Loading...
1997-06-10I~............ :. :. :. :.: :. :. :. :. :. :. :.~ :~:~:~:~:i :i:i: i: i: i: i: i: i: i: [: [: 5: 5:1:::: :::::::::::::: :: :::::::::: :1:1:1:5:1:5:1:1:1:1 :iii~5:: i: i: i: 5: 5:~:~: ~:~:i: ~: ~:i:[:[:[:i: i:[:i: 5:5: :~: *i: i: i: i: i: 5:~:~:~:~:~: i: [: ~:~:i: ~: 5:71:5:1: i: [:~ :i: i: ~: ~¢ ~: 5:~:~¢?i¢ 5:1:1:1:1:1:5:[: ~: ~: 5¢i¢i:i¢i: :¢i:5: ~:~:::i:i:i¢i:i: i: i: ~: i: :z.:.: :. z. :. :.: z.z-> :. :. :. :-:-:. :<<. :. z.z.z, > z :: :::: :: :::::::::: :: :::¥:::::::::::: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :! AGENDA MOUND CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY, JUNE 10, 1997, 7:30 PM MOUND CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councibnember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered tn normal sequence. 1. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PAGE APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not l~Xlt~. ~d/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and, voted upon after the Consevt A?en~~en approved. 3. *CONSENT AGENDA: *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 27, 1997 REGULAR MEETING . 2070-2079 Bo RESOLUTION/~)7- RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 ............................................. 2080 TREE REMOVAL LICENSE AND VEGETABLE STAND APPROVALS ............................. 2081 D. PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. 2082-2097 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 97-08: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (ISD #277) AT SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN DUE TO CURRENT STUDY OF THE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER) PUBLIC HEARING: S.P. 145-080-01 AND S.P. 145-090-01, THE LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT AND THE LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT, FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................... 2098-2239 6. COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. 2068 f UPDATE ON SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION PROJECT ................ APPOINTMENT TO MINNEI-IAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE ............... SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO PERFORM COST ESTIMATE REGARDING RENOVATION OF EXISTING WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTER 2240-2243 2244-2246 10. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS: DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR MAY 1997 ........ mo Co Do Fo Go 2247-2270 LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 1997 ............................ MEMORANDUM FROM FLOYD OLSON, KENNEDY AND GRAVEN REGARDING A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEETING WHERE DISCUSSION WAS HELD ON MULTIPLE DOCKS AND THEIR LOCATIONS 2271 2272-2273 2274-2279 1998 DRAFT LMCD BUDGET ............................. PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE (APRIL 1, 1996) FOR THE CITY OF MOUND AS PREPARED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ............................. REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1997, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: ANNUAL FISH FRY AT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT, SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1997. 2280-2281 Ho Ko REMINDER: MOUND CITY DAYS, JUNE 13-15, 1997. REMINDER: HRA MEETING 6/10/97, 7:00 P.M., City Hall. JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND WILL BE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1997, MINNETRISTA CITY HALL. LETTER FROM CURT JOHNSON, METRO COUNCIL CHAIR REGARDING INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE METRO COUNCIL IN THE AREAS OF PUBLIC SAFETY ..................................... 2282-2283 2069 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY27, 1997 MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - MAY 27, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, May 27, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shukle, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Engineer John Cameron, Building Official Jori Sutherland, and City Clerk Fran Clark and the following interested citizens: Harry Nasset, Joe Zylman, Dawn & Phil Carlson, Randy Moriarty, and Jeanie Turtle. *.Consent Agenda.. All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. APPROVE AGENDA. At this time items can be added to the Agenda that are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. Councilmember Jensen asked that the following Items be pulled from the Consent Agenda: *D. CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATiON OF SUBDIVISION, RANDY MORIARTY, 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, LOTS 5, 6, 7, 9 & SWLY OF LOT 4, BLOCK 2, AVALON, 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048 *I. CASE 97-20: FRONT YARD VARIANCE REQUEST AND RESOLUTION MODIFICATION, CALIBER BUILDERS, FRED JOHNSON, 5100 DRUMMOND ROAD, TEAL POINTE, LOT 3, BLOCK 1, PID #25-117-24 12 0233 *J. LICENSE RENEWALS: CLUB ON-SALE; SUNDAY SALES; ON-SALE WINE; ON- SALE BEER; AND OFF-SALE BEER *L. PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION- TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION, 4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS MOUND CITY CouNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 *_CONSENT AGENDA: MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Jensen to approve the Consent Agenda, removing Items D, I, J & L, as presented. A roll call vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. MINUTES *1.1 APPROVE THE MINIJ_TES OF THE MAY 13 1997 REGULAR MEETING. MOTION ,1.2 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. MEETING. MOTION '1.3 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. ROAD LOTS 3 & 4 BLOCK 24 SHADYWOOD POINT PID//13-117-24 11 00087. RESOLUTION//97-49 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A VARIANCE RECOGNIZING AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING DWELLING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A CONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE AT 4920 CRESTVIEW ROAD, LOT 3 & 4, BLOCK 24, SHADYWOOD POINT, PIX)//13-117-24 11 0087, p & Z CASE #97-18 '1.4 MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. RESOLUTION #97-50 RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION #96-57, FOR 120 DAYS (UNTIL SEPTEMBER 28, 1997), FOR KEVIN DONAHOE, 1801 SHOREWOOD LANE, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 6, SHADYWOOD POINT, PID 13-117-24 14 0005, P & Z CASE//96-24 MOTION Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. *1.5 MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 SET PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT LOST LAKE CANAL PRO ECT. SUGGESTED DATE: UNE 10 1997. MOTION '1.6 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RE: ~MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. RESOLUTION #97-51 MOTION RESOLUTION APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT RE: MINNESOTA TRAIL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM *1.7 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. PAYMENT OF BILLS. MOTION '1.8 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. SET BID OPENING FOR SHERWOOD DRIVE IMPROVEMENTS. SUGGESTED DATE: MOTION 1.9 Hanus, Jensen, unanimously. CASE 97-19: EXTENSION/MODIFICATION OF SUBDIVISION RANDY MORIARTY 4536 &4552DENBIGHROAD LOTS5 6 7 9&SWLY~AOFLOT4 BLOCK2 AVALON 13- 117-24 14 0008 & 0048. Councilmember Jensen stated that since she voted against this subdivision originally, she will again have to vote no. The Building Official explained that in the original approval resolution, item number 1.f. conflicts with the time that we would be extending applicants request. The request for an extension is for one year and the resolution states 180 days. The City Attorney suggested the following language be added to the proposed extension resolution after the Now, Therefore, Be it Resolved, add "3. Said 12 month extension is in lieu of any other time period provided for, in the City's Subdivision Ordinance. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to add the language suggested by the City Attorney to the proposed extension resolution. The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. 3 MOUND CITY cOUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 RESOLUTION #97-5~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A ONE (1) YEAR EXTENSION AND MODIFICATION TO RESOLUTION//96-116, RELATING TO THE MINOR SUBDIVISION AND VARIANCES OF 4536 & 4552 DENBIGH ROAD, PID #'S 13-117-24 14 0008 & 0048, P & Z CASE #97-19 - RANDY MORIARTY Motion carried. The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. 1.10 3 BLOCK 1 PID #25-117-24 12 0233. Councilmember Jensen stated that as she remembered this at the preliminary plat approval it was pointed out that there were some problems with the streets still showing that they were vacated and they were not. She asked why we are still showing these streets as vacated on an approved plat. The Building Official explained that the original applicant proposed to vacate both Cobden and Drummond, but neither were vacated. At that point, the Staff recommendation would have been for a variance to the setbacks and we would have included that in the listing of variances, but it was omitted. Then the applicant did not follow-up with revising their preliminary plat. The Building Official stated that the final plat does not show proposed setbacks. The preliminary plat does and the final plat resolution references the preliminary plat. The final plat does not show the streets as vacated. Essentially, they're unbuildable because of slope. The Building Official stated that the final plat is not incorrect, but it is the variance item in the resolution. In review by the Attorney and Staff it was decided that the applicant really needed to come in and get the Council's approval on the issue, so that there are no title or mortgage problems in the future. He stated the the Staff and Planning Commission recommend approval. The Building Official explained that the original developer proposed cantilever and caisson type homes for Lots 1, 2 & 3. From a Staff, engineering, landscape architect, planner and applicant's perspective, it is felt that traditional houses can be put in there that will have no greater impact than those originally planned. He reported that there are other houses in the City that are built into slopes like this and are not sustaining any damage or erosion to the slope. The Council discussed the original proposal and the current applicant's ideas and was concerned about changing something that was previously approved, without going through due process (notifying the public, holding a public hearing, having the Planning Commission hear the changes and giving the Council their recommendations prior to Council action). MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Jensen to send this application for a resolution modification and variance through the Planning Commission and City Council notifying properties pursuant to city rules and regulations. