth 3:1 top slope. The toe rock shall be placed so as to create a sharp edge so that ice can slide over it. CROSS SECTION: FINAL APPEARANCE: .% 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 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. CITY OF PLYMOUTH -. CITy COUNCIL AGENI)A REPoRTii':: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: Mayor and City Council Councilmember Judy Johnson and City Manager Dwight lohnson Creation of a Youth Advisory Council April 6, 1998 for April 15, 1998 Council meeting o ACTION REQUESTED: Approve the attached resolution creating a Youth Advisory Commission. BACKGROUND: One of the City Council's top goals ("A" list) for 1997-98 is to "Improve Community Involvement in Local Government and Encourage Partic!pation by Citizens and Students." A key sub-goal is to "consider appointing students to City Boards and Commissions .... " On February 28~, the League of Women Voters, in cooperation with City staff, hosted a forum on "Getting Teens Involved in Local Government." Students from area high schools participated in a panel discussion where many ideas were discussed. One idea that met with enthusiastic approval was to establish a Youth Council in Plymouth. An inter'net search showed that a number of cities in the U.S. and Canada bare successfully established and benefited from youth councils. o ALTERNATIVES: The Council could choose to not formally establish a Youth ~.dvisoq, Council, appoint youth individually to various boards and commissions, approve the attached resolution with amendments, approve the resolution for a one year trial basis, or simply approve the resolution as proposed. DISCUSSION: The League of Women Voters forum showed that the community has yew capable, thoughtful, and interested youth who should be encouraged to participate, and that other youth should also be encouraged to become active. The City engages in a great many activities that directly interest or pertain to youth including many parks and recreation programs such as the skateboard park, environmental initiatives, public safety activities such as liquor and tobacco enforcement measures, city planning, and many other areas. Besides the direct benefit of their input on City issues, a youth advisory council can help us establish ongoing communication with teens through the high school newspapers, the City's cable channel, and other such media. e Ncarly 30% of the population of ?lymouth is under the age of 19 and approximately 3,300 of ti'mm are high school age, according to the 1990 census. Many will have the opportunity to vote for the first time in the elections of [998 or 2000. Providing an opportunity ['or more youth to participate and become knowledgeable about local government will help provide for a more informed citizenry in the future. While inviting youth to participate by appointing a youth representative to each of the City's boards and commissions would be a worthwhile alternative, a youth advisory council is preferable because it would not isolate the youth and their input.. Rather, a youth advisory. council could focus on the particular vantage point of youth as they consider various issues. BUDGET INIPACT: There will b~ a negligible impact on the City budget. The Youth Advisory Council would have no budget of its own. Incidental office expenses related to the group would be absorbed from existing operating line items. RECOMmeNDATION: Approval of the attached resolution is recormmended. A successful youth advisory council will go far to meet our original City goal of increasing community and youth involvement in local government. CITY OF PLYMOUTH RESOLUTION NO. 98-251 ESTABLISHING A YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND DETERMINING ITS MEMBERSHIP, OFFICERS AND MEETINGS, AND DUTIES WHEREAS, many issues arise in City government and the community as a whole that may be of interest to youth or may affect youth in the community; and, WHEREAS, it is beneficial for the community and the youth to develop the citizenship skills of youth in the community by working with local government on such issues; and, WHEREAS, the City government can directly benefit from the advice and efforts of youth in the community on the issues that confront the City.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA THAT: 1. A Youth Advisory. Council is hereby created. Its membership shall consist of seven members selected by the City Council following the open appointments policy. One each. shall be selected from each of the four wards of the City., and three shall be selected at large. The members shall be under the age of 21 at the time of appointment or re-appointment. The term of office for each member shall be one year, commencing on September I. Members may be re-appointed. The Youth Advisory Council shall normally meet monthly. 3. The Youth Advisory Council shall select its own chair and vice-chair. The Youth Advisory Council shall make recommendations as it deems necessary on any City Council agenda items or other matters affecting youth in the community. It shall also seek and recommend ways to improve communications with students in area schools, conside/' a recognition program for youth in the community, and consider recommendations for how to interest and involve youth in local government. The Youth Advisory Council shall monitor other City boards and commissions for issues relating to youth and make recommendations on them as it deems appropriate. 5. The City Council shall designate a Council Coordinating Representative each year to be a liaison with the Youth Advisory Council. 6. The City manager or his designated representative shall provide staff support for the Youth Advisory Council. Adopted by the City Council on April 15, 1998. O~ change,.. cUrfews- : P lym0uth:Yom. Adyis6 /. Council suggests extended curfew for .17,year-olds. ' ay Sally ThomPson S;~ ta~' During its March 9 s~udy session, the Plymouth City Council heard the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council re- quest a later curfew for 17- year-ol~Js. ' Instead ora midnight cur~ew for 17-year-olds, Youth Adviso- ry Council members proposed. extending it to 1 a.m., said Ply- mouth City Councilmember Judy Johnson. The City Council asked for more information, includin~ parents, school offic.ials, law enforcement officials, the Pub-' lic Safety Advisory Board and other sourq,es, she said, Among reasons the Yo6th Advisory Council cited for elim- inating the midnight curfew were Proximity to adulthood and the fact 17-year-olds can enlist in the army to serve their country, ;Johnson said. ~It would gi~e responsible teens the chance to' attend a late show at the MAnn and go to dinner," she. said. - The meeting was the first time the City Co~tncil' and Youth Advisory Council g(~t to- gether, Johnson said. "It was a good meeting,' she said. "It's exciting' to see kids have a way to talk to theii' rep- resentatives.~ In February the.Youth Advi- s0ry ~Council discussed elimi- nating curfews for 17-year- 'olds, Sam Kelner, Youth Advi- sory Council chair, said in a press release. Some of their information came from Internet research of ~he American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), he said.. - Youth' Advisory Council members Trent Eisenberg and Kelner said they were looking into the possibility of bringing a lawsuit to fight curfew on Constitutional validity. "Other state's ACLU's have done ·this and won,' Kelner I said. On March 15 the Youth Ad- visory Council will meet at 6 p.m. in the Medicine Lake Room of City Hall to continue the curfew discussion. The Council also is trying to s'et up a meeting with the Min- nesota ACLU, Kelner said .... Youth jam ~c~ of School ~p- _a~za.a High pma~ed. ~e Pl~outh Youth Ad~o~ Coundl about a food d~ve, Johnson s~d. ~e Youth Jm appe~ed to be a ~eat ~ck-o~ to a Mod ~ve which will con- elude with M~ic in PI~out~ on ~une 30,~he s~d. - All donations will go to the food- shelves of Interfaith Outreach and Com- s~d.munity Partners and Prism, Johnson ~e Youth Jam ~s sumet.~n~ for youth to do in the suramer, she said. To enrich the dance, there will be a voter re~stration booth sponsored by the League of Women Voters, a Mothers Against Drunk Driving booth and other things of interest to youth, Johnson said. The Plymouth City Council approved $4,000 for the event, but 'our goal is not to use tax dollars, although the first, year we may have to," Johnson said. Fund raising has been going well with many sponsors willing to contribute, she said. ~There has been real good community support," Johnson said. Now all that remains is for a good crowd to show up for the Youth Jam. "We might not get many or we might get a lot,~ she said. "We hope by next year's jam, by word of mouth, we'll fill the amphitheater." · In case of rain, Youth Jam '99 will be rescheduled for Friday, June 25. City will host open house on Pr6posed land use Plan chang'~i' Several meetings related to updating Plymouth's Comp- rehensive Plan are on th~ docket this summer. The public is wel- come at all of the meetings. The City has scheduled open houses in lune for neighbor- hoods that may be affected by .changes to Plymouth's Land Use Plan. Residents in affected areas have been mailed a notice of those meetings. Open houses are scheduled for June 24, June 28 and June 29. All open houses, will run from 5 to 7:30 p.m. and be held at Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. For more information on the Comprehensive Plan update, call Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt at 590-. the City's interviews 1998. Issues Considered by the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council in 1999 Councilmember Judy Johnson initiated the concept of a Youth Advisory Council with the local League of Women Voters, who held a forum in February 1998. The proposal was refined, and on April 15 the Plymouth City Council established the Youth Advisory Council and determined its composition and duties., Notices were sent to all schools that the City was seeking applicants for the new Youth Advisory Council-. -one from each of four wards and three at large. The City Council conducted and appointed Youth Advisory Council members in October City Curfew Ordinance Cigarette and Alcohol Accessibility D. ,4. R. E. program Citywide Water Quality Plan New Drivers License Law Labor Shortage Y. E. S. Food Drive Zero Tolerance Policies In Schools Initiation Of A I~outh Awards Program Possible Gang Influence In Plymouth Summer Youth Jam Concert Youth Cable Television Show Fouth Health Clinic In Wayzata School Area ,5 -R Category: Citizen, Community and Youth InvoNement Plymouth Youth Advisory Council ff umma y Nearly 30 percent of Plymouth's population is under age 19, according to the 1990 census. Of that percent, about 3,300 people are high school age. To promote civic invoDement among young people and lay the foundation for a better-informed citizenry in the future, the Plymouth Ci~' Council formed the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council in 1998. The Youth Council prox4des the City Council with a youth perspective on diverse issues while grooming young people to become tomorrow's community leaders. The Youth Council provides members xvith leadership opportunities, knowledge of local government and hands-on experience in municipal government. Goals In creating the Plymouth Youth Council, the Plymouth City Council sought to accomplish several goals. Provide an educational oppommity. The role of local government is often misunderstood or overlooked. When young people think about "government," local government does not often kit their radar screen. Instead, the focus is often on federal or state government. To help remedy this situation, the Plymouth City Council is interested in helping young people become more knowledgeable about local government. Provide leadership oppommlties for young people. Historically in Plymouth, nearly all appointed posts in city government have gone to adults. The Plymouth City Council is interested in building on the success of the appointment of student members to the Plymouth Human RiOts Commission by involving youth in a variety of issues. Instill a sense of civic responsibility. The Plymouth City Council recognizes the sh.fin 'king number of adults who vote. To combat this apathy, the City Council seeks to engage young people in local government issues. By doing so, they expect that these young people will take the me to be informed and involved members of the citizem-y once they become adults. Provide the City Council with an ongoing youth perspective on an array of issues. By and large, the City Council traditionally hears from adult citizens. This is despite the fact that many ciD' services a.nd programs are geared toward youth. To address this and to hear all sides of an issue, the City Council wants to create a permanent vehicle to hear a youth perspective on an array of issues. Create an additional route for communication bet'ween city officials and young people. The City uses several commtmications vehicles to raise axvareness of local government services, issues and programs. These efforts largely focus on the CitT's adult population. The City seeks to find nexv avenues to reach young people. Create a simple model for youth involvement. Recognizing that young people arc our future and other c. ides can benefit from more youth involvement in local government, the City Council sees value in establishing a model for youth involvement that other c. ides can easily use. In doing the initial research for similar youth advisory council models, the City Council could find lit-de. The most common method of involving youth in local government seems to be appointing student representatives to existing commissions. Strategies to Achieve Goals To ach/eve the above goals, the Plymouth City, Council created the Plymouth Youth Ad,,-isoq, Council. The Youth Advisory Council has seven members. The Youth Council is structured the same as the City Council. Four members represent the City's xvards. The remaining three members are appointed as at-large members. Members of the Youth Council serve one-year terms. The group meets every other week. The Youth Council is a standing advisory body to the City Council. It has the same status as other citizen advisory commissions and boards such as the Planning Commission, Park and Recreation Commission and Human Rights Commission. To ensure that Youth Council got off to a strong start, the Ci? Council gave the Youth Council high level support. The Plymouth City Manager and a Plymouth City Council Member serve as liaisons to the Youth Council. Agendas, reports and minutes are prepared for each meeting. At the time the City Council established the Youth Council, it had already set the precedent of appointing student members to the Plymouth Human Rights Commission. The Council extended that commitment to young people when it initiated the Youth Council. The Youth Council ensures that the young people know they are xvelcome to share their views on any issue they deem important. That is, they need not narrowly focus on what have been traditionally deemed youth issues. It also gives high school age residents a forum where they axe less likely to feel inkibited about offering their thoughts. Specifically, the strategy of creating the Youth Advisory Council helps the City of Plymouth achieve its goals of increasing youth involvement in local government in the following ways. Educational oppommlry. By serving on the Youth Council and fulfilling an advisory funcdon to the City Council, Youth Council members get a first hand look at the structure, operation and procedures of local government. The Youth Council members see the impact that individuals in the commtmiry can have on how their government works as well as the services and programs it offers. They learn first-hand from top city officials about programs and services. Leadership opportunities. The Youth Council provides high school age citizens their oxvn forum and the ear of the City. Council. Youth Council members run their own meetings and elect their own chair. This provides a valuable venue for members to hone their leadership skills. Like other commissions, the City Council may refer issues to the Youth Council for study. In addition, the Youth Council also may identify issues it deems of interest. The Youth Council's two adult liaisons keep the Youth Council abreast of the latest developments on issues facing the City Council as well as other citizen advisory commissions. This gives the Youth Council a solid overAew of major issues. It also allows young people to take the Iead on issues they see as important. Civic responsibility. While the Youth Council is providing its members with opportunities for leadership and education, it is also instilling a sense of civic responsibility in its members. The Youth Council allows members to see how government works and the role private citizens can play in shaping pubi/c policy. Through this process, Youth Council members see that government is at its best when elected officials hear all sides before making a decision. Youth perspective on an array of issues. Because the Youth Council is not ~m. ited to dealing solelv xvith ~actidonal youth-related issues, the City Council can hear the perspez:ives of young people on eveuthing from development proposals to enxS.ronmental issues. The Youth Council also has the ladtude to weigh in on traditional youth issues, such as curfexv and alcohol and tobacco laxv enforcement. Communication between city officials and young people. The Youth Councal opens up a new, two-way avenue of corrnmmcadon w/th the opinion leaders in our community's high school. In addidot~, it also provides the City with better access to local high school nexvspapers as well as cable programs produced by high school students using educational access cable tele:Ssion facilities. Model for youth involvement. Recognizing that young people ha a metropolitan area often move away from ',.he communities where they grow up and that the Youth Council is grooming the communit3: leaders of tomorrow, the City Council sees value in other cities establishing youth councils. T~e Plymouth model is Iow-cost and easily adapted by other cides to meet their needs. Budget The Youth Council does not have an established budget. The costs related to the Youth Council have been incidental. As such, they have been absorbed by e.,dsting budgets. The costs have consisted of photocopying agenda materials as well as the staff me of the Civ:: Manager to attend meetings. Resul sJ.4p2licabili(y to Other Cities The results of the first year of the Youth Council have been vet5, positive. The Youth Council has undertaken an am~itious agenda. It has taken on a variety of issues and projects. They have included curfew changes, public transit, park and recreation facilities, the labor shortage, the city water quality program, zero tolerance policies in the high schools, DARE program, dgarette/alcohol accessibility, gang influence, teen community forum, local government career shado~-ing programs, initiation of youth awards, and Y2I< issues. The City Council has been very receptive to hearing the recommendations of the Youth Council. The Youth Council's recommendations related to curfew were the subject of a City. Council study session. The City Coundl subsequently refer~ed the issue to the Pubkic Safety Advisory Board wkich will consider the proposal and forward a recommendation to the Cit~' Council. The Youth Council is tracking the progress of tl~ proposal. In the process, they are learning how local government works and ensuring that City Council Nlembers hear a youth perspective. The Ciq' has also extended ~he hours of the Dial-a-~de bus system at the suggestion of the Your~%. Counc~I. Projects such as a summer youth concert, community teen forum and youth awards program are in the planning stages. Involvement in the Youth Council has~ sparked an interest on the part of the Youth Council members in being part of government beyond the city limits. The Youth Council took the initiative to meet v,4th Governor Jesse Ventura as well as Plymouth state legislative representatives. Tkis fits with the City's goals of promoting dvic involvement, educafng people about how gove.n'~.,'nent works and providing elected officials with the perspective of 3,oung people. The Plymouth Youth Advisory Committee model could yes' easiI,v be adopted by other cities. It requires a limited amount of staff time and an interest by elected o£'2cials in promofi.ng cix4¢ involvement among young people. In terms of budget, little else is needed. The pay off for the individual city as well as the broader community is great. CITY OF PLYMOUTH YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL MISSION STATEMENT January 10, 2000 Our Mission Statement: The Plymouth Youth Advisory Council is a city comm;ssion composed of young people from the City of Plymouth who strive to improve the quality of life in the community by: Contributing a youth perspective about city issues Providing safe and positive venues for young people to connect with each other and other members of the community Aiding in the development of citizenship skills Promoting community involvement Agenda Number: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:' DATE: Dwight D. Johnson, City Manager Laurie Ahrens, Assistant City Manager, on behalf of the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council Youth Advisory Council Annual Report and 2000 Work Plan January 26, 2000, for City Council meeting of February 1, 2000 1. ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt a motion to accept the 1999 'Annual Report and approve the 2000 Work Plan of the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council. BACKGROUND: Plymouth City Code provides that the City. Council shall annually review the activities of the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council. The Youth Advisory. Council is required to submit an annual '~witten repo. rt to the Council no later than the last day of February, of each year, reporting the Commission's activities over the past year and outlining proposed activities for the coming year. Some of the highlights of the Commission's work in 1999 included organization and execution of a Summer Youth Jam Concert with proceeds going to sponsorship of the Y. E. S. Food Drive; recommendations to the City Council concerning revision of the City Curfew Ordinance and transit issues relating to young people, representation of the City at the League of Minnesota Cities state conference, and a review of the Robbinsdale ,~ea Schools zero tolerance policies at .~'rnstrong High School and Plymouth Middle School. In addition, the Youth Advisory Council studied community issues such as: Cigarette and Alcohol Accessibility to minors, the D. A. R. E. program in public schools, the Plymouth citywide water quality plan, the new state drivers license Law, transit issues for young people, labor shortage in the Metropolitan Twin Cities, possible gang influence in Plymouth, a youth cable television show, and a new youth health clinic in the Wayzata school area. 3. RECOMaMENI)ATION: I recommend that the City Council accept the 1999 annual report and approve the 2000 work plan for the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council. Plymouth Youth Advisory Council Purpose · Councilmember Judy Johnson initiated the concept of a Youth Advisory Council with the local League of Women Voters, who held a forum in February 1998. The proposal was refined, and on April 15 the Plymouth City Council established the Youth Advisory Council and determined its composition and duties. Notices were sent to all schools that the City was seeking applicants for the new Youth Advisory Council---one from each of the City's four wards and three at large. The City Council conducted interviews and appointed Youth Advisory Council members in October 1998. Youth Advisory Council Mission Statement: The Plymouth Youth Advisory Council is a city commission composed of young people fi:om the City of Plymouth who strive to improve the quality of life in the community by: Contributing a youth perspective about city issues Providing safe and positive venues for young people to connect with each other and other members of the community Aiding in the development of citizenship skills Promoting community involvement Plymouth Youth Advisory Council 1999 Annual Report and Accomplishments The following are accomplishments in the last year by the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council: · Recommendations to the City Council concerning revision of the City Curfew Ordinance · Review of the Robbinsdale Area Schools zero tolerance policies at Armstrong High School and Plymouth Middle School · Organization and execution of a Summer Youth Jam Concert · Sponsorship ofY. E. S. Food Drive · Made Recommendations on Transit Issues for Young People · Represented the City at the League of Minnesota Cities State Conference · Made Presentation to Minnetonka City Council · Developed a Mission Statement Members of the Youth Advisory Council also participated in: · National Council on Criminal Justice Forum on Youth Violence and )alienation · Communities in Collaboration Council meetings · "Shutting Offthe Tap to Teens" forum on alcohol and young people · Human Rights Commission Youth Essay Contest The following are topics studied in 1999 by the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council: · Cigarette and Alcohol Accessibility to minors · D.A.R.E. program · Citywide Water Quality Plan · New Drivers License Law · Labor Shortage · Initiation 0fA Youth Awards Program · Possible Gang Influence In Plymouth · Youth Cable Television Show · Youth Health Clinic In Wayzata School Area · Reviewed Plans for the Future Activity Center · Studies Overnight Parking Ordinance · Discussed Wayzata High School "Trench Coat" Issue Plymouth Youth Advisory Council 2000 Work Plan The Plymouth Youth Advisory Council work plan for 2000 is: · The Second Annual Youth Concert, Called "Youth Jam 2000" · Sponsorship of Way 12, a Halfway House with proceeds fi:om the Youth Jam 2000 · Job Shadowing Program · Youth Town Forum · Representation at the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, DC · Youth Awards Programs · Expanded Website Presence · Youth Television Program · Review Park and Recreation Program for Older Youth · Continue to Monitor Youth Health Clinic Proposal · Improve contacts with Teachers and Administrators in Area Schools r www. mnSun.~ Plymouth Youth Advisory- Council f'des annual report By Sally Thompson A formml repo~ fi'om the PtYm°u~ Youth Advisory Council on 1999 activities was pre- sented to the Plymouth City Coundl by Lau- rie Ah.tens, assistant dty rrmnager. The report must be presented no later than the last day of February each year, ac- cording to the city's requiremen.ts. Highlights of the year included both spe- da] events and opportunities to offer sug- gestions to the City Council, according to a written report The first Summer Youth Ja~ Concert in 1999 raised money for the Y.E.S. Food drive, the report stated. The Youth Advisory Count{1 also sug- gested possible revisions to the city's ~r- few ordinance, dis~ass~d transit issues re- lating to youth and reviewed zero tolerance policies at Armstrong High School and Ply- mouth Middle School, the report said. Members of the Youth Ad;fisory Coundl and City Councilmember Judy Johnson also addressed the League of Minnesota Cities, telling them how the cmundl was es- tablished and what they have accom- plished, Johnson said. Community issues studied by the coun- cfi included the accessibiliW of c~garettes and alcohol to minors, the Drug A. buse Re- sistance Education (DARE) progr~rn in public schools, Ply~..0uth's water quality plan, possible gang influences in Plymouth and other issues, the report said. Plans for this year include a second Youth Jam, spons0r~ng a halfway house, a town forum for'youth, a job shadowing pro- gram, youth awards and representation at the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C., the report said. Council members are Chair Paul Lenhardt, Amy Anderson, Trent Eisen- berg, Nnenma Ejebe, Dev JacLhav, Jameson Johnson, Laura Mamfsky and Sam Kelnon The purpose of the Youth Advisory Council is to contribute a youth perspective about city issues, aid in the development of citizenship skills, promote community in- volvement and provide safe venues for youth to connect with each other and other members of the community, accord~g to the group's mission statement. 0 0 E Select a Town: l~e~e~ a Town :~l Local News Local News Community Education Calendar Opinion Public Safety Seniors Obituaries Leqals Local Sports Sports News Sports Bdefs Events/Scores Business News Business News Classifieds Classifieds Weather Weather Past News News Archive Contact info. Contact Us How to Advertise Jobs At Sun Front Page Home Page Spin To Winl Sun Slots Special Sections Senior Focus Art Around Us Sprin.