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. The Council asked that people within 350 feet of Lots 1, 2, &3 be notified of this hearing. 1.11 BEER; AND OFF-SALE BEER_. The City Clerk advised the Council that the following licenses are up for renewal: The license period is July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 CLUB ON-SALE American Legion Post//398 VFW Post #5113 SUNDAY ON-SALE American Legion Post #398 VFW Post//5113 ON-SALE WINE A1 & Alma's Supper Club House of Moy ON-SALE BEER Mound Lanes _,OFF-SALE BEER By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell) Mainstreet Market PDQ Food Store SuperAmerica The City Clerk recommended approval of the following new Restaurant License for Uncharted Grounds, 2251 Commerce Blvd. License period would be June 1, 1997 to April 30, 1998. Councilmember Jensen stated that she does not support an Off-Sale Beer License for By the Way Snack Shop and that is why she asked to have this item pulled from the Consent Agenda. MOTION made by Polston, seconded by Hanus to authorize issuance of an Off-Sale Beer License to By the Way Snack Shop (Steve Bedell). The vote was 4 in favor with Jensen voting nay. Motion carried. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to authorize issuance of all the other licenses listed above, including a Restaurant License for Uncharted Grounds. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.12 PUBLIC LAND PERMIT APPLICATION_ TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION 4829 ISLAND VIEW DRIVE/DEVON COMMONS. Councilmember Jensen expressed concern about how the City can guarantee that the Arborvitae bushes that will temporary be put on Devon Commons will be removed. The Building Official stated that they were moved from the side of the house that was being demolished and will be moved back to private property when the new structure is completed. He suggested that he could tie the relocation of the bushes to the Certificate of Occupancy or the Dock Permit. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 The Building Official stated that the estimated cost of removing the bushes is $500.00. The City Attorney suggested that the Council could have the person put up some form of security (cash or a letter of credit) to cover the removal. He suggested the following language be added to the proposed resolution: "c. Security for applicant's performance hereunder. Applicant shall post with the City of Mound, a letter of credit or other form of security sufficient to cover any cost which the City of Mound may incur if the applicant does not meet their obligations under paragraph b." The Council discussed the added language and decided not to require security. Jensen moved and Hanus seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #97--~ RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY LAND ALTERATION/PUBLIC LANDS PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR THE TEMPORARY PLACEMENT OF ARBORVITAE BUSHES ON DEVON COMMONS, DOCK SITE #43180 The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. 1.13 15-32 BLOCK 11 SETON 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54. The Council discussed #15 in the proposed resolution relating to park dedication fees. The Park Commission recommended a higher fee than is proposed. It was pointed out that the City Code is specific on Park Dedication Fees and the process for determining these fees was studied several years ago. Councilmember Weycker questioned the value put on the land to determine the Park Dedication Fees for Seton Bluff. The Mayor suggested that the Council could discuss the history and the background of the Park Dedication Fees at a future Committee of the Whole Meeting. The first Whereas on page 3 of the proposed resolution was discussed and amended to read as follows: · variances requested are the minimum variances necessary to alleviate the practical ,'WHEREAS ~heetopography of the site and to facilitate the preservation of existing vegetation, and difficulty created by 't the granting of variances wil.___[ ~ not be detrimental to the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance or to property in the same zone; and" The Council agreed. Jensen moved and Weycker seconded the following resolution: RESOLUTION #97-?4 RESOLUTION GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AREA BY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, LOT AND STREET DESIGN VARIANCES, AND SHORELAND VARIANCES FOR SETON BLUFF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, FINE LINE DESIGN GROUP, INC., LOTS 15- 32, BLOCK 11, SETON, 19-117-23 22 0036-41 & 54, P & Z CASE #96-64 The Council discussed "lots of record" status and setbacks. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 27, 1997 Councilmember Hanus questioned the square footages on the reduced copy of the preliminary plat and whether this is the drawing that is being approved. The Building Officia/presented the full size copy of the preliminary plat which was the same as the reduced copy. The City Engineer stated that we would be approving this under the condition that all the lots are over the minimum square footage required. The vote was 3 in favor with Polston voting nay. Motion carried. 1.14 DISCUSSION: PROPOSED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MOUND AND THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT CWD RE: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. TO BE HANDED OUT TUESDAY EVENING. ' The City Manager reported that sometime ago the Council, at a Committee of the Whole Meeting, looked at a draft of a cooperative agreement between the City of Mound and the Watershed District, relating to storm water management as it specifically relates to regional ponding. With the downtown redevelopment project and other projects that have been submitted, that require ponds and if they cannot facilitate a pond on the property, they can apply to the Watershed District by paying a fee and it will be considered as part of the regional ponding issue, assuming that the City of Mound has an agreement with the Watershed District. We do not, at the present time, have one. He explained that the proposed agreement was given to us in January 1997 and has undergone some proposed amendments and changes and attached to it is the latest of the amendments. This has been reviewed by our legal counsel and the Watershed District's legal counsel. The reason it is here tonight is that we need to have an agreement and the next item on the agenda is being held up at the Watershed District level because we do not have this cooperative agreement. He explained that we are trying to protect the City's interests, with the changes that have been submitted. The City Attorney reviewed the changes and explained his letter dated May 23, 1997. The following is proposed to be added: I. 2.1.1 - "MCWD acknowledges and understands that, once the City has acquired the necessary land interests for the pond(s), MCWD shall be obligated either to: i) construct the ponds to completion, and, if necessary extend this agreement a sufficient time for such purpose,; or ii) pay to the City, an amount of money equal to the fees and charges collected from the intended users of the pond(s)." The purpose of this provision was to require that either they extend the agreement beyond 2001 and give sufficient time to finish construction of the pond(s) or give us the money they collect so we can do it. The MWCD agreed to this today. The City Attorney proposed additional language as follows: II. 2.2.1 - "The City shall not be responsible for the expenditure of funds necessary for acquisition of ponding areas which are required because the pond(s) is(are) receiving water from areas not within the City and the vicinity of downtown Mound." The concern here was that we do not want to be responsible for paying the cost for land to be acquired to handle ponding from areas outside the City of Mound. The language that is contained in this document with one small exception is acceptable to the MWCD. They would like to strike the last clause "and the vicinity of downtown Mound" In other words, they are willing to limit our required expenditure for acquisition sites for ponds necessary to receive water from the City of Mound and from no other cities or locations. There is also an additional engineering concern. The City Engineer stated that his only concern is that these ponds are going to be sized to handle a specific drainage area and the MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - MAY 27, 1997 There is also an additional engineering concern. The City Engineer stated that his only concern is that these ponds are going to be sized to handle a specific drainage area and the practice in the past for the Watershed District has been to take money in lieu of somebody building a pond (for example, in Orono and credit them for Mound's pond. He did not want the City to be in the position that they do that for projects outside the City and when we get ready to use our pond, they say we have already used up, on paper, the size of the pond and you can't add anything in the City to go into it. The Council expressed concern about this also. The City Attorney stated that he will need to clean-up the language that has been