~ Homes Golf Guide Local Businesses Search The Web Powered by:. Local Fcx~cast Wednesday, May. :?.4, 2000 2:59:49PM PLYMOUTH Local News 'Johnny ¢lueless featured at Youth Jam (Created 5/24100 9:24:06 AM) The alternative rock band Johnny Clueless will perform during Youth Jam 2000, which will take place from 5:30 to 10 p.m. Saturday, June 3, at the Plymouth Creek Amphitheater, 36th Avenue North and Plymouth Boulevard, according to a press release from the db/of Plymouth. W~th more than 250 appearances each year to their credit, the quartet has shared the stage with such well-known performers as Cheal3 Trick, Goo Goo Dolls, Sheryl Crow, The Wallflowers, Semisonic and Barenaked Ladies, the release said. Several local bands will be showcased at Youth Jam 2000 as well, the release said. Planned and'sponsored by the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council, Youth Jam 2000 will be held rain or shine. Tickets are $5 in advance and $7 the day of the concert. Proceeds will benefit Way 12 Halfway House, a Wayzata-based youth shelter, the release said. In addition to being available at Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd., tickets also will be sold for one week each at Armstrong and Wayzata high schools, the release said. Also taking place dudng Youth Jam 2000 will be the presentation of the Plymouth Youth Awards. For the first time, the Plymouth Youth Advisory Council will recognize two middle school and two high school students for their community service work, the release said. The Plymouth Youth Advisory Council is a citizen advisory group, providing the Plymouth City Council with a youth perspective on vadous city issues, the release said. - Compiled by Sally Thompson Th~s site eno its co. tents ~2000. Sun Newspaoer$ . Man Office: (612) 829-0797 - Created and maintained by Quantum Oigitat Intes'ac:tivi Em ail: jcorbo~quantum~e, com Paee 1 Regina Callies From: Sent: To: ~ubject: Mary Bisek Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:25 AM Regina Callies FVV: Teen Councils YAB By-laws final.doc Odginal Message From: Kermode, Gwen [maiito:gkermode@natickma.org] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2001 8:08 AM To: 'Mike Svetz' Cc: 'BalicJ@Monroeville. PA. US'; 'nrpanet-all@lists.nrpa.org' Subject: RE: Teen Councils We have a Youth Advisory Board that is Town wide, not department specific. Attached are the by-laws as approved by the Board of Selectmen as this Youth Advisory Board will function basicty like any other Board or Commission in Town as an advisory board to the Board of Selectmen. I don't know if this is helpful, but thought it might be. Gwen Kermode, Director Natick Human Services Dept gkermode@natickma.org --Original Message From: Mike Svetz [mailto:MikeSvetz@RecPlex. com] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 3:15 PM To: 'Balicki, John'; 'nrpanet-all@lists.nrpa.org' Subject: RE: Teen Councils If anyone has info. on this I would also like to piggyback in getting this info., thanks .Original Message From: Balicki, John [mailto:BalicJ@Monroeville. PA. US] Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2001 12:50 PM To: 'nrpanet-all@lists.nrpa.org' Subject: Teen Councils Greetings Fellow Netters, Our department is exploring the possibility of starting a Teen Council. If you have a successful one operating in your community, could you please send me any available information which describes how your Teen Council functions (e.g. Rules of Procedures) and/or how it was established. Thanks much. John B. Balicki, CPRP, CPSI Recreation, Parks, & Human Services 2700 Monroeville Blvd. Monroeville, PA 15146-2388 BY-LAWS For YOUTH ADVISORY BOARD (established by Students In Action and the Natick Board of Selectmen) ADOPTED BY STUDENTS IN ACTION ON 6/5/00 APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF SELECTMEN ON 6/19/00 ARTICLE I TITLE 1. The name of this Board shall be the Natick Youth Advisory Board (YAB). 2. The Youth Advisory Board shall function under the guidance of the Natick Human Services Depatianent which may collaborate with other local organizations for this function. 3. The address for the Youth Advisory Board shall be c/o Natick Human Services, 14 East Central St., Natick, MA 01760. ARTICLE H PURPOSE The general purpose of the Board shall be to provide for the coordination of youth issues in Natick and enable youth to participate as partners to improve the quality of life in our community. The Natick Youth Advisory Board shall be an advisory board to the Board of Selectmen. The Natick Youth Advisory Board's purpose shall further be as follows: A) To act as a focal point in listening to and advising the Town of Natick and the community regarding issues concerning youth or that impact their future. B) To create apprenticeships to Boards, Commissions and Committees in the public sector so as to gather knowledge and information and to act in an advisory capacity to such Boards, Commissions and Committees. C) To take such action as the Youth Advisory Board considers appropriate to insure their knowledge of Town, School and other organizations opera-dons, procedures and processes. D) To plan, implement and evaluate leadership training oppommities for Board members and other youth. E) To act as a conduit for youth issues for the general public. - F) To take such other actions as may be agreed on by the Board of Selectmen and the Youth Advisory Board. ARTICLE III MEMBERSHIP 1. The Youth Advisory Board shall consist of seven members appointed by the Board of Selectmen and represent a di,;,erse cross section of Natick youth in grades nine through twelve regardless of which school they attend. These initial members shall serve the following terms: A. Three members shall serve one-year terms. B. Four members shall serve two-year terms. After the initial term all members shall serve two-year terms. Note: Ifa senior is appointed for a two year term they must be able to make the two year commitment. The Youth Advisory Board may have an advisory committee with unlimited number of non-voting members in grades 7 through adults. If any member misses three unexcused regularly scheduled meetings in any one calendar year as determined by the Advisor/Human Services Director and the Officers, the position of said member shall be automatically vacated upon certification to the Board of Selectmen by the Youth Advisory Board. The Board of Selectmen, in association with the Youth Advisory Board, shall then proceed to immediately fill o that position by appointing a new member for the remainder of the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment. Any member(s) of YAB may, after a public hearing, if requested, be removed for cause by the appointing authority. Resignation shall be made by notifying the Chairperson in writing. The Board of Selectmen, in association with the YAB, shall then proceed to immediately fill that position by appointing a new member for the remainder of the unexpired term in the same manner as the original appointment. Members shall serve as members on the Youth Advisory Board without compensation with the understanding that members shall be reimbursed for any pre-approved expenses which shall be reasonably incurred through service as a member of the YAB provided that funds are available for such reimbursement. Pre-approval must be received from the Director of Human Services or the Director's designee. ARTICLE IV OFFICERS Officers shall be elected annually by the Youth Advisory Board and shall include a Chairperson, Vice- Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer. Officers shall be elected by a majority (4) vote of the full Youth Advisory Board. Duties of said officers shall be: A. The Chairperson shall: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Develop the agenda in coordination with other officers and the YAB advisor; Preside over all meetings; Appoint subcommittees as needed; Prepare an annual report to be included in the Town of Naticl~'~'~ml report. Insure that all meetings are open to the public and all comments are heard and acted upon. The Vice-chairperson shall: 1. Perform all the functions of the Chairperson in her/his absence; 2. Assist support groups, subcommittees and the chairperson. The Secretary shall: 1. Keep records of all meetings attendance, minutes and correspondence; 2. Post notices of all meetings at least 48 hours before each meeting at the Town Clerk's office 3. Send notice of meetings and minutes of the prior meeting to the members at least seven days prior to the meeting. 4. Maintain in a central location a file of all minutes and other YAB activities that shall be available for review. The Treasurer shall: 1. Keep records of all financial matters; 2. Develop a budget in coordination w/th other Board members and the YAB advisor; 3. Prepare financial statements for inclusion in the annual report. ARTICLE V MEETINGS All meetings are open public meetings. Regular meetings shall be held at least ten times a year. Special meetings can be called by the Chairperson or by any three members. All persons attending the meeting shall be heard, all opinions respected, all concerns addressed, and the needs of youth in the commtmity shall be the major consideration when making decisions. Decisions will be made by a majority of those present. No decisions will be made unless a quorum is present. Unless where otherwise noted in these by-laws, a quorum shall consist of four members. Notice of meetings will be sent to the members at least seven days prior to a regularly scheduled meeting and at least five days prior to a special meeting. Notice of meetings will also be sent to the Town Clerk for posting. ARTICLE VI THE APPROPRIATION AND ALLOCATION OF FUNDS 1. It shall be a function of the YAB to raise funds for the use of the YAB in accordance with established procedures and statutes and to accept money, gifts, and services in the name of the Town subject to the approval of the Board of Selectmen; such gifts and monies shall be managed and controlled by the Youth Advisory Board under the supervision and approval of the advisor. All funds will be held by the Town of Natick through the Comptrollers office. 2. Development of an annual budget shall be the responsibility of the YAB with their advisor. 3. Should the Youth Advisory Board dissolve with a balance of funds available, such funds will divert to the Town of Natick Human Services Department expendable trust account. ARTICLE VII AMENDMENTS These by-laws shall be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Y. AB members (five members) at any meeting, provided written notice of the proposed change is made to each member at least fourteen (14) days prior to the scheduled vote and with subsequent approval by the Board of Selectmen. March 8, 2001 2450 Wilshire Blvd. Suite D Mound, MN 55364 952-491-8058 Fax 952-491-8043 WeyckerL@ Westonka.k12.mn.us After School Activity Bus Dear Mayor Meisel and Mound City Council, I understand that you will be reviewing information regarding the development of a youth council. I want to inform you of a project that the Westonka Healthy Community Collaborative and the Westonka Community Education Department have developed. A Westonka Area Summer Youth Service Project will offer an informational base for the youth and set the stage for a continuing youth council. We have applied for a McKnight Foundation grant to assist in the project and we can use your help as well. Community Hero Card Family Support Programs Health Advocate Outreach Parenting Support Police Chaplaincy Resource Directory Summer School Bus Pending the availability of the funding, we are hoping that the project would begin this summer as a community service project for youth grades 7 - 12, in the Westonka area. The youth can sign up for the project or they can be referred by one of the cities in the area, the police departments, the schools, or other groups that feel this program will benefit a particular youth. The program has three different components. 1. Exploration of the local services and broader based services that are offered to our residents. 2. Planning a service project that the youth feel is needed in our area. 3. Implementing a service project that will benefit our area residents. Student Retreats Youth Center Youth Connections Seeking to strengthen and connect our community in healthy creative ways. The program is planned to be six weeks long. After the main components of the program are complete, the youth may chose to continue on as a youth advisory council for all the area cities and schools. It is our recommendation that the youth involved in the Summer Youth Service Project would decide how the youth council would be formed. One possible makeup of of the Youth Council could be two youth from Mound, Minnetrista, and Spring Park and an advisor. (continued) We hope that you would be able to refer youth representatives residing within the Mound city limits to this program. We also need funding to ensure the implementation of this project. I have enclosed a copy of the budget page that was sent to the McKnight Foundation. We requested 1/3 of the total project cost or $1,860. We will know the status of that grant by the end of April. Feel free to contact me with any questions. We would like to have your participation in this service project along with the cities of Minnetrista and Spring Park. Sincerely, ~ , cc. Mary Hughes, Community Education Supervisor Sarah Heyer, Community Education Roxanne Palm, Community Education Financial Information Westonka Area Summer Youth Service Project Estimated Budget April 1, 2001 - September 1, 2001 EXPENSES Cash In-Kind Staff Wages Chief Executive Officer Project Assistant Project Assistant Project Coordinator Project Coordinator Assistant Employee withholdings 80 hrs @ $15/hour = $1200 40 hrs @ $10/hour = $400 $1200x.08= $96 30 hrs @ $15/hr = $450 30 hrs @ $15/hr = $450 30 hrs @ $15/hr = $450 Supplies Food used during the project Supplies used for project Office Supplies used for project Photocopies/Promotion Postage $25O $750 $100 $100 $50 Building~Equipment Use Use of classroom/equipment $5OO Transportation Travel to Service Learning Projects (school bus) Van Transportation 3 trips @ $125/trip = $375 Daily Transportation = 6 days @ $10/day $60 Financial Assistance Scholarships for participants $35O EXPENSES $3481 $2100 TOTAL EXPENSES $5581 Ilar, 02 2081 1G:53:58 Via Fax State budget [orecast -> ~ministrator FRIDA YFAx A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities reveals slower revenue growth On Wednesday, the Dept. of Finance unveiled the revised state budget forecast, which reflected slower revenue growth for the current state biennium as well as the 2002-2003 fiscal biennium. The short-term revenue and expen- diture changes will translate into a ,567 million lower surplus by the end of the current fiscal year, which ends June 30~ 2001. Current revenue estimates are actually down by nearly 5120 million. However, the revenue reductions are offset by positive prior year revenue adjust- ments and expenditure estimates that are nearly S33 million lower than previously forecast For the 2002-2003 biennium, the forecast also reduces the available surplus. Revenues for that period are expected to be $594 million lower than previous estimates while expen- ditures are also down from the November estimates by nearly S70 million. In total, the November forecast of a S3 billion surplus through the end of fiscal year 2003 is reduced by S617 million or 20 percent. The first impacts of the new smaller surplus will be reflected in the release of the governor's supplemental budget. The supplemental budget will include revised recommendations for the governor's budget and tax reform proposals Preliminary comments by the gover- nor suggest he wants to maintain most of his tax reform recommenda- tions. To offset the lower revenues in the forecast: he will have to adjust his plan. For example, he could reduce the proposed income tax rate reductions or phase them in over a longer period of time or eliminate the sales tax exemption for local units of government. Other possible changes include increasing his new state property tax levy that is applied to commercial, industrial, and cabin properties, or reducing the sales tax rate reduction to something greater than 6 percent. All of these possible changes will certainly face major opposition. Perhaps more likely would be shifts in other state budget items, which could include further reductions in city aids or other state spending. In any event, the govern, or has not finalized these suppJementat recom- mendations and the Legislature will now have to wait at teast an additional week to consider the governor's recommendations. Builders and realtors unveil municipal reg reform bill The builders and realtors associa- tions have unveiled their municipal regulatory reform bill. The bill, HF 1310/SF 1205, involves various aspects of development and con- struction in cities. This bill has legs and is moving at the Capitol The bill's House authors are Abrams (R-Minnetonka), Sviggum (R-Kenyon), Milbert (DFL-So S-1 Paul)~ McEIroy (R-Burnsville), Dorn-,an <'R-Albert Lea), Davids (R-Prestcr.): Hilstrom (D-Brooklyn Center.¢, Le.%cn (D- Bloomington), Bradley (R-Roches- ter), Howes (R-Hacken_--acl<), Fuller (R-Bemidji), Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake)= Paulsen (R-Ede~ Prairie), Page 881 0£ 882 Number :, March 2, 2001 Osskopp (R-Lake City), Kuisle (R- Rochester), Boudreau (R-Fairbault), Seagren (R-Bloomington), Leighton (D-Austin) The bill's Senate authors are Johnson, Doug (D-Tower), Moa, R.D. (D-Erskine), Johnson, Dave (D-Bloomington), Robertson (R- Minnetonka), Knutson (R-Burnsville). The bill can be viewed online at: http://~rvvw, revlsor, leg.state,m n. us/cgl-bln/bldblll.pl ?blll-- H 1310.0&sesslo n=ls$2. The basics of the bill are: 1. Changes to statutory approval time lines (the 60 day rule) 2 Directs the Commissioner of Administration to establish rules relating to repetitive plan check fees 3 Prohibits cities from adopting ordinances or requiring in develop- ment agreements any provision that is more restrictive than pro- vided for in the state building code. 4 Creates binding interpretive auth- ority in the hands of the Commis- sioner of Administration relating to all aspects of the state building code and requires the interpreta- tions to be adopted as rule. 5. Prohibits local governments from requiring licensed builders to pay any "registration or any other fee not directly related to Iicensure or building permits" 6 Requires all fees imposed under § 462 353 be fair: reasonable. and proportionate to the actual cost of the service Requires cities adopt accounting proce- dures. Requires all disputes arising from such fees to be appealed under § 16B67 7 Prohibits waivers and states "a local government must not Far more information on city legislative issues, contact an)' member of thc 1. eague of Minnesota Cities Intergovernmental Relatiot:s team. ~dS. ~jt__i. (651) 281-1200 or (80u) 925-1122 FRIDAYFAX 2. 2001 -- P~E 2 require a contractor, builder~ or developer of property to waive a right possessed by the contractor, builder, or developer as a condi- tion of receiving any approval for the development or construction of a property." Mandates municipalities to report in a prescribed manner to the state auditor all construction and development fees. PERA deficit bills On Monday, March 5, the Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement will meet at 6 pm. in Room 112 of the State Capitol to discuss a number of pension bills including two broad proposals to address the PERA Coordinated ~lan deficiency. ;F 810, authored by Sen. Larry Pogemiller (DFL-Minneapolis)~ would require employee and employer contribution increases of 0.375 per- cent effective Jan 1,2002 The Pogemiller bill also includes an additional 0.75 percent increase in the employer contribution that will be reimbursed through state aid by an open state appropriation estimated to be S27 million annually If these increases prove to be inadequate to eliminate the deficiency, employee and employer contributions would each increase an additional .25 per- cent beginning Jan. 1,2004. The bill also includes benefit modifications and coverage changes for PERA participants The bill is largely based on the recommendations of the PERA Board of Directors and is consistent with the policy adopted by League last November The second bill, HF 855 authored by Rep. Harry Mares (R-White Bear Lake), is similar to the Pogemiller bill except the additional employer contribution and state appropriation are not included. Without the state appropriation the Mares, bill would not fully address the current defi- ciency, and the 2004 contingent contribution increase would almost certainly be required. House subcommittee to hear lawful gambling bill On Tuesday, March 6: at 2:30 pm. in Room 400S of the S',ate Office Building, the Gaming Subcommittee of the House Governmental Opera- tions and Veterans Affairs Policy Committee will hear a bill dealing with lawful gambling. HF 1069 (Osskopp, Rhodes: Jaros Gleason, and Dehler) has at least two provi- sions that are of concern to cities Section 8 removes the iocai approval process for premises permit renew- als, and Section 6 provices for noon hour bingo under ce,lain conditions. Upcoming Meetings March 5 · House Elections Subcommittee 6 p.m., or immediately following House floor session Room 200, State Office Building Agenda: HF 857 (Keilkucki) election day registration to require picture identification: additional information required, certain felony convictions reported, and rulemaking authorized. HF 479 (Lipman) election day registration identity and residence require- ments modified, election adminis- tration practice study requested, election equipment purchase revolving loan fund created, and money appropriated (See Feb. 28 Cities Bulletin for bill summaries.) March 6 · House Crime Prevention Basement Hearing Room, State Office Building Chr. Rep John Tuma Agenda: HF 505 (Stanek) Racial profiling--statewide policies and training objectives March 7 · House Transportation Finance 5 State Office Building Chr Rep Carol Molnau Agenda: HF 998 (Lieder) Greater Minnesota transit assistance funding provided and money appropriated HF 645 (Marko) Local road improvement fund created, uses specified: fund transfers provided, advisory committee established, and money appropri- ated HF140(Molnau)Local bridge replacement and rehabilita- tion authorized, bonds issued, and money appropriated · Senate Crime Prevention Room 15: Capitol Chr Sen JaneRanum Agenda: Racial profiling bills: SF386(Ranum) SF903 (Berglin). SF 982 (Neuville). March 9 · Senate Crime Prevention Room 15, Capitol Chr Sen. Jane Ranum Agenda: Continuation of racial profiling bills: SF 386 (Ranum) SF 903 (Berglin) SF 982 (Neuville) Page 1 of 3 KandisHanson From: "Barbara Olson" Sent: Friday, March 02, 2001 2:43 PM Subject: westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 20 westonka.news Vol. 1, No. 20 March 2, 2001 The Westonka Public Schools' channel 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; htt~):!/_www.westonkakl_~,mn..US; tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043; e-mail: we.listen ~_~west.o_n_ ka. k !2._m_n.us. Contents 1. News Briefs --Bet the House: Realtors Day Has Positive Results --Referendum Q&A --Students Celebrate Dr. Suess Day 2. Focus Topic: Wow! Lots of Winning Westonka Teams! 3. Upcoming Events 4. We Want to Hear from You NEWS BRIEFS **Bet the House: Realtors Day Brings Positive Results** Nearly 50 Realtors will go back to school on Thursday, March 8, for Westonka's annual Realtors Workshop, co-sponsored by the Minneapolis Area Association of Realtors. Benefits are many. The goal of the workshop is to give Realtors information they want about the school district so that they can represent the community more effectively to prospective buyers. Attendees have the opportunity to talk face-to-face with school district students and staff, tour classrooms, and see for themselves why the Westonka Public Schools are getting better all the time. Realtors also earn four continuing education credits. If you know of a Realtor who might wish to attend, it's not too late to register. Call Nancy Scott 03/05/2001 Page 2 of 3 at 952.988.3128 for more information. **Referendum Q&A** The following question was received on the welisten@westonka.k12.mn, us e-mail address: Q. "1 don't live in Mound. Can I vote in the school district referendum on March 177" A. All eligible voters who live within the school district can vote in the referendum. The school district covers all or parts of: Mound, Navarre, Spring Park, Shorewood, Lynwood, Minnetrista, Orono, and Independence. Questions about whether you live in the Westonka School District? Call 952.491.8006 or write welisten@westonka.k12.mn.us **Students Celebrate Dr. Seuss Day and "Read Across America"** Today, students are celebrating the 97th birthday of Theodore Geisel, better known as children's author "Dr. Seuss," as they participate in "Read Across America," a reading program sponsored by the National Education Association. The theme this year is "Oh, The Places You'll Go." Numerous activities revolving around the Dr. Seuss theme are taking place throughout the district. At Hilltop Primary, for example, students are wearing red and white and listening as guest reader, KS95 radio celebrity Donna Cruz, reads to them. At lunch, they dined on (what else?) green eggs and ham. You can learn more about Read Across America at http:llwww.nea.org/readacrossl FOCUS TOPIC **Wow! Lots of Winning Westonka Teams!** Westonka students are racking up success after success in co-curriculars and athletics this winter. Mock Trial remains undefeated, having overtaken both Orono and Lakeville in quarter and semi-final competition last weekend. Finals will be held March 5. Several athletes qualified for state tournaments in their respective sports: Wrestling (Jeremy Thompson, Hector Morales, and Ryan Breisch) Alpine Skiing (Nick Smiley) Gymnastics (Jamie Palm, Mary Furlong, and Kelli Grady) Orono / Mound Westonka Swimming and Diving (Ben Rademacher, Justin Pouliot, Alex Hasek, John Bjorklund) The Boys' Hockey team will compete in the Section 6A Championship game tomorrow, March 3. The winners of the Know America competition (Westonka offers the only such program in the o /os/2oo Page 3 of 3 state) are on their way to Washington, DC, with trip expenses paid by local community organizations. UPCOMING EVENTS --March 3, Early Childhood Teddy Bear Picnic, 10:30 a.m., Shirley Hills Primary, 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Mound. Questions: call 952.491.8048 --March 7, No School for preschool and kindergarten; parent/teacher conferences. (Regular school day for Grades 1-12, with evening parent/teacher/student conferences) --March 8, Realtors Day; call 952.988.3128 to register. --March 8 & 9, No School, preK-12; parent/teacher/student conferences --March 17, Bond Referendum vote, Mt. Olive Lutheran Church, 5218 Bartlett Blvd., Mound. Polls are open 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. 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 <welisten@westonka.k12, mn.us>; call the District Feedback Line at 952.491.8260; or mail your comments to Barbara Olson, Community Relations Coordinator, Westonka Public Schools, 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite A, Mound MN 55364 To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to Barbara Olson at <olson b@westo n ka. k 12. m n. us> It is the mission of the Westonka Public School District, in partnership with students, parents, and the community, to create the environment necessary to achieve quality education for lifelong learning. Westonka Public Schools 2450 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite A Mound MN 55364 tel: 952.491.8006; fax: 952.491.8043 vv~listen@westonka~12.mn.us htt_p://www.wes[onka, k12.mn.us westonka.news is published by the Community Relations Department, Barbara OIson, editor. 03/05/2001 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 28, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Foster READING OF MINUTES- 1/24/01 LMCD Regular Board Meeting 2/7/01 Regular Board Meeting (No Quorum) PUBLIC COMMENTS - Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified with a (*) will be approved in one motion unless a Board member request discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. )UBLIC HEARINGS City of Deephaven, new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 222 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 4,639' of non-continuous shoreline. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Maynards, new multiple license and special density license applications for 40 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 397' of continuous shoreline. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Tonka Bay Sales, new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 18 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 475' of continuous shoreline. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Excel Marina (Site 1), new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 78 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 784' of continuous shoreline. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration Excel Marina (Site 2), new multiple dock license and special density license applications for 12 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 129' of continuous shoreline. 1. Public Hearing 2. Discussion and/or Consideration 1. WATER STRUCTURES A) Mr. Miles Canning, review of 1/29/01 letter requesting full refund of $250 deposit received in conjunction with variance application from LMCD Code (The Board awarded a refund of $122.40 to the petitioner at the 11/15/00 Regular meeting); B) Shorewood Yacht Club (Site 2), status report from LMCD Attorney on the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license, special density license, and variance applications from LMCD Code for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous shoreline; C) Upland Farms Project, review and comments on MCWD and MN DNR permit applications submitted for the dredging of Six-Mile Creek for a 14 slip marina project; D) Ordinance Amendment, First reading of an ordinance relating to multiple dock licenses; amending LMCD Code Section 2.03, subd. 7 (This change would clarify that there is a need to secure a new multiple dock license when there is a change in BSU's); E) (*) Excelsior Bay Harbor, staff recommends the Board refund $100 for the overpayment of its 2000-2001 de-icing installation license; F) (*) 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal without change multiple dock license applications as outlined in 2/22/01 staff memo: G) Additional Business; 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION A) Update on Sheriff's Water Proposal for 2001 Boating Season; B) (*) 2001 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends approval of renewal Intoxicating Liquor, Wine, and Non-Intoxicating Malt Liquor applications as outlined in 2/22/01 staff memo; C) Additional Business; 3. FINANCIAL A) Audit of vouchers (2/1/01 - 2/15/01) and (2/16/01 - 2/28/01); B) December financial summary and balance sheet; C) Additional Business; 4. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A) (*) Minutes and Report from the 2/9/01 EWM/Exotics Task Force Meeting (handout); B) Review of recommendations from the EWM Harvesting Program Working Group; C) Additional Business; ,00 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 6. ADMINISTRATION A) Staff update on appointment of Board representatives whose terms expired in 2000 (handout); B) Additional Business; SAVE THE LAKE A) Consideration of one-time funding for recruitment of Special Deputies for the 2001 Boating Season; B) (*) Staff recommends Board approval of refund of $28 for duplicate payment made by Mr. Malcolm Reid for 2/1/01 "Save the Lake" Recognition Banquet Dinner; C) Additional Business; 8. OLD BUSINESS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10.ADJOURNMENT DRAFT LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS 7:00 PM, Wednesday, February 7, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALLTO ORDER Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Lili McMillan, Orono; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay. Also present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members Absent: Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. The City of Minnetrista has no appointed representative. Foster stated that a quorum was not present and he apologized to the public. Although the Board could not take any formal action on the agenda, three agenda items were discussed. They included: 2D. Upland Farms Project, review and comments on MCWD and MN DNR permit applications submitted for the dredging of Six-Mile Creek for a 14 slip marina project. The proposed project was discussed by the Board, with emphasis on whether the District has jurisdiction to require a multiple dock license and whether the District should comment on the proposed dredging project to the MN DNR and the MCWD. Public comments were received by representatives of the developer and representatives of the Halstead Area Wetlands Preservation Group. Further discussion of this agenda item is scheduled for the 2/28/01 Regular LMCD Board meeting. lA. Staff update on the issuance of Intoxicating Liquor Licenses for the 2001 season. It was brought to the Board's attention that all 14 Intoxicating Liquor licensees from the 2000 season have submitted renewal applications for the 2001 season. Five charter boat companies have submitted a letter of interest to participate in the lottery if any of the 14 Intoxicating Liquor licenses became available. The Board at this meeting conducted no lottery. 2B. Shorewood Yacht Club (Site 2), status report from LMCD Attorney on the Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license, special density license, and variance applications from LMCD Code for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous shoreline. LeFevere expressed concern with approval of the special density license application because the deed associated with the property at 5585 Timber Lane is for "boat and beach purposes". This would disqualify the applicant from a special density license because the watercraft storage facility would be available only to persons having an interest in specified riparian or non-riparian real property. The Board received testimony from Mr. Walter Baker, legal counsel for the applicant, on why the proposed plan should not be prohibited from qualifying for a special density license. Fudher discussion on this agenda item is planned for the 2/28/01 Regular LMCD Board rneeling. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no quorum, Chair Foster adjourned the meeting at 9:05 p.m. Bed Foster, Chairman Lili McMillan, Secretary LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 PM, Wednesday, January 24, 2001 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Foster called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Andrea Ahrens, Mound; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Craig Eggers, Victoria; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Lili McMillan, Orono; Tom Skramstad, Shorewood; Katy Van Hercke, Minnetonka; Sheldon Wert, Greenwood. Aisc present: Charles LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician. Members Absent: Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Kent Dahlen, Minnetonka Beach; Herb Suerth, Woodland. The City of Minnetrista currently has no appointed representative. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Vice-Chair Foster Foster reminded the Board that the Save the Lake Recognition Banquet is scheduled for Thursday, 2_/1/01, at Lord Fletcher's of the Lake. Nybeck stated that seating capacity for the Banquet Dinner is limited to 85, and that the number of confirmations is nearly reaching the total capacity. Any Board members who want to attend the Banquet Dinner and have not contacted the District should do so as soon as possible. READING OF MINUTES- 1/10/00 LMCD Regular Board Meeting MOTION: Nelson moved, McMillan seconded to approve the minutes of the 1/10/00 Regular Board meeting as submitted. VOTE: Ayes (6), Abstained (2; Ahrens and Eggers); motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda. There were no comments from the public on subjects not on the agenda. 1. WATER STRUCTURES A. Eagle Bluff HCA, consideration of a new multiple dock license, with minor change, application to add a bench/swim platform on the east-end of the main docking facility from Outlot C for the 2001 boating season. Foster introduced the agenda item by asking if any representatives of the applicant were present and if they had any comments. Staff has recommended approval of the proposed application for the 2001 boating season, contingent upon receiving no negative feedback from the City of Minnetrista and the MN DNR. He asked staff if there had been any negative feedback received from these agencies. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 24, 2001 Page2 Bo Co Harper stated he discussed the proposed application with the Minnetrista City Planner, and he repealed that they foresaw no problems. If problems arose with the proposed application, the City of Minnetrista indicated that they would repeal back to slafl prior to the meeting. No additional feedback has been received from the city. The MN DNR has expressed no opposition lo the proposed application. MOTION: McMillan moved, Gilman seconded to approve the new multiple dock license, with minor change, application for Eagle Bluff HOA for the 2001 boating season. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. 2001 Multiple Dock Licenses, staff recommends approval of 2001 renewal without change multiple dock license applications as outlined in 1/18/01 staff memo. Harper requested that the Board delete the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services renewal without change multiple dock license application from the 1/18/01 staff memo. Nelson asked why staff wanted that application removed from the list for Board consideration. Nybeck stated that Hennepin County has submitted a new site plan for the facility on Spring Park Bay and that there is a need to review it to verify that no changes are proposed. MOTION: Gilman move. d, Ahrens seconded to approve the 2001 renewal without change multiple dock license applications as outlined in 1/18/01 staff memo, deleting the Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services renewal application. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Ambrose and Wert arrived at 7:13 p.m. Shorewood Yacht Club (Site 2), Consideratien of Findings of Fact and Order for approval of new multiple dock license, special density license, and variance applications from LMCD Code for 35 Boat Storage Units (BSU's) on 350' of continuous shoreline (previously tabled at the 7/26/00 Regular Board Meeting). Foster asked staff for background on this agenda item. Nybeck stated three applications were received by the District this past spring for a site to the west of the existing, grandfathered Shorewood Yacht Club, sile 1. The proposed site is currently licensed for seven Boat Storat~e Units (BSU's) o~ 350' of continuous shoreline. The proposed applications included a new multiple dock license, a special density license, and variance from LMCD Code to store 35 BSU's. The Board at four previous meetings reviewed these applications, and he summarized the details of these meetings as follows: · A public hearing was scheduled for the 5/24/00 meeting, with the public hearing continued to the 6/14/00 Regular meeting at the request of the applicant. · The public hearing was continued and closed at the 6/14/00 meeting, with two motions made and approved by the Board. First, the applicant was notified that an additional 60 days was needed to process the proposed applications, per state -:w. Second, the Board decided not to require a discretio~/ary Environmental Assessment W '-:.sheet (EAW) if the calculations for dock structure and maneuvering space ~!id not exceed 20,000 square feet. There were pending concerns raised by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 24, 2001 Page 3 Board that needed further evaluation by staff and the application. They included whether a mandatory EAW needed to be conducted by the District and whether the proposed site is contiguous with the original Shorewood Yacht Club site to the east. The two concerns raised at the 6/14/00 meeting were further discussed at the 6/28/00 meeting. The Board approved a motion to direct counsel to prepare Findings of Fact and Order for approval of the proposed applications, with physical hardships of topography of land and shallow water, and public amenities as determined by the Board. This motion was subject to not receiving objection letters from the City of Shorewood and the MN DNR. The Board at the 7/26/00 meeting reviewed the draft Findings. Officials from the City of Shorewood indicated that rezoning of the parcel needed to be done by the applicant and they encouraged the District to allow them to resolve this prior to addressing the draft Findings. The Findings were tabled at this meeting subject to two conditions. First, District counsel was directed to prepare and secure a waiver letter from the applicant extending the 60 day window required by the state law, which was accomplished. Second, the applicant was directed to work with the City of Shorewood on resolving land use issues. The applicant has addressed this and they have requested that the applications be removed from the table and considered at this meeting. Foster stated that he was just made aware of two issues that LeFevere has identified in the Findings of Fact from the City of Shorewood. He asked for further explanation from LeFevere. LeFevere stated the draft Findings prepared for consideration by the Board imposed a condition that the proposed site be left in a natural, unimproved state. In the Shorewood Findings of Fact, it states that the applicant proposes to locate a small sailboat storage rack and to erect a boat dock frame and canopy on the proposed site. He questioned whether that is matter of concern to the Board and that there might be a need to amend the draft Findings to allow for these structures. Foster stated that he believed these two structures are more within the jurisdiction of the City of Shorewood rather than the District. He supported the idea of amending the draft Findings to allow for these structures. LeFevere reminded the Board that the natural, unimproved state was used as a physical hardship to grant the proposed applications. The Board considered this request from the applicant in evaluating the proposed variance application and the Board needs to determine whether they are comfortable amending this condition in the draft Findings. A second issue relates to the issuance of a special density license and the Code prohibiting the granting of such a license if it includes a watercraft storage facility for parties that have an interest in specified riparian or non-riparian property. Foster stated that the General Rule in the Code allows for development of up to one BSU for every 50' of continuous shoreline. For other facilities, such as a commercial marina or a municipality, one BSU is allowed up to a maximum of every 10'. These facilities need to be open up to the public and he believed the draft Findings for the proposed applications were prepared with this in mind. LeFevere stated he believed the applicant has represented at previous meetings that boat storage at the proposed facility would not be tied to parties that have an interest in specified riparian or non-riparian property. This might be the case now; however, there is reference to an easement of the owner of property located at 5585 Timber