proposed. The way he plans to do that is to suggest to the MWCD, that if we have a pond designed to hold 1,000 cubic feet of water, that the City of Mound be entitled to actually fill it up with 1,000 cubic feet of water. The Mayor stated that the whole idea of regional ponding is to divert water from different areas as developments occur. The Council expressed concern that Mound's development could be held up in lieu of waiting for a pond to be acquired. There is no guarantee that there will be ponding facilities there if and when we need them. The City Engineer stated that is what the City Attorney is trying to work out so that Mound is not held captive because of what goes on in some other city. The City Attorney stated he will make this clear to the MWCD attorney. The City Attorney stated that the following is the final item of modification to the agreement, III. 2.2.4. Their redraft of the document provided that they wouldn't have to pay any permit fees or costs connected with the application process for sites in Mound. We deleted the language that they wouldn't be. The Watershed District Attorney told the City Attorney that there is a State Statute which exempts watershed districts from having to pay permit fees and costs. The City Attorney will research this and report back to the Council. The Council asked if this agreement is to provide ponding for the downtown Mound area only or is this agreement for regional storm water ponding collectively? The City Attorney stated he did not think the latter . was their intention or ours. The intention is to provide ponding for the downtown Mound area only. The Council asked how this agreement is tied to the next case? The City Engineer stated that the MWCD statement is in their Rule B. It is that we have a cooperative agreement in place which is what is before the Council tonight, they will let them pay money in lieu of building the ponds. The City Engineer stated that this is what the watershed district has done everywhere. The Mayor expressed concern about this Rule B and the MWCD regulating land planning in the City through regional ponding. Councilmember Hanus agreed. Councilmember Hanus asked if the presumption is that the entire City of Mound will be covered by the downtown pond(s). The City Engineer stated that is correct. The Council agreed that these downtown ponds cannot handle the storm water from the entire City. Mayor Polston stated that is what he sees as wrong with Rule B. One size does not fit all. The City Engineer commented that MWCD has made the option in Rule B to pay the money, but they want the City to start looking at doing ponding and through this cooperative agreement the City will start building this pond. Councilmember Hanus asked if the MWCD would be willing to sign a document agreeing the that the two small ponds we have on our drawings for downtown Mound would be sufficient for their purposes for the entire City of Mound? The City Engineer did not think they would sign such an agreement. MOUND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 27, 1997 our plan will require the same thing that theirs does. The City Attorney stated that it does appear that for the purpose of the downtown development, the watershed district is willing to limit the scope of this agreement to that particular area, so we could go forward with the downtown development. The City Attorney suggested that we clearly define, in this agreement, what the downtown area is and that the area from which the drainage will be coming is the downtown area only and it will be stored on a pond within the downtown area and drainage will not come from any other area. The City Engineer asked if the following could be worked into this agreement: eliminating the MWCD giving other cities credit for our ponds - something that doesn't take away our ability to use those ponds for our development in downtown Mound, but if the MWCD wants to credit someone else in the City of Mound toward those ponds, that would be their prerogative. He stated that on paper they can put more in the ponds than they can handle, if that's what the MWCD wants to do. MOTION by Polston, seconded by Hanus to refer this cooperative agreement with the MWCD back to the Staff for more definitive clarification of this agreement taking into consideration all the concerns addressed tonight. 1.15 The Council asked the following questions of Staff: 1. How does this agreement with the City of Mound and Mound's redevelopment of downtown, affect other developments, i.e. Maple Manors, Seton Bluff?. 2. Why and how have watershed districts been given the authority to do land planning and dictate to cities what kind of development they can have? The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Mr. Zylman was present and asked that the final plat approval for Maple Manors be tabled, until a decision can be reached on the watershed district agreement, because without the agreement, he will have to redesign Manor Manors. MOTION made by Hanus, seconded by Weycker to table this item. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. CO~M/VlENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. There were none. 9 MOUND CITY cOUNCIL MINUTES- MAY 27, 1997 iNFORMATiON/MISCELLANEOUS: A. Financial Report for April 1997 as prepared by Gino Businaro, Finance Director. B. Economic Development Commission Minutes of May 15, 1997. C. Minutes Planning Commission May 12th & 19th, 1997. D. REMINDER: City Offices will be closed Monday, May 26,1997 in observance of Memorial Day. E. Joint Committee of School District, City of Minnetrista and City of Mound will be meeting at 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, May 28, 1997 at Minnetrista City Hall. MOTION made by Jensen, seconded by Weycker to adjourn at 8:55 P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried. Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Manager Attest: City Clerk RESOLUTION//97 - RKSOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, approves a One Day Off-Site Lawful Gambling Permit application for the American Legion Post //398 on Sunday, June 15, 1997 for Bingo at Mound Bay Park, 5801 Bartlett Blvd. from 1-4 PM, during Mound City Days. , Resolution adopted: June 10, 1997 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-06o0 FAX (612) 472-0620 FOR CITY OUNCIL MEETING E 10 1997 June 1, 1997 TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: FRAN CLARK, CITY CLERK RE: TREE LICENSE & VEGETABLE STAND The following company has applied for a Tree Removal License. The license period is June 1, ,1997 through March 31, 1998. Approval is contingent upon all required forms, insurance, etc. being submitted. B & J TREE CARE The following company has applied for a Transient Merchant License. The license period is July 1, 1997 to the end of the growing season, approximately October 1, 1997. They have submitted the fee and all necessary forms. UNTIEDT VEGETABLE FARM - Mainstreet Market & Scotty B's Parking Lot (corner of Lynwood Blvd. and County Road 110). printed on recycled paper BILLS ....... -June 10, 1997 BATCH 7053 BATCH 7054 Total Bills $121,364.34 98,935.59 $220,299.93 Z r~ Z T o 0 U ~l~ I ' Z CID Z ~ Z I I II I I il I II . iii ! ! I ooo ! ! ! o~- o~ Z 0 0 0 . ill Public heating notice for publication dates of May 24 and May 31, 1997 in The Laker newspaper ADVERTISEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING For S.P. 145-080- 01 and S.P. 145-090-01, the LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT and the LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT in Mound, Minnesota. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 23, United States Code, Section 128, notice is hereby given that the City of Mound will hold a public hearing at Mound, Minnesota in the City Council Chambers at City Hall, 5341 Maywood Road, on June 10, 1997 at 7:30 pm, to discuss major design features and the social, economic, and environmental effects of the proposed improvement of Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation project and Lost Lake Greenway project in Mound, Minnesota. The proposed improvement is to upgrade the level of pedestrian, bicycle and boat traffic in and adjacent to Lost Lake and connecting to Lake Minnetonka. An Environmental Assessment which supports the determination that the proposed action will have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment along with maps, drawings and other pertinent information relating to the project will be available for public inspection and copies will be available beginning May 26, 1997 at the building inspections desk, City of Mound, 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364. Tentative schedules for the start of construction are dependent upon federal approvals. Written statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements will be accepted at the hearing and through June 25, 1997 following the hearing and will be made part of the official record. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake Project Manager City of Mound M:~IOUND~94-4tl~,PUBHRG3. DOC PUBLIC .' action will have no significant effect on t~e ADVI; TISEMENT FOR ' ----,~-. ~f "'o human environment along with .... ~_,~.R~ = ~,~r.-n,N~.431 and S.P. 145- qum,~y u,~,_,~ ..... nd other pertinent 090-01, the LOST I.~__K_E CA~N.~A~,,.,S.~ '-thlormation relating to the prol.ect .will .b..e. : HAB L TATION PROJE(J/ar~ ?? ~'""2 ' ~:'- =,,-liable lor aublic inspection anO cop~es Wlii - NWAY PROJECT in Mouno '~ ~ "- ' hie ~ainnino May 26 1997 at the _AKE GREE ~.:~ be avalla ..... ~ -. . - A,Z. _,. ,, .... Minnesota ' ~-~; buildina nspactiOl%%.OeSK, .,~I..¢[~_.?;~""~'' .... .... ' ~ ..... - 1Ma ood' ~, . r visions et -ntte 23_~,-' ... 53~ , Y~,"~.~_~.~'<'r'~.~ ~ ~ted.~,~t~.~.'~-~'~bn,,2?. n..o.t~ic_,e.?' ~ :.: ,entatve sct~edule,: fo.r the eJO ivan t~ t~e CJ~y of Mouno Will nDl.[z~a . ~netr.~tinn are * Denoent u n Y g ' a! Maund Minnesota in~m· ' '- ~' .............. de_ po ~hc hearing '- ..... II 5341 approvals. y Council Chambers at ~.,~ty na , - - ~ywood Road on June 10, 1997.at 7:30 ~.. to discuss major design feat~.'es a~.d. social, economic, and environmenta~ . ects of the proposed improvement of Lost ~ke Canal Rehabilitation project and Lost ke Greenway project in Mound, Minnesota. '~tten statements and other exhibits in place of, or in addition to, oral statements will be accepted at the hearing and through June 25, 1997 following the hearing and will be made part o! the official record... . Bruce Chambertain The proposed improvement is to Lost L1~ke Project Manager :grade the level of pedestrian, bicycle an~. " : : Ci~ of Mound .at traffic in and adjacent to Lost Lake ano ..nnecting to Lake Minnetonka. ~ (Publisbed in The Laker May 24 and 31. ' ~ '1997) An Environmental Assessment which ' · ~pports the d~termination that the proposed Affidavit of Publication State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin. Bill Holm, being duly sworn on oath, says that he is an authorized agent and employee of the publisher of the newspaper known as THE LAKER, Mound, Minnesota, and has full knowledge of the facts which are stated below: A.) The newspaper has complied with all the requirements constituting qualifications as a qualified newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. B.) The printed Lost L~=ke C~_n=~ P~h~hilitatio~- Project [ Lost Lake Greenwa¥ Project which is attached was cut from the columns of said newspaper, and was printed and published once each week for 2 successive weeks: It was first published Monday, the 2~_ day of ~Ry 19 97, and was thereafter printed and published every Monday, to and including Monday, the .. - '~'l.dayof Hay 1997 ; "'Authorized Agent Subscribed and sworn to me on this 31 day of., May ,19 97 MY COMM. EX.RES 1~1-~ (1) Lowest classified rate paid by ~mmercial users for comparable space: $12.20 per inch. (2) Maximum rate allowed by law for a~ve matter: $12.20. (3) Rate actually charged for above matter: $7.00 per inch. Each additional successive week: $5.05. Lost Lake Canal and Greenway Environmental Assessment Supplemental Information includes - public comment from first public hearing held November 12, 1996 - - response to public comments. - results of additional pollution testing - - MPCA response to additional testing - - description and illustration of proposed design including modifications since draft EA was prepared - May 2 I, 1997 Creative SoluUons for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. M~EMORANDL~ April 2, 1997 To: From: Lost Lake Canal Project File Bruce Chamberlain '~'~---' Project Manager Re: Response to written comments made by Thomas E. Casey and Catherine D. Zimmer regarding the Federal Environmental Assessment prepared for the project. This comment response is to be made part of the official record for the Lost Lake Canal/Greenway projects; S.P. 145-080-01 and S.P. 145-090-01. A public hearing as required by the EA process was held on November 12, 1996 and written comments were accepted for a period of 10 days following that date. Thomas E. Casey and Catherine D. Zimmer were the only parties providing written comment. Response to those comments are herewith. Response to Comments from Mr. Casey: 451. The comment asserts that the Lost Lake canal was a historical failure and the "historic" description of the canal was a pretext to obtain federaI ISTEA money. The Lost Lake canal was originally constructed in 1906 to allow excursion and transit boat access from Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound and the railroad depot located there. The driving force behind constructing the canal was the tremendous resort economy on Lake Minnetonka at that time. The reason the canal was abandoned is because the resort industry on the Lake disappeared. The ~and "Minnehaha" streetcar boat which is believed to have used the canal on occasion and which was recently raised from the Lake bottom and restored to active use was intentionally sunk in the 1920s for the same economic reason - is the "Minnehaha" a historical failure? Most would say definitely not. There was, although, a fundamental error which one could call a failure made in the construction technique of the original canal. Dredged material was sidecast directly adjacent to the canal creating berrns of muck on either side. While the canal was in operation, keeping the dredge spoils from sluffing back into the canal was a continual maintenance problem. Today, based on detailed topographic survey, there is no sign of the sidecast above or below the water level. So, the wetland bottom has equalized. This error will obviously not be repeated since the dredge spoils will be completely removed from the wetland. Based on geotechnical testing of the wetland bottom soils, the side slopes of the dredged canal will hold their slope for many years before redredging would be necessary. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 MEMO - Lost Lake File April 2, 1997 Page 2 The concept of restoring the Lost Lake canal has been discussed by the local community for years because the resort era on Lake Minnetonka is such a rich part of local and national history. In 1988, the City asked Landscape Architecture students from the University of Minnesota to present concepts for restoring the canal which they did and which are documented. This happened three years before IS'lEA was in existence. The concept endorsed by the City of Mound to restore the canal was first drawn in early 1991 before I, the project designer, had ever heard of ISTEA. The assertion that restoration of the historic canal is a pretext to gain federal ISTEA money is simply untrue. W2. The comment asserts that the canal does not have great public support. The comment points to a citizen attitude survey showing unlikely public support for the project. The citizen attitude survey referenced was completed in 1990 and had nothing to do with the canal and greenway project but rather was asking the public if they would support private development using public funds (Tll=) on a site adjacent to the canal. Enclosed as Exhibit H are verbatim minutes of two public meetings and one public hearing which were publicly advertised and held on May 4, 1995, June 18, 1996 and November 12, 1996. The public was encouraged to speak at these meetings. Anyone who has experience with public heatings knows that if there is opposition to a project it is usually voiced at these gatherings. As the record shows there were only a few concerns raised throughout these meetings (the 1995 meeting packed the city council chambers and people were backed up into the hallway) about the Lost Lake project. The public hearing held on November 12 had only positive comments. #3. The comment states that the City has not demonstrated economic benefit from the canal project. There is no direct economic gain from the Lost Lake canal/greenway project. The project creates a unique public amenity, free and open to all. The City of Mound believes strongly that the Lost Lake project creates a high quality amenity that will attract private investment and fuel economic g-rowth. This belief has been confirmed by three private developers arriving on the scene in the last year competing for "exclusive development agreements" with the City. All three have indicated verbally that they would not have interest in doing the work without the public amenity created by the Lost Lake project. #4 The comment asserts that the City of Mound has a record of misstating the facts about the impacts of this project. a. Regarding comments made by Mr Nick Rowse of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service see Exhibits A & B. b. Regarding safe lead levels in drinking water see page 2 of letter from Braun Intertec to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated 2/4/97 attached as Exhibit C where this comment is directly addressed. MEMO - Lost Lake File April 2, 1997 Page 3 c. Regarding loss of wildlife habitat see para. 4, page 6 of letter from ?eterson Environmental to Bruce Chamberlain dated 7/19/96 attached as Exhibit D where this comment is directly addressed. d. Regarding groundwater monitoring of the former dump site adjacent to the Lost Lake wetland see letter from MPCA to John Elam, former Mound City Manager dated 3/14/85 enclosed as Exhibit E. #5. The comment asserts that the project will exacerbate the effects of runoff The City of Mound believes strongly that the Lost Lake project not only makes ecological improvements in and of itself but that it will lead to spin-off improvements; a major component of which is the quality of runoff entering Lost Lake. All of downtown Mound' s stormwater now flows untreated into the north end of Lost Lake. The City is currently working closely with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to develop a downtown Stormwater Management Plan and regional NURP stormwater ponding sites have been identified in downtown which will essentially treat all downtown runoff prior to entering Lost Lake. Mr. Casey may not understand that the typical way to pay for the construction of stormwater ponds is to assess a fee to new development which contributes stormwater to the system. So, the timing of treatment pond construction is typically dependent on new development and the City believes that new development will not occur without the amenities created by the Lost Lake canalJgreenway projects. #6. The comment asserts that the dredge material will contain pollutants that will have significant environmental effects. See pages 2.4 of letter from Braun l. ntertec to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated 2/4/97 attached as Exhibit C where this comment is directly addressed. #7 & 7a. The comment asserts that the dredge will impact wildlife habitat and increase the likelihood of purple loosestrife invasion. See pages 9-13 of letter from Peterson Environmental to Bruce Chamberlain dated 7/19/96 attached as Exhibit D where these comments are directly addressed. #8. The comment asserts that the dredge sediments increase the potential for groundwater contamination. See para. 4, page 4 of letter from Braun Intertec to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated 2/4/97 attached as Exhibit C where this comment is directly addressed. #9 & 10. The comments assert that the project will have adverse aesthetic impacts and increase noise levels. Contrary to what the comment asserts, the Lost Lake wetland is anything but pristine. It has been highly degraded by human activity: the entire north perimeter of the wetland has been filled creating a steep unnatural wetland edge populated by weedy plant species; also around the north perimeter, paving and commercial activity comes right up to the wetland edge - there is literally no vegetative buffer. The Lost Lake project will create a linear park around the north perimeter; it will restore a natural grade along much of the wetland edge; it will create a MEMO - Lost Lake File April 2. 