Lane in the City of Shorewood Findings of Fact. He was unsure on whether this easement was tied to the owner that lives at this residence or if it is tied to this piece of real estate. Further research needs to Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 24, 2001 Page 4 be conducted on the easement agreement to determine whether it would disqualify the applicant from receiving a special density license. Foster clarified for the Board that the Code would not prohibit the commercial marina owner from having a contract with this resident for the rental of the slip. The Code would prohibit the commercial marina owner from havin§ a contract with a specified piece of riparian properly, no matter who owns it. He concurred that this a potential problem that needs fudher clarification from the applicant. Mr. John Cross, owner of the Shorewood Yacht Club, provided some historical background with the City of Shorewood and the District on the proposed project. It took several years working through the courts to get to this point and he was surprised about the concerns raised regarding the easement on the proposed site plan. The easement is for lookout and boat/beach purposes. He staled the sailboat storage rack and sailboat storage rack wculd be used in conjunction with the sailing school and would not need to be constructed if it caused problems with District Code. Foster stated that the main issue for Board discussion was whether the easement was tied to specified riparian or non-riparian properly. He suggested the Board might want to consider changing the language in the draft Findings from natural, unimproved stale to essentially natural state. He questioned whether the easement issue could be resolved this evenir/g. LeFevere stated that the language in the Shorewood Findings of Fact makes it appear that the easement is granted to the specified property at 5585 Timber Lane and that these rights would be transferred in the sale of the properly. Wert questior~ed whether it is feasible to deduct the shoreline associated with the easement from the 350' of continuous shoreline arid adjust th(~. BSU's applied for accordingly. He understood the applicant might not agree to this compromise but it would allow him to proceed with the majority of the proposed project. LeFevere stated that he was not prepared to address that compromise at this time. Foster stated he believed the applicant needs to forward a copy of the easement to LeFevere for further review. He understood the applicant would like to start construction of the dock through the ice; however, this issue i~eeds to resolved by the Board prior to construction. Van Hercke questioned whether it would be appropriate for the Board to hold a special meeting for circumstances like this. Nybeck suggested that if the Board would like to hold a special meeting, he would propose moving the meeting scheduled for 2/14/01 to 2/7/01. The consensus of the Board was to move the Board meeting scheduled for 2/14/01 to 2/7/01. Wert stated that he would favor a motion to approved the Findings of Fact for approval of the proposed applications, subject to LeFevere reviewing the easement agreement to verify that it would not prevent the District from approving the special density license application, if problems arise during review of the easement agreement by LeFevere, it should be brought h;'~ck tor fudher review by the Board. MOTION: Wert moved, Ahrens seconded to approve the Shorewood Yacht Club (site 2) Findings of Fact for the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 24, 2001 Page 5 proposed applications, subject to changing the language in the foudh condition from "natural, unimproved state" to "essentially natural state", and subject to review by LMCD counsel that the easement agreement does not violate District Code relating to special density licenses. Foster stated if LeFevere believed the easement agreement does not comply with District Code for special density licenses, this agenda item will be brought back for further discussion at the 2/7/01 Regular Board meeting. LeFevere stated the Findings of Fact from the City of Shorewood references a small pedestrian bridge over the water between the two sites. He believed this was not included in the proposed site plan when the Findings of Fact and Order were prepared and the Board should address it. Cress stated the bridge would be a dock for walking purposes between the two sites. LeFevere stated when the proposed applications were reviewed by the Board, it was unclear whether the two sites were contiguous or if there was a riparian property between them. When the Findings of Fact were prepared, this was taken into account noting that probably only a small watercraft would be allowed in the dock use area and it should be able to maneuver around the proposed dock. A dock across this area would prevent navigation from this possible riparian property and would contradict the current Findings. Cross stated that he would agree to not constructing the dock as a small pedestrian bridge over the water between the two sites. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Ambrose moved, Ahrens seconded to reschedule the next Regular Board meeting from 2/14/01 to 2/7/01. VOTE: Ayes (9), Nayes (1, Gilman), motion carried. B. Additional Business, Nybeck updated the Board on the City of Deephaven new multiple dock license application, with a public hearing conducted at the 12/13/00 Board meeting. The public hearing was scheduled to be continued at this meeting; however, it was not scheduled at the request of the City of Deephaven. They have requested continuing the public hearing to the 2/28/01 regular meeting. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Staff update on Sheriffs Water Proposal for the 2001 Boating Season. Foster updated the Board on the meeting with Minnetonka. There was significant discussion with the Minnetonka City Council during a workshop session on 1/16/01 regarding the proposal. The City of Minnetonka expressed concern about voluntarily contributing 20% of the member city commitment, although they have approximately 50% of the taxable market value. They expressed concern about Minnetonka having a small percentage of the shoreline on the lake and stated they would like a different funding method explored by the District, although the Mayor supported the current funding method for funding the District. He concluded that Minnetonka is not interested in participating in voluntary funding of this proposal and that he would like to have Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 24, 2001 Page 6 staff work on possible alternative funding methods, using information available through the Metropolitan Council and the Lake Minnetonka aerial surveys. On the · collection of additional information, the Board discussed a number of ideas. These included: The concept of modifying questions within the user attitude survey of the Lake Minnetonka aerial surveys to find out more information on where the boats are coming from that boat on the lake. · Some Board men,hers questioned whether the Districl should go through the exercise of collecting this information and how the District would benefit from this information if it were collected. · Some Board members stated that they believed this information would help in the long-term to support this propcsal with Hennepin County, especially if the majority of boat owners that use the lake reside within th6 county. · Including what body of water is primarily used by boaters on their registration forms. Van Hercke expressed her appreciation for participation by Foster, LeFevere, and staff at the Minnetonka City Council Workshop meeting. She stated that she believed Minnetonka suppods the Water Patrol proposal for 2001; however, they did ~ot suppod the formula proposed that is consistent with the budget levy formula. Foster stated that he aisc attended a Spring Park City Council meeting on 1/16/01. It is questionable whether they would volunlarily participate in the funding for the 2001 boating season and that it is scheduled to be voted on sometime in February. Wen asked how the District would bridge the gap of the member cities that do not financially padicipate in this proposal. Foster stated that he believed the gap could be made up utilizing private contributors. He believed that continued contacts should be made with the city councils at Mound, Shorewood, and Victoria. Ahrens stated that the City of Mound believes that Special Deputies should be used instead of licensed Deputies if the main focus of the proposal is quality of experience issues rather than public safety. She understood that the Special Deputies have received significant training similar to licensed Deputies. The consensus of the Board was to further visit the proposal with the remaining cities that have not committed financially to it. Fudher discussion of this proposal is planned at an upcoming Board meeting. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers (1/16/01 - 1/31/01). Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Lake fvlinnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meeting January 24, 2001 Page 7 B. December financial summary and balance sheet. Nelson reviewed the December financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. MOTION: Foster moved, Wed seconded to accept the December financial summary and balance sheet as submitted. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Foster stated that he would like to reconsider the previous motion and table this agenda item to allow for Chair Babcock to review and comment on it. MOTION: Foster moved, McMillan to table discussion of this agenda item to the 2/7/01 Regular Board meeting. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business. There was no additional business. SAVE THE LAKE A. Consideration of one-time funding for recruitment of Special Deputies for 2001 Boating Season. The consensus of the Board was to table this agenda item to the 2/7/01 Regular Board Meeting. B. Additional Business. There was no additional business. 5. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT Nybeck reported on the following: · A newspaper article was included in the handout folders on the use of weevils in Lake Minnetonka. · A letter to the editor was included in the handout folders on the proposed Upland Farms Project in Six-Mile Creek. Additionally, a letter was included in the handout folders from Tom Casey on this proposed project. The Board discussed the proposed Upland Farms Project in Six-Mile Creek. There was discussion on previous comments submitted on behalf of the Board of Directors to the MN DNR on this proposed project. The Board discussed these concerns, noting they addressed potential environmental concerns on Halstead Bay because of the possible dredging of Six-Mile Creek and potential boat density concerns on Lake Minnetonka, The consensus of the Board was for staff to forward pending dredging permit applications from the MN DNR and the MCWD on this project for fudher review. The Board also directed staff to prepare a draft letter to be forwarded to these agencies restating the concerns of the District on this project. 6. EWM/EXOTCSTASK FORCE There was no discussion. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board Meetin~ January 24, 2001 Page 8 7. ADMINISTRATION There was no discussion. 8. OLD BUSINESS. There was no old business. 9. NEW BUSINESS. There was no new business. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. Albert Foster, Vice-Chairman Craig W. Nelson, Treasurer CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAY~NOOD ROAD MOUN D, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 To: From: Ref: MEMORANDUM Kandis Hanson, City Manager~ ~ ~ ) Jim Fackler, Parks Director .... ~\1 ~'/ City Hall Structural Investigati~h. Attached is the response from TSP One Architecture relating to the evaluation of the skylight and roof structural integrate. The recommendation is to view the connection wood stud drop walls that runs from the upper roof to the lower roof. Mr Gregory Duerr, P.E. was not clear in his letter to me of the action that the City needs to take. So I have placed a call to Bert Haglund of TSP One to clarify this. I will update you when I have his response. Once the inspection is done it is advised that the repair would be to install a soft joint that allows for movement and eliminates the cracking of the sheet rock that we currently see. Cc: Jon Sutherlund, Building official printed on recycled paper TSP One, Inc. 21 Water Street Excelsior, MN 55331 phone (952) 474-3291 fax (952) 474-3928 www.teamtsp.com Architecture Engineering Interior Design Offices in Minneapolis and Rochester, MN TRANSMITTAL DATE: February25, 2001 TO: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 ATTN: Jim Fackler Mound City Hall Structural Investigation TSP Pjt#01705 WE ARE SENDING: (X) Herewith ( ) Under Separate Cover FOR YOUR: ( ) Use ( ) Files (X) Information ( ) Approval QTY DATE DESCRIPTION 1 02-05-01 Letter from Structural Design Associates regarding their observations. REMARKS: AFFILIATED OFFICES Minneapolis, MN Rochester, MN Denver, CO Fort Collins, CO Marshalltown, IA Rapid City, SD Sioux Falls, SD Sheridan, WY SIGNED: Bertil E. Hagtu4, AIA ~ Principal i CC.' TRANSMITTED BY: ( ) Fed Ex ( X ) Mail ( ) Messenger ( ) Hand Deliver ( ) Modem An Eaual Opportumty, Affirmative Acbon Employer Structural sigv. SOClates, Inc. 6860 Shingle Creek Parkway - Suite 201 February5,2001 · Minneapolis, Minnesota 55430 · (763) 560-5300 · Fnx (763) 560-5400 Mr. Bert Haglund TSP One Architecture 21 Water Street Excelsior, Minnesota 55331 Re: Mound City Hall Skylight Area Observation Dear Mr. Haglund: Per your request, I traveled to the Mound City Hall to view the area around the skylight that is showing signs of distress. This skylight is over the atrium, which runs the length of the original building. A section of the atrium was closed in with floor framing in front of the village offices. The skylight is a single sloped element supported on roof framing. This framing is a 2 x 6 member at each skylight mullion. See detail 6/9 enclosed. The 2 x 6 follows the slope of the skylight and is fastened into a double 2 x 12 joist at both the high and low ends. The roof joists are supported on 5-¥: x 16-½" glulam beams approximately 14'-0" o.c. The glulams cantilever over the corridors, along the atrium, out to the skylight. At each of these glulams a 2 x 6 dropped wall approximately 3 to 4 feet deep, was placed across the atrium below the skylight, see detail 5/9 enclosed. This did not appear to be the in-place detail because a 2 x 6 appeared to be between the top of the wall and the underside of the skylight. The areas of distress were located at these dropped wall locations. At the intersection of the dropped wall, over the atrium, to the lower wall soffit there were numerous cracks, and in a couple locations there was buckling of the sheetrock in the dropped wall. There are no control joints in the rock between the dropped cross wall and the soffits on the low or high ends. There was also water damage, stained sheetrock, deteriorated sheetrock, etc. However, I was informed that the water infiltration problem has been corrected. Most of the cracks occurred on the lower half of the dropped cross wall. In a couple locations there are some minor vertical cracks in the top half of the cross wall at its intersection with the upper soffit. The cracks appear to be caused by the differential movement of the building from side to side of the skylight. The upper and lower roofs are totally separated from one another, which means the atrium and skylight area will be the location that any movement or deflection will show up. The cantilevered glulams will also tend to deflect over time due to the dead load of the roof and due to snow loads and possible snow buildup on the lower roof. The dropped cross wall has been rigidly attached at both the upper and lower ends of the member, therefore, with roof movements these walls have cracked to relieve stress buildups in the sheetrock. It would be recommended that the repair of these areas incorporated a control joint or soft joint where the cross wall meets the soffits. Also, the connection of the wood stud dropped cross wall to the upper and lower roofs should be reviewed at this time to make sure the connectors, nails, etc. are still in place. A hole was cut in the soffit sheetrock to determine if water damage to the wood members has occurred. No water damage was noticed. If you have any questions or desire further information please contact us. -~l~Sincerely' Gregory J. Duerr, P. E. Minn. Reg. #14394 encl. THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK INTENTIONALLY i i" "'::~:: ' ~:., ;.:.,:.!..'..}" .... · ,~ :.,J ':':' , ":' :;i~ ': ..' i,:.,." ~ .,~.. ;: ,.. t,T~m, , . ,~;t~ 2" '! ov 3600 Shoreline Drive. P.O. Box ] 15. Navan'e. Minnesota $5:392. %lehone: 612-4TI-0768 · Facsimile: 612-471-0577 February 28, 2001 Dear Silent Auction Contributor: The Lake Minnetonka Area Chamber of Commerce would like to thank you for contributing to the success of the nineteenth annual Midwinter Ball. The event this year was truly a wonderful evening for people to enjoy. The Chamber of Commerce staff has received overwhelmingly positive feedback fi.om guests at the Ball. The silent auction was a highlight of the evening! The Lake Minnetonka Area Chamber of Commerce is proud to provide this opportunity to promote your business to a large population of Lake Minnetonka businesses and residents and encourage them to frequent your establishment. All contributors to the silent auction were acknowledged and thanked for their generous donations in the program for the evening and several local newspapers. On behalf of the Lake Minnetonka Area Chamber of Commerce, thank you for your support of this community event. Sincerely, / Patsy Kiesow Executive Director "Vibrki~tg Together:' %c:rvi~ N4 i~(,lo~k~ I-~t,:,.h. N4i~(,trist:x. NI(, ~i~l. N:w~wr(./( )ro~()..'qt. 13o~fifa('ious, St)ring Park Metropolitan Council Building communities that work March 5, 2001 Environmental Services MCES PLANNING AND BUDGET BREAKFAST MEETINGS Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) is holding breakfast meetings in advance of preparing its 2002 budgets. These meetings provide communities and industries an opportunity to comment on, help plan for and prioritize current issues, services and direction. This year, 2001, is the final year of a three-year $20 million budget reduction goal and the 2001 budget fulfills that goal. As MCES prepares for the challenges of 2002 and beyond, your comments and participation at these planning meetings is particularly important. Included in the meeting agenda will be comments and discussion on the following. · MCES's Mission/Vision/Responsibilities · Smart Growth Principles and Regional Environmental Policies Alignment · Watershed Capacity and Regional Development -- Impact of growth on metro watersheds · Regional Partnerships and Incentives to Support Strategic Initiatives · Wastewater Collection and Treatment -- Infrastructure master planning -- Key capital projects: cost efficiency and timing · Competitive Regional Services -- Budget and rates: 2000 results, 2001 budget and 2002 rate options -- Nationwide comparison of rates and quality: best 5 by 2005 goal · Open Discussion Follow-up meetings will be held in June to consider the draft MCES 2002 Budget and 2002-2007 Plan for Allocating Resources (PAR). Please make reservations by calling Dorothy Goodwin at (651) 602-1263. Leave your name and affiliation and identify the meeting you will attend. SCHEDULE FOR MCES PLANNING AND BUDGET BREAKFAST MEETINGS (Maps to all three locations are included) Wednesday, March 21:7:45 a.m. Maplewood Community Center 2100 White Bear Avenue Maplewood, MN Tuesday, March 27:7:45 a.m. Veterans' Memorial Community Center 8055 Barbara Avenue East Inver Grove Heights, MN Wednesday, March 28:7:45 a.m. Brooklyn Park Community Activity Center 5600-85· Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN For more information about MCES, visit our website at: www. metrocouncil.orglenvironment/index.htm www.metrocouncil.org Metro Info Line 602-1888 230 East Fifth Street * St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1626 * (651) 602-1005 * Fax 602-1138 * TrY 229-3760 An Equat Opportunity Employer Maplewood Community Center 2100 White Bear Avenue Maplewood, Minnesota Phone: (651) 779-3555 Wed., March 21, 2001 7:45 a.m. From the North: South on Hwy 35E to Hwy 61, south to Hwy 36. East on Hwy 36 to White Bear Avenue. South on White Bear Avenue about 1/2 mile to the Center. From the South: North on Hwy 494/694 to Hwy 36. West on Hwy 36 to White Bear Avenue. South on White Bear Avenue about 1/2 mile to the Center. From the East: West on Hwy 36 to White Bear Avenue. South on White Bear Avenue about 1/2 mile to the Center. Or: West on Hwy 94 to Hwy 494/694. North to Hwy 36. West on Hwy 36 to White Bear Avenue, South on White Bear Avenue about 1/2 mile to the center. From the West.: East on Hwy 694 to White Bear Avenue, South on White Bear Avenue, about 2 miles to the Center. Or: East on Hwy 94 to Hwy 35E. North on Hwy 35E to Hwy 36. East on Hwy 36 to White Bear Avenue. South on White Bear Avenue about 1/2 mile to the Center. N ~ 1-694 / Hwy 36 J ~ Community e4 Hwy 212 U.I ~ Center ~" Hwy $ ~ J 1-94 / / Veterans' Memorial Community Center 8055 Barbara Avenue East Inver Grove Heights, MN (651) 450-2514 Tuesday, March 27, 2001 7:45 a.m. From 1-494 take Highway 52 south to 80th Street East. Exit at 80th and go west to Barbara Avenue East. The community center is located on the west side of Barbara just south of 80th St. E. 1-494 1-494 Hwy 52 70th St. E. 80th St. E. 82nd St. E. Hwy 52 Brooklyn Park Community Activity Center 5600-85th Avenue North Brooklyn Park, MN (763) 493-8000 Wed., March 28, 2001 7:45 a.m. From the North: Take Hwy 10, to Hwy 610 South, to Hwy 252 South, tO 85th Ave. North. Go West (right) on 85th for 2.25 miles. The Center is located between Regent and Zane Avenues on 85th and will be on your dght. From the South: Take 35W North, to 94 West, to Hwy 252 North, to 85th Avenue North. Go West (left) on 85th for 2.25 miles. The Center is located between Regent and Zane Avenues on 85th and will be on your right. From the East: Take Hwy 694 West, to 252 North, to 85th Ave. North. Go West (left) on 85th for 2.25 miles. The Center is located between Regent and Zane Avenues on 85th and will be on your right. From the West.: Take Hwy 169 North, to 85th Ave. North. Go East (right on 85th for 3 miles. The Center is just past Zane Avenue on the left. W-"~E 86th Ave. 93rd Ave. Brooklyn Community Activity Center 85th Ave. 2000 IACP Awards Presented During the 107th Annual IACP Conference Civil Rights Awards The IACP Civil Rights Awards were on November 15, 2000, at the Annual IACP Conference Banquet. San Diego Border Patrol Sector, Mr. Rinus Visser of the Rotterdam Police in the Netherlands, the i National Church Arson Task Force, and De ective John Maloof of the Boston, · Massachusetts, Police Department. Alien smugglers and border bandits along the United States-Mexico border frequently violate the human rights of alien migrants. The San Diego Border Pa- trol Sector designed and initiated a far- reaching, multi-faceted safety campaign to o, trtail border violence, reduce injuries, pr, ent fatalities, and protect the fights of migrants in the border area. These initia- tives have served as a model for imple- mentation of the U.S. Border Patrol Na- tional Border Safety Initiative. The award was given in the area of Education/Pre- vention. Mr. Rinus Visser of the Rotterdam Po- lice in the Netherlands was presented witl the IACP's Civil Rights Award for his outstanding and long-lasting work in the field of integration and cooperation between the police and ethnic minorities. As a result of his work, the relationship between the Rotterdam Police and ethnic minorities in the city improved dramati- cally. In addition, the number of ethnic min~.:ities joining the police profession incr, ased significantly. Mr. Visser estab- lished several extremely successful pro- help integrate ethnic minorities the mainstream population, includ- ing the Dutch Coalition Training pro- He received the award in the area of Education/Training for developing and innovative approaches that pro~'. ~te human rights within the com- / and/or the department. The National Church Arson Task the third x~cipient of the IACP Civil Award, conducted the investiga- of Jay Scott Ballinger, who is believed as many as 75 church across the southern United States. dedication, effort, and devotion to Bradley A. Buckles, director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms (second frora lqq), and WillianI D. Gore, special agent in charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (far right), accept the IACP Civil Rights Award on behalf of the National Church Arvn Task Force. Also pictured are David G. Walclmk, for~ner president, IACP (far Ifil) and Michael D. Robinson, immediate past president, IA CP (second J~om right). IACP Civil Rights Award winner Rinus Vlsser, Regional Operational Support Services, Rotterdam-Rijnmond Police (lqq), and Michael D. Robinson, immediate past president, IACP On behalf of the U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Sector, Chief William T. Veal accepts the IACP Civil Rights Award from Michael D. Robinson, immediate past president, IACP. duty exhibited by the National Church Arson Task Force and its principal agen- cies, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and the Federal Bureau of Inves- tigation, resulted in not only justice, but also a genuine sense of healing across the nation. The actions of the task force serve IACP Civil Rights Award winner John Maloof, detective, Boston, Massachusetts Police Department (ledq), and Michael D. Robinson, immediate past president, IACP THE POLICE CHIEF/FEBRUARY 2001 33 as a textbook example of effective federal, state, and local cooperation and as a benchmark for civil fights and hate crime inv~tigations. A Hispanic female was severely beaten outside her residence in South Boston by several males yelling racial slurs. An in- vestigation of this incident and others like it revealed a dramatic decrease in the number of hate/bias crimes in three hous- ing developments in South Boston. Boston Police Detective John Maloof's in- vestigation into these matters had a positive effect on the city of Boston, its cit- izens, and the agencies that are empow- ered to protect the fights of every individ- ual. Detective Maloof has been extremely diligent, thorough, and committed to the successful resolution of hate/bias crimes. Community Policing Award Five departments from different popu- lation categories were awarded the 2000 Community Policing Award. IACP and FIT Industries Night Vision launched this award in 1998. Although the departments ranged from small to large, all made a commitment to move away from a tradi- tional reactive policing approach to ad- ,80 ssing crime to a proactive approach. e Mound, Minnesota, Police De- ent, which serves a community of residents, implemented numerous · community-based programs to address citizen concems. Using these programs, resources, and personnel, the department built and implemented a solid communi- ty policing foundation. To determine its progress, the department tracked citizens' feedback on whether they considered the department's service and efforts success- ful. The department also distributed citi- zen comment cards seeking reaction to traffic contacts and other calls for service. The response rate from citizens was 20 percent. Each response card was totaled, and a numerical number was given for the particular police officer's level of ser- vice. Each officer in the department met with a supervisor on a monthly basis and was evaluated on his or her strengths and weaknesses. The Mundelein, Illinois, Police De- partment, which serves a community of approximately 28,000 residents, faced dif- ficulty dealing with minority issues, cul- tural diversity, young people involved with gangs, alcohol, and drugs, and other quality-of-life issues. In response, its new police chief implemented a community policing program that developed a new mission and values statement. The police department motto was painted on patrol cars, dispatchers and officers received new uniforms, and the police department building was repainted. The department instituted community policing training ~C~ 34 THE POLICE CHIEF/FEBRUARY 2001 and implemented a 12-hour shift. The po- lice department also formed partnerships with a variety of organizations in the com- munity, which resulted in the develop- ment of successful community policing programs. The Asheville, North Carolina, Police Department, which serves a community of approximately 68,000 residents, had be- come increasingly frustrated with neigh- borhoods that looked to law enforcement to solve all of the problems they faced. To help empower residents to take control of their community, the department joined citizens to accomplish these goals: · Develop the mission and values of the department. · Train