1997 Page 4 native vegetation buffer around most of the north perimeter; and it will restore more than an acre of native wetland vegetation to more closely reflect its pre-settlement state. The new boat docks and adjacent rip-rap wetland edge along a portion of the north perimeter will use local natural materials (wood and granite stone). Noise levels in Lost Lake due to boat motors will increase as a result of the project. The increase will be minimized by designation as a no-wake zone, the Iow number of docks and the fact that there is no outlet to the canal (its not a pass-through to somewhere else). Mr. Casey's concern about "blowing horns, shouting people and inebriated boaters" will no doubt happen at times but the pr/mary activity of the canal is in a commercial area and I think Mr. Casey may be exaggerating the impacts of these infrequent occurrences. #11. The comment asserts that the project is not consistent with local and regional plans. a. Mound Comprehensive Plan: The Lost Lake project and related activities strongly support the statement from the Comp Plan quoted by Mr Casey. The project creates a natural park where one does not exist today and it restores wetland. b. . i ha a War 't 'ct - Water R~'~"u""er ~'"~-a re: t PI : Enclosed as Exhibit F is a resolution from the MCWD dated February 27, 1997 granting a permit to the Lost Lake project. Paragraph 80 on page 11 of this document states that the "proposed project is in compliance with the MCWD's current water resources management plan". #12. The comment asserts that mitigation measures to alleviate wildlife disturbance is not acceptable to the DNR. Peterson Environmental conducted a biological survey of Lost Lake, the report for which is dated May 23, 1996 enclosed in the EA as Exhibit 9. The report identifies the potential to excavate small pockets of open water off of the main canal to provide increased wildlife habitat away from the boat traffic on the canal. This option was discussed with Ceil Strauss, the DNR Area Hydrologist and her position is to consider this measure only if habitat disturbance is a significant problem after the project is completed. To say the measure is "not acceptable" to the DNR is not correct. #13. The comment asserts that I, myfirm, and other professional consultants have conflicts of interest in preparing the Environmental Assessment. I am a registered Landscape Architect in the State of Minnesota, other consultants working on this project from Peterson Environmental and Braun Intertec are highly qualified professionals and scientists in their respective fields of environmental evaluation and pollution/geotechnical evaluation. Our role in preparing the EA and commenting on public responses to the EA is to bring the facts of this project to bear and clarify issues raised. The "Finding of No Significant Impact" (FONSI) is not made by us, it is made by the Federal Highway Administration based on all the information of record. Comments made by Ms. Zimmer are the same as those she made for the Environmental MEMO - Lost Lake File April 2, 1997 Page 5 Assessment Worksheet. These comments are fully addressed on pages 1-4 in a letter dated July 16, 1996 from Braun Intertec to Brace Chamberlain enclosed as Exhibit G. As conditioned by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permit approval for this project, additional pollution testing is currently being conducted by Braun Intertec according to standards set by the MPCA. Results of those tests will be forthcoming within two weeks at which time they will be made part of the record and distributed to parties involved in the project. cc: Robert Evbayekha, Mn/DOT Bill Lohr, FHWA Peter Leete, DNR Joe Yanta, COE Thomas Casey Catherine Zimmer M:~4OUNIY~4.4OvF. A_ COMM. MEM \o5' Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design EXHIBIT A Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO - PHONE LOG July 3, 1996 Participants: Nick Rowse, Twin Cities Field Office - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 725-3548 Bruce Chamberlain Re: Official comments to the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project EAW. Mr. Rowse expressed two comments regarding the project. As a representative of the Fish & Wildlife Service, it is his opinion that the project will have a positive over-all environmental impact. 2. Mr. Rowse expressed concern that after the main canal is dredged, private property owners will propose to dredge secondary channels from adjacent shoreline to the main canal. If this occurs, it could create boat traffic problems and significantly disturb the ecology of the wetland through fragmentation. END OF REPORT M.'~.MO UNDX94..40xF& W_COMM. MEM 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 EXHIBIT B Creative Solutions for Land Planning and Design Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. MEMO - PHONE LOG October 8, 1996, 10:36 am Participants: Nick Rowse, Twin Cities Field Office - U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 725-3548 Bruce Chamberlain Re: Follow-up to letter from Mr. Rowse which was undated but received at the Mound City Hall on September 24, 1996. In his recent letter, Mr. Rowse challenged a statement I made in a phone log from our conversation on July 3. The phone log represents official comments to the Lost Lake EAW. Mr. Rowse requested in his letter that I change my phone log to reflect his recollection of our phone conversation. I stated to him today that I will not change my phone log unless he has verbatim transcript of our conversation to indicate something contrary to our conversation. Mr. Rowse indicated that he does not have verbatim transcript. He also indicated that he does not even have a written log of the July 3 conversation. I asked Mr. Rowse how he can state in his letter nearly three months after our phone conversation that he did not make a certain statement when he has only memory to rely on. He replied that he recalls not making the statement. Mr. Rowse indicated that he became aware of my phone log only after it was brought to his attention by Mr. Tom Casey. I indicated that Mr. Casey appears to be working behind the scenes if an effort to kill the Lost Lake project and that Mr. Casey is using the recent letter by Mr. Rowse as ammunition in his effort. I also expressed my frustration that Mr. Rowse made a negative comment about the project which he did not make during our July 3 conversation and was thus not in my phone log. Again, Mr. Rowse thought he had made the statement. Mr. Rowse and I both agreed that his letter does not impact standing of the project one way or the other. We agreed to contact each other if other concerns or issues arise. END OF REPORT M..'~,vI O U N DK9 4..40xF & W_F O I...M EM 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 BRAUN INTERTEC . i11 EXHIBIT C ]345 Norn~land Drive Mendata Heights, Minnesota 55120-1141 612683.8700 Fax: 683-8888 Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built anti NOtural ~nvironments.~ February 4, 1997 Project No. BABX-94-819 Mr. Eugene Strohmen Executive Director Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Gray Freshwater Center 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331 Dear Mr. Strohmen: Re: Lost Lake Canal, January 21, 1997 Notice of Intervention by Thomas Casey At the request of Mr. Bruce Chamberlain, I have reviewed the portions of the above referenced document submitted by Mr. Thomas E. Casey that were pertinent to the work performed by Braun Intertee (Braun Intertec, 1995). The document contains some statements which are not true and has lead to incorrect analysis by Mr. Casey and Ms. Catherine Zimmer-Lokken of data collected by Braun Intertec. The document also raises valid concerns which were considered by Braun Intertec and discussed with MPCA and Mr Chamberlain prior to collecting the data. The issues appear to be the same ones raised by Mr. Casey and Ms. Zimmer-Lokken during the Environmental Assessment Worksheet process. In this letter I will address each comment in the order presented in the document. Page 14: The document states Appendix A... the dredge samples are not in compliance with any standard used by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. This is not true. The standards referred to are water quality standards typically expressed in milligrams per liter (rog/L) or micrograms per liter (ug/L). This is an expression of a mass of a substance per unit volume of water. One milligram per liter is equivalent to 1000 micrograms per liter. The sediment analysis necessarily presents the data in milligrams per kilogram (mg/Kg) which is a measure of the mass of a substance per mass of the matrix in which the substance is contained. The matrix in this case is the sediment which is classified as a muck. The results could also be expressed in micrograms per kilogram (ug/Kg) by multiplying by 1000. MPCA does not have standards for sediment and you cannot directly compare soil and water sample results. So what MPCA does is to use the numeric value of the sediment analysis e~xvressed in millierams per kilogram (mg/Kg) to compare to the numeric value of the water quality standard expressed in micrograms per liter (ug/L) for their initial comparison to determine where problems m~.y arise. This is what Braun Intertec has done. Mr. Casey and Ms. Zimmer- Lokken keep insisting that the Braun Intertec reported sediment values be multiplied by 1000 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Project No. BABX-9~-819 February 4, 1997 Page 2 before the comparison is made. In an August 26, 1996 letter from the MPCA to Bruce Chamberlain, MPCA stated that: "Therefore, given the sediment criteria developed by others, the detection limits and reporting units that Braun Intertec utilized (which were developed in consultation with the MPCA) are appropriate for this project." The emphasis on "are" by italicizing it was in the MPCA letter, it was riot added by me. In other words, the reporting units should no.._[t be changed by multiplying the numeric values by 1000 prior to making the comparison of the numeric values. Therefore Mr. Casey's statement that "Appendix A.. · the dredge samples are not in compliance with any standard used by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency." is simply not true. As an added note, Jerry Flora of the MPCA Water Quality Division was asked by Judy Mader to review the results of the toxics analysis and he indicated that they were not a problem (Mader, 1995, personal communication). In the same conversation, Ms. Mader indicated that the phosphorus might be a problem and may require some mitigative measures during dredging. Appendix A, Page 2, Comment 4.b. Neither Mayor Polston nor Mr. Casey are correct on this point. It is correct that the Environmental Protection Agency limits lead in drinking water to 15 micrograms per liter (ug/L) or parts per billion (ppb). But it is not correct to compare the sediment results to drinking water standards. Even though both the dry weight and liquid concentration units can be expressed as parts per billion or parts per million, one is a measure of mass to mass of a solid and the other mass' to volume of liquid. Therefore they are not comparable. Appendix A, Page 3, No. 6: Mr. Casey references Ontario Ministry of Environment, NOAA and St~.te of Wisconsin (draft) "standards" and indicates that various metals concentrations exceed the "standards". It should be noted that the referenced Ontario and NOAA criteria are guidelines, not standards. More importantly however, a review of the Ontario guidelines indicates that they are inappropriate for the City of Mound project and should not be used for direct comparison with the site sediment samples. The reason that the referenced criteria are inappropriate is that the referenced criteria are guidelines for evaluating the potential effects of open-water disposal of dredged sediments. The City is obviously not proposing to dispose of the sediment in Lake Mirmetonka. The referenced criteria consider the potential effects of sediment disposal on benthic organisms. Benthic organisms are bottom-dwelling animals such as aquatic worms, midges and clams. If the sediments are disposed within an upland area, there will not be aquatic benthic organisms present, and the criteria are not appropriate. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Project No. BABX-94-819 February 4, 1997 Page 3 The results of the sediment analysis were also compared to guidelines of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The NOAA guidelines were developed from testing done on the effects of chemicals on benthic salt water organisms. Neither the NOA. A nor Ontario guidelines are appropriate for use on the City of Mound project. State of Wisconsin draft sediment standards were also used for comparison. Discussions with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WI DNR) indicate that the draft s_ediment standard~ were eliminated because they could not reach agreement on what the appropriate criteria should be. There are n_.gq Wisconsin sediment standards, draft or final. Appendix A, Page 4, Note: Mr Casey states that: "The following sediment samples fail if compared to the hazardous waste (TCLP) standards: arsenic, chromium, lead and mercury." This is absolutely incorrect. That comparison cannot be made. The TCLP test is an acidic leach test conducted to determine Whether a contaminant such as lead, present in a solid matrix, will leach from it under very prescribed conditions and if so, to what extent. No TCLP (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure) test was performed on the sediment. It is inappropriate to compare the tota..__! concentration of a substance in sediment, expressed in rog/Kg, to the TCLP concentration, expressed in rog/L, regardless of whether both units of measurement are e'e~7/'valent to parts per million (ppm). Due to the defined test methodology, even if all of the lea_d in sample //6 were leached out in the TCLP test, the results would be less than 5 m~/L. The same is true for arsenic, chromium and mercury. Appendix A, Page 4, (1) Mr. Casey discusses the issue of the units in which the sediment values are expressed prior to comparison with MPCA Water Quality Standards. As discussed above and according to MPCA guidance, the values should not be multiplied by I000 prior to comparison. report (Braun Intertec, 1995)'-, noted in the first paragraph on page 5 that the The Braun Intertec sediment sample results were reported in milligrams per kilogram (rog/Kg) and Class 2b. standards are in milligrams per liter (rog/L) or micrograms per liter (ug/L). Therefore the laboratory results and the standards are not directly comparable because one is a measure of the amount of contaminant per weight of solid material (i.e., the sediment) and the other the amount of contaminant per volume of liquid (i.e., the water). However, the Mirmesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance for evaluating the potential for the sediment to release contaminants from the sediment to the water in excess of the standards is to compare the numeric value of the contaminant in the sediment expressed in rog/Kg to the numeric value of the standard expressed in ug/L. The comparisons are made in Table 2 in that manner. The sediment sample results should no...~t be multiplied by I000 in order to compare them to the standards according to MPCA. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Project No. BABX-94-819 February ~,, 199'7 Page 4 Appendix A, Page 4, (2) The methodology used was that specified by MPCA and detection limits were discussed with and approved by them. Some analytical matrix interference problems were encountered and were discussed with MPCA. The elevated detection limits where matrix interferences were encountered were not considered problems by MPCA. Appendix A, Page 4, (3) Mr. Casey suggests that lower test samples should have been taken because they may have to dredge deeper if the water level is lower when the dredging occurs than it was when we sampled. The bottom elevation of the dredging is fixed. It is my understanding that it will not be lowered. Therefore no deeper samples were necessary. Appendix A, Page 5 (,.1.) Mr. Casey indicates that the testing should have included PCBs. We are unaware of indications that PCB containing equipment was disposed of in the dump. As part of the earlier work: performed by Braun Environmental Laboratories, a magnetometer survey of the dump was performed to determine if there were any indications of magnetic anomalies which could indicate the presence of barrels or other metal objects. Several test pits were dug to evaluate anomalies and nothing of significance was observed (Braun, 1984b). In addition, PCBs are insoluble or have an extremely low solubility in water. Therefore it is highly unlikely that PCBs from small sources, even if present in the dump, could migrate through the groundwater beneath the dump to the wetland. Sampling for PCBs was discussed with MPC,~. and their conclusion was that absent a municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge to Lost Lake, it was unlikely that significant PCBs would be present and therefore sampling for PCBs was unnecessary. Appendix A, Page 5. 8. This comment regarding surface water/groundwater interaction is misleading for several reasons. First it presupposes that there would be high concentrations of toxics in the water and there is no data to support this. Just the opposite is true. The data collected indicate that there will not be a problem with toxics in the water. Secondly, it also suggests that surface (lake) water which had contaminants in it would pass unartenuated into the groundwater. If the lake water is able to flow out of the lake into the groundwater, it is passing through the very sediments currently in place and any contaminants they may contain. So the concept that contaminants would dissolve Out of the sediments into the water, then pass back through the remaining sediment into the groundwater unattenuated is absurd. Appendix B, Item 9A Ms. Zimmer raises the issue of the PCB testing. We understand that the project will not disturb the dump material. Previous efforts to evaluate the material in the dump are described above as were discussions we had with M'PCA regarding the need for testing the sediment. Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District Project No. BABX-94-819 February 4, 1997 Page 5 With respect to the potential presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) such as DCE and vinyl chloride we offer the following: There were several investigations of the Lost Lake Dump performed in 1984 by Braun Intertec, then Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., for the City of Mound (Braun, 1984a and Braun, 1984b). During those investigations, four monitoring wells were installed and sampled for VOCs and metals. The only well in which significant VOCs were observed was one installed on Tonka Toys property north of County Road 15. Two wells were installed in the dump immediately adjacent to the wetland and one well was installed east of the wetland. These latter three wells did no___!t indicate the presence of any chlorinated VOCs, such as TCE, DCE or vinyl chloride altho'¥'gh they did contain very Iow concentrations of a few petroleum-related VOCs such as those present in boat gasoline. MPCA recently indicated (Trippler, 1996) that there is significant VOC contamination on the Tonka site but it has not migrated off of the Tonka site. Because there was no indication of significant VOC contamination discharging to the project site, no VOC sampling was necessary. VOCs, as their name suggests, are volatile and will disperse readily in water and evaporate. VOCs are not on the MPCA list of parameters routinely considered for analysis for dredging projects. References Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., 1984a. Environmental Evaluation, Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site, SW Quad. of Co. Rd. 15 & Cypress Lane, Mound, Minnesota. June 1 i, 1984. Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., 1984b. Environmental Evaluation, Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site. November 7, 1984. Braun Intertec, 1995. Soil and Sediment Sampling and Analysis Report in Support of Individual Dredge Permit Application, Lost Lake Canal, Mound, Minnesota, May 23, 1995. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, 893 pp., 1995. Mader, 1995. Phone conversation with Judy Mader, NIPCA, 5/23/95. Trippler, 1996. Phone conversation with Dale Trippler, MPCA, 7/15/96. In closing, I would like to emphasize the fact that we worked closely with MPCA during all phases of the work. Several phone conversations and meetings were held with MPCA to develop the sampling plan, including sampling methods, locations, parameters, analytical methods, detections limits etc. The act'ual sampling plan was submitted to MPCA for review and approval prior to implementing the plan. Deviations from the plan were discussed with/vlPCA and in our report (Braun Intertec, 1995). In addition several phone conversations and a meeting were held with MPCA after the sample results were available to discuss the results so that we could address their concerns prior to finalizing the report. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Project No. BABX-94-819 February 4, 1997 Page 6 If you have any comments or questions about the contents of our response to Mr. Casey's submittal, please feel free to call either of us at (612) 683-8700. Sincerely, Roger M. Carpenter Senior Environmental Scientist Richard M./Iohnston Project Manager, Principal kat'xi:\wl~ files\babx\94\819\819.R05 PETER$ON ~NVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING, INC. EXHIBIT D July 19, 1996 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. 7300 Metro Blvd., Suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 Subject: Dear Bruce: Responses to Comments Lost Lake Channel Restoration EAW We have prepared the following responses to comments generated by the Lost Lake Channel Restoration EAW. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (July 3, 1996) Comment i: "In this respect, we are disappointed that the project described in the EAW does not contain a designated public access as one of its potential benefits. Inclusion of such an access would offer non-riparian citizens of the City of Mound, as well as citizens from other areas, those benefits being provided to r/parian landowners. As you know, we have conveyed this belief to the City on previous occasions." Response 1' The City of Mound has elected not to include a public boat access in the project for the following reasons: (1) A public access would conflict with the intended project purpose, which is to re- establish the historic Lost Lake boat channel in furtherance of the revitalization of Mound's downtown area. The boat channel was used around the turn of the century to provide passenger steamboats with access to the amenities of Mound's downtown area. The current proposal is intended to re-establish downtown Mound's historic role as a retail and restaurant destination for people boating on Lake Minnetonka. The additional vehicular and boat traffic (as well as the increased parking demand) that a public access would generate would detract from the downtown area's appeal and would be incompatible with the intended project purpose. (2) The City has made every effort to minimize the potential for disturbance-related impacts to wildlife in Lost Lake. The City believes that the additional boat traffic generated by a public access would unreasonably increase the potential for such impacts. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 2 (3) The City believes that adequate public access already exists in the general area. A public boat access already exists at Mound Bay Park, approximately one-half mile from Lost Lake. (4) The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has indicated that "[s]tate law and MCWD Rules prohibit dredging to create navigational access where none exists..." (see MCWD Comment 1 below). It is apparent that MCWD would consider a new City- proposed public boat access as being contrary to their rules. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (July 3, 1996) Comment 1: "It is the policy of the MCWD Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources of surface waters, and surface water quality. State law and MCWD Rules prohibit dredging to create navigational access where none exists, and require that any dredging of existing navigational access constitute the minimal impact solution to achieve a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives." Response 1' The proposed project has been designed to enhance the overall resource value of Lost Lake as well as to re-establish the historic boat channel which connected (and still connects) downtown Mound to Lake Minnetonka. The affected portion of Lost Lake's shoreline has little natural character because it consists entirely of fill material which was historically placed in the lake to create the City road maintenance dump site as well as Auditors Road and its ancillary development. While the proposed project does involve recreational facilities and human use areas, it also includes the removal of 31,000 square feet of old fill and the restoration of natural character to about 665 lineal feet of shoreline which currently consists of fill slopes. With regard to navigational access, none of the proposed facilities would be contrary to state law or MCW'D Rules by creating navigational access where none exists. The proposed project does not involve any boat access point and would only serve boats that have already gained navigational access to Lost Lake. Dredging of the Lost Lake channel constitutes a maintenance activity, since the channel still e,,dsts and is still navigable by small boats. We have reviewed both state and MCW'D regulations that apply to excavation within public waters and find the following: MDNR Regulations MDNR regulations state that "[e]xcavation to provide maintenance of navigational channel projects shall be limited to the length, width and depth dimensions of the original channel"(Minn. Rules 6115.0201 Subp. 4(B)). The proposed channel dredge has been designed to match the channel's historic dimensions and, accordingly, complies with this provision. We have also reviewed MDNR regulations relating to excavation for harbors and boat slips and find that both the proposed transient and permanent docking facilities Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EA gl Comment Responses Page 3 appear to meet MDNR's specific standards for such activities (see 6115. 0201 Subp. 5). Any issues relating to these standards will be resolved with the MDNR during the protected waters permit process. With regard to the extension of navigation access, MDNR regulations prohibit navigational channel excavation where: (1) it is intended to gain access to navigable water depths where such access can reasonably be attained by alternative means which would /esult in less environmental impact; or (2) "...inland excavation is intended to extend riparian rights to nonriparian lands, or to promote the subdivision and development of nonriparian lands" (see Minn. Rules 6115.0200 Subp. 3 (A) and (B)). None of the proposed excavation work would fall within these prohibited classes of activities for the reasons set forth below. Access to Navigable Water Depths Neither the boat channel nor the proposed docking facilities will have an access point allowing boats to enter protected waters from adjacent uplands. These facilities will be used only by boats that have already obtained access to navigable water depths at alternative locations. Thus, these facilities are not intended to "gain access to navigable water depths". Extension of Riparian Rights to Nonriparian Lands Neither the boat charmel nor the proposed docking facilities will extend riparian fights to nonriparian lands. The land involved in the construction of each facility is entirely City- owned and no subdividing is being proposed. All of the transient docks are proposed in locations that already have riparian fi'ontage on Lost Lake; thus, no new riparian lands are being created in this location by the placement of the proposed docks. All of the land from which fill is being removed in the Auditors Road/Post Office area is City property w/th riparian frontage on Lost Lake. The removal of 14,000 square feet of fill from the Auditors Road/Post Office area does not create new riparian lands but rather restores the original shoreline of Lost Lake on lands that are already riparian. No subdivision of land will occur in this location and none of the restored shoreline would be used to dock boats. Similarly, the proposed dredging for the permanent docking facility will involve the removal of 17,000 square feet of historic fill material and will all be done entirely on existing riparian lands that are owned by the City of Mound. The docking facility will not entail any subdivision of land that would extend riparian fights to additional parcels. Neither the owners of boats using the permanent, docking facility or any concessionaires Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 4 the City might contract with to operate the facility would gain any riparian rights; such rights would continue to reside with the City of Mound. all kMirmehaha Creek Watershed District Regulations The MCWD regulations state that "No dredging shall be permitted (1) Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse. (2) Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes. (3) Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake. (4) Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. (5) Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to 1 for an area adjoining residential lakeshore." The dredging of the boat channel is within the waterbody itself and therefore complies with all of these provisions. Dredging for transient and permanent boat docking areas would remove old fill material fi.om areas which were naturally below the ordinary high water level of the waterbody. The. intent of this regulation appears to be to prevent the artificial enlargement of lakes and watercourses and not to prevent the removal of old fill material. Further, the nam_g.