all employees in corrununity policing. · Facilitate the transition from tradi- tional policing philosophies to communi- ty policing philosophies. · Develop new employee selection and promotion criteria designed to mea- sure an applicant's aptitude for communi- ty policing. The department also created police re- source centers designed to serve as com- munity focal points providing program- ming, educational opportunities, and convenient locations for filing police re- ports or resolving issues. After beginning a community policing program, the Fremont, California, Police Department, which serves a culturally di- verse community of about 200,000 resi- dents, found that neighborhoods lacked the necessary skills to solve problems for the long term without police leadership. In 1999, the department developed a strat- egy to focus on leadership building in the neighborhoods using a community-orga- nizing model. After extensive interviews, the department determined that residents were reluctant to partner with the police department to solve problems. It em- barked on a program to train residents, of- ricers, and civilian staff in community or- ganizing. By developing leaders and cohesive groups in the community to re- solve quality-of-life issues, the depart- ment was able to prepare groups to partic- ipate without requiring sustained police involvement. In the early 1990s, the E1 paso, Texas, Police Department, serving a population of about 700,000, began to decentralize operations from headquarters to five re- gional command centers located in each section of town. The officers created citi- zen advisory boards composed of volun- teer members from each of these areas. The boards guaranteed that neighbor- hood residents could address the unique concerns and challenges in that part of town. The dty also established so-called "community action teams" consisting of six officers who concentrated their efforts for a certain period of time in neighbor- hoods with high levels of economic dis- tress, urban decay, and criminal activity. This effort had a positive effect. Neighbor- hood residents began to develop trust in the police officers. The community be- came more involved by reporting crime, code violations, and suspicious activity, as well as developing friendships with other area residents. Vehicle Theft Award of Merit Four agencies were recognized by the IACP and the National Insurance Crime Bureau for their outstanding efforts in re- ducing vehicle theft and were presented with the Vehicle Theft Award of Merit. Established in 1995, the Baltimore County Police Department, Regional Auto Theft Team, in Towson, Maryland, performs enforcement, intelligence, pre- vention, prosecution, communications, technical, and training functions. Through a combination of street opera- tions, investigation of organized theft or- ganizations and car jackings, and investi- gation of insurance fraud, the auto theft team reduced the incidence of auto theft by 47 percent since 1994. The team, which also includes officers from the Baltimore City Police Department, has been respon- sible for over 4,000 arrests and the recov- ery of more than 2,600 stolen vehicles with an estimated value of over 20 million dollars. The New York City Police Depart- ment, Auto Crime Division, enhanced its database of pertinent auto crime informa- tion, trained over 2,000 personnel in auto crimes, and successfully targeted orga- nized criminal activities associated with the auto repair business. Working with the NYPD Organized Crime Control Bu- reau, Patrol Services Bureau, and Detec- tive Bureau, the division helped reduce auto thefts in New York City by 9.9 per- cent in 1999. It also collaborated with the NYPD Legal Bureau's Legislative Affairs Unit to propose legislation that would in- crease penalties for auto theft and posses- sion of a stolen vehicle. The NYPD's work with other city, state, and federal agencies to share information and support investi- gations also played a valuable role in re- ducing auto crimes. The Sacramento County Auto Theft Suppression (SACCATS) Task Force of the California Highway Patrol, Valley Division, refocused its efforts in 1997 to target known vehicle offenders and con- duct street patrols and coordinated en- forcement efforts. By targeting career criminals, the SACCATS Task Force has increased arrests for vehicle theft as well as other crimes and reduced the incidence of vehicle thefts by 35 percent in Sacra- mento County in 1999. The task force also vo _ xvm No / AI ¢H - 2001 HI-NOTES PRESIDENT'S MESSAGE February 20, 2001 Dear Members and Friends, Our Project Coordinator fi.om Yanik and Associates, Lowell Olson, gave us an update on our new Center. Everything has been going quite well and on schedule. All of the floors have been poured, the windows are in, the roof shingles have been nailed down, installation of siding has begun and the framing of the interior walls is in progress. If all goes well, we should be in the building in early summer. We still have a little over $160,000 to raise and that is our biggest challenge at this time. Sharon Cook, President of the Foundation, has been busy almost full-time meeting with telephone people, technology people, etc working on all of the details that need to be completed. This past week our Foundation Board met to talk about the ongoing maintenance and rental of the Center. It will be a huge commitment for us, but a challenging one. We'll let you know more as plans are made. See you all at the Think Spring Breakfast Buffet at St John's Lutheran Church on Sunday, March 4th! Marilyn Byrnes President Partners for Lifelong Learning Westonka Farmers' Market 2000 Season Wrap-up Meeting Minutes Wednesday, November 22, 2000, 8 a.m. Shirley Hills Primary School, Room 200 - Meeting Room Attendance: James Kunz, Vem Richter, Lori Hasselfeldt, Wilbur Light, Mike Looby, Kandis Hanson, Sarah Heyer Downtown Construction Kandis Hanson, City Manager of Mound, shared that the downtown demolition along Auditors Road and the Langdon District would not begin until after the Fall 2001 Farmers' Market season, and that the market could remain at the current location for the 2001 season. Possible future (temporary) locations for the market were discussed- Spring Park and church parking lots. Lori Hasselfeldt will check with the Spring Park City Administrator on a location in Spring Park. Lo]i, Sarah Heyer and Kandis Hanson will plan a meeting next summer to discuss a location for the Farmers' Market in 2002. Downtown parking Concerns regarding a lack of' available parking, the safety of the parking lot (speeding and no "one-way" traffic), and cars parking in the designated Farmers' Market area was discussed. Kandis said that she would talk with the Public Works department and Police Chief to see what can be done to improve the parking situation and safety for customers. Review of 2000 season It was suggested that we need more variety at the market, the lefsa and orchids added some variety this year, but we still need to seek vendors who can bring some "unique" things to the market. The vendors present suggested that we find vendors with strawberries, dried flowers, honey, breads, chickens, etc. They stated that we have plenty of vegetable growers and should limit any new applicants who bring only veggJes. It was suggested that "variety" be stressed in all promotional items seeking new vendors. Site visits have been working well, we will continue to do site visits for any new vendors. The 2000 budget was available to review. 2001 Season It was suggested that the application fee should be increased for 2001 so that we could pay someone to put up and take down the signs each day the market is open. If anyone knows someone who would be interested in being paid to put up and take down the Farmers' Market signs, please contact Sarah Heyer. The application fee for a 2001 seasonal permit will be $100. We will also be offering a single seasonal item permit for $40 (4 weeks at the market), for vendors who are interested in selling one single season item. Lori Hasselfeldt has agreed to be the Farmers' Market Liaison again for 2001. Independent School District z77 Community Education & Services · 2450 Wilshire Blvd., Suite D · Mound MN 55364 · p: 952/491-8040 · f: 952/491-8043 · www.westonka.kl2.mn.us Dates & Hours for the 2001 Westonka Farmers' Market: June 30-October 27, 2001 Mondays & Wednesdays, 1-6 p.m. Saturdays, 8 a.m.-Noon June 30, 2001 will be the "official" day that the Market will open; however, if vendors have produce ready prior to that, they can come on their own. The hours of the market on Mondays and Wednesdays will change to 1-6 p.m. If anyone would like to help review applications (sometime in the spring), they can contact Sarah Heyer. Vern, Wilbur and Lori said they are interested in helping review applications. CITY OF MOUND BUDGET REVENUE REPORT Jan. 2001 8.33% 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 Jan. 2001 YTD PERCENT BUDGET REVENUE REVENUE VARIANCE RECEIVED 1,429,370 0 0 4,340 60 60 160,920 12,736 12,736 970,380 0 0 132,750 7,352 7,352 100,000 8,096 8,096 142,400 59,095 59,095 153,000 0 0 12,500 1,328 1,328 (1,429,370) 0.00% (4,280) 1.38% (148,184) 7.91% (970,380) 0.00% (125,398) 5.54% (91,904) 8.10% (83,305) 41.50% (153,000) 0.00% (11,172) 10.62% TOTAL REVENUE 3.105.660 88,667 88,667 (3.016.993) 2.86% FIRE FUND 403,270 58,443 RECYCLING FUND 121,880 6,174 LIQUOR FUND 1,900,000 123,880 WATER FUND 510,000 35,197 STORM WATER UTILITY 101,000 0 SEWER FUND 990,000 79,551 CEMETERY FUND 6,250 400 DOCK FUND 81,350 19,060 58,443 (344,827) 14.49% 6,174 (115,706) 5.07% 123,880 (1,776,120) 6.52% 35,197 (474,803) 6.90% o (lOl,OOO) 0.00% 79,551 (910,449) 8.04% 400 (5,850) 6.40% 19,060 (62,290) 23.43% 02128/2001 rev01 Gino CITY OF MOUND BUDGET EXPENDITURES REPORT Jan. 2001 8.33% GENERAL FUND Council Promotions Cable TV City Manager/Clerk Elections Assessing Finance Computer Legal Police Civil Defense Planning/Inspections Streets City Property Parks Summer Recreation Contingencies Transfers Jan. 2001 YTD BUDGET EXPENSE EXPENSE 81,320 4,000 48,000 229 430 2 300 73 450 196 830 18 950 118 98O 1,125 850 6 950 261,980 496,120 80,440 247,740 42,260 25,000 206,740 14,131 14,131 0 0 0 0 12,803 12,803 0 0 2 2 15,090 15,090 11,961 11,961 5,052 5,052 85,131 85,131 398 398 16,612 16,612 36,348 36,348 6,109 6,109 11,902 11,902 0 0 0 0 15,847 15,847 VARIANCE 67,189 4,0O0 48,000 216,627 2,300 73,448 181,740 6,989 113,928 ,040,719 6,552 245.368 459.772 74 331 235 838 42 260 25 000 190 893 PERCENT EXPENDED 17.38% 0.00% 0.00% 5.58% 0.00% 0.00% 7.67% 63.12% 4.25% 7.56% 5.73% 6.34% 7.33% 7.59% 4.80% 0.00% 0.00% 7.67% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 3,266,340 231,386 231,386 3,034,954 7.08% Area Fire Service Fund 415,850 10,725 10,725 405,125 2.58% TIF 1-2 0 53,116 53,116 (53,116) Recycling Fund 135,480 8,435 8,435 127,045 6.23% Liquor Fund 551,450 27,824 27,824 523,626 5.05% Water Fund 478,620 22,691 22,691 455,929 4.74% Sewer Fund 948,210 78,668 78,668 869,542 8.30% Cemetery Fu nd 7,500 936 936 6,564 12.48% Dock Fund 144,620 643 643 143,977 0.44% Exp-00 02/28/2001 Gino General Fund $1,360,434 CDBG 1,114 Area Fire Protection Services 294,881 MSA 21,338 SealcOat 19,619 PW Facility 137,854 Capital Improvement 343,258 CDB 3,320 Commerce Place TIF 35,030 Downtown TIF 1-2 (1,014,206) Grant Revolving 7,725 Co Rd 15 7,783 Recycling 86,649 Liquor Store 400,267 Water 864,997 Sewer 916,965 Cemetery 974 Dock 274,650 Fire Relief (8,823) HRA 0 Note: The above schedule shows the combined cash and investment balances by fund for the months indicated as recorded in the General Ledger. The balances do not reflect receivable, payables, authorized transfers, encumbered funds, or dedicated/reserved resources, etc. Only some accrued transactions are reflected. Investment income will be distributed to the funds at the end of the year and is not included. A long and complete process is followed to record all transactions, before we close the books, at the end of the year. In addition, the audit from the independent auditor is performed and an official Comprehensive Report will be presented to the City Council and made available to interested parties. In no way this schedule is intended to represent balances of funds available for spending. 02/28/2001 CashReportCouncil Gino EHLERS & ASSOCIATES INC To: From: Subject: Date: Kandis Hanson, City Manager Jim Prosser Funding for Retaining Wall Replacement March 8, 2001 The Mound City staff has identified a need to fund the replacement of retaining walls located throughout the community. The retaining walls are deteriorating and many pose a collapse risk. Some walls have been replaced by the City in the recent past. The cost for the wall replacement has been born by the general fund. However the general fund is not in position to continue to fund the replacement on this emergency approach basis. The staff has estimated the replacement cost at $500,000 to $1,000,000. More exact cost estimates were expected to be prepared this summer. The financing of the West Edge Boulevard improvement provides a unique opportunity to fund the retaining wall replacement. It is possible to include the wall replacement cost in the West Edge Special Assessment project. Based on the level of assessment being paid by Rottlund Homes, the City could fund up to $660,000 of additional public improvements, such as the wall replacement, from the public benefit portion of the special assessment project. Increasing the public benefit portion of the special assessment would increase the City's debt levy. This impact is estimated to be about $1.50 per $10,000 of additional debt service for a house valued at $100,000. As an example, if the City were to finance $500,000 of wall replacement over a 15 year term, the increase in taxes would approximate $75. Because this issue and opportunity have not received significant review by the City we would recommend that the matter receive additional review prior to the Council authorization to seek bids for bond sale. Some of the issues to be reviewed include: What are the estimated costs of retaining wall replacement? Who should pay for the replacement? Is it possible to assess a portion or all of the cost to property oWners? What are the funding alternatives? These issues do not need to be fully resolved prior to authorizing the bond bids, but it would be useful to develop a general approach to determining how the issues will be resolved. LEADERS IN PUBLIC FINANCE 3060 Centre Pointe Drive Roseville, MN 55113-1105 651.697.8503 fax 651.697.8555 jim@ehlers-inc.com MEMO ~m ,-,- 0 0 0