~rg! watercourse is not being manipulated by the proposed dredging; all dredging is within old fill areas. Since the dredging in old fill areas will be done to match the historical bottom profile of the waterbody, no increased seepage or subsurface drainage is anticipated. The shoreline within the old fill dredging area will all be lined with seawall so that erosion due to steep slopes will not be an issue. Also, the MCWD rules state that dredging activities which fall within categories described in #1-3 above may be permitted where the project complies with applicable DNR rules. As described above under "MDNR Regulations", the project does comply with the applicable DNR rules. The MCWD rules also state that "Dredging shall be permitted only for the following purposes: (1) To maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements; or (2) To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access; or (3) To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or contaminants; or (4) To improve the public recreational, wildlife, or fisheries resources of surface waters." The dredging for the boat channel meets condition #1 above. Dredging in the area of previously-deposited fill material meets condition #4 since it is being done in part to construct a marina which would improve the public recreational use of the waterbody. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Comment 4: With respect to the old dump site/salt storage, aerial photographs from the 1940s seem to show an open water area near the proposed (future) 22 slip docking facility shown in Exhibit 4. In a meeting on March 16, 1995, MPCA staff indicated that it might Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 5 be better to restore that open area and not develop it as it may be spring-fed and a link to groundwater. A representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was also at the meeting and expressed some concerns about developing the area even though that proposal to do so is not part of the 1997 work. More investigation of that site is warranted before development goes forward. Response 4: The potential presence of springs in historic open water area is very unlikely due to the relatively flat topography and the similarity of lake surface elevations in the area surrounding Lost Lake. The landscape of the area contains no features that would generate a groundwater gradient sufficient to create a spring. All of the historic open water area was filled in the past, except for a remnant narrow band of open water which exists around portions of fill slope's margins. The configuration of the existing open water is very similar to other areas we have observed where organic soil has subsided due to the weight of immediately adjacent fills. During field reviews, no current evidence of groundwater discharge was observed. During a March field review (immediately following the meeting referred to by the commenter), no evidence of thin ice or open water was observed that might suggest significant groundwater discharge. More likely explanations for the historic presence of open water is that this area may have been deeper than other parts of Lost Lake and/or that mus 'krat feeding and house-building activity helped retain open water in that area. It is quite common for pockets of open water to repeatedly appear and disappear within a deep marsh in response to annual climatic variations and to fluctuations in muskrat populations. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (June 26, I996) Comment I' "Do we have "exotic cattail monocultures" in Lake Minnetonka?" Response 1: This term was used by mistake in the draft EAW. Cattails (Typha sp.) are not exotic plants but are native to our area. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (July 2, 1996) Comment 7: "Will there be an ongoing study of fisheries within the project boundary area during and after the construction phase of the project? If so, will the DNR be involved with this?" Response 7: Fisheries surveys are w/thin the purview of the Minnesota DNR. It is not 'known whether the project area is within or near any areas in which the DNR currently conducts fish surveys. The City of Mound would be willing to cooperate in any studies of the project area fishery if the DNR deems that it is warranted. . ll g Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 6 Thomas E. Casey (July 2, 1996) Comment 1: "Page 6, subparagraph 1: The EAW states, "At the north end of the canal, most of the property is retail/commercial with little or no green buffer between the development and the wetland. The City is . . · taking steps to eliminate the concern including · · · developing a stormwater management plan." However, there is no evidence that the stormwater plan and construction pursuant to said plan will take place ~ the dredge occurs. The dredge, without stormwater management, will exacerbate the adverse effects of the runoff from downtown to Lake Minnetonka by eliminating the natural buffer that wetland vegetation provides." Response 1: The proposed project will create a vegetated upland buffer along the north edge of Lost Lake. This buffer will reduce the amount of untreated surface runoff that enters Lost Lake. Also, one element of the proposed dredging project is the re- establishment of a diverse wetland plant community along the north edge of the dredged area as well as a rooted aquatic plant community within the center of the turn-around portion of the channel. The combination of these measures will provide a more substantial vegetated buffer around Lost Lake than presently e,,dsts. Comment 2: "The draft EAW (page 7) asserts that the present channel will". · · actually lend some diversity to an otherwise uniform wetland system. The boat channel has provided muskrats with direct access to the center of Lost Lake, as indicated by the substantial number of muskrat houses on either side of the channel. The muskrats have created more open water through their feeding and house building activities, which in turn has increased the value of this area for nesting and feeding waterfowl as well as for herons and other wading birds." In other words, the very area that is proposed to be dredged and that will have loud, intrusive boat traffic is the area that, at present, has the highest concentration of wildlife! Therefore, it is disingenuous for the EAW to assert that "... it is doubtful that the project will adversely affect wildlife populations. (EAW, page 8, paragraph 2.)" Response 2: A population is made up of many individuals and may experience the loss or displacement of a number of individuals without affecting the overall health of the population. The species observed at Lost Lake are common urban wildlife species which adapt well to human activity and are generally abundant both in Lost Lake and surrounding marshes. Displacement of some individual animals will undoubtedly occur; however, impacts due to this project will not affect populations of these species as a whole. Comment 3: "The EAW states, "Dredging activity will be coordinated to have the least impact on the nesting habits of known wildlife in the wetland." However, the EAW does not specifically state when or how this will be accomplished." Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EA W Comment Responses Page 7 Response 3: The schedule for dredging will be coordinated with the MDNR Area Wildlife Manager to ensure that no unacceptable impacts to nesting wildlife occur. It is anticipated that the precise dates for dredging activities will be set forth in the MDNR protected waters permit that will be required for the project. Con-anent 4: "The EAW states,".., increased boat traffic may impact species whose nesting and feeding behavior occur in the channel and adjacent vegetation. In particular, waterfowl, wading birds (that are generally secretive), turtles and fish may limit their movements and breeding acclivities within and adjacent to the channel corridor . . ." [EAW, page 11]. As stated earlier in the EAW, the highest concentrations of wildlife are in the very corridor that will be dredged; the wildlife will also suffer additional intrusive boat traffic. The EAW is incomplete until this impact can be more carefully studied. Given these facts, it is illogical for the EAW to assert that".., it is doubtful that the project will adversely affect wildlife populations." (EAW, page 11.)" Response 4: See Response 2. Comment 5: "(2). i ehaha ree Water he Di trict - Water Re urce ana eme Plan (May t996~. Again, contrary to the unsubstantiated allegation in the EAW, the dredging of Lost Lake wetland is not compatible with this plan. For example, the Water Resources Management Plan states: (a) "Wetlands . . . provide the most valuable habitats for today's threatened or endangered species. These areas often support diverse water and land-based plant communities. They also serve as major migration routes for many species of wildlife." [Page 26.] (b) "Any number of activities can pollute groundwater supplies. Major concerns include abandoned or existing dumps..." [Page 37.] The "Mound Dump" and Tonka Toys Main Plant have been identified as potential sources of groundwater contamination. [See also Table II-23, attached hereto as EXHIBIT B.] (c) "Policy 2: Prohibit dredging in watercourses, waterbodies or wetland areas... which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational purposes." [Page 90.] (d) "Goal 11: To protect existing wetlands and restore diminished or draining wetlands. [Page 94.] (e) "Policy I' Ach/eve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's existing wetlands." [Page 94.] (f') "Policy 3: Avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of wetlands. [Page 95.] (g) "The District considers wetlands to be a highly valued resource which provides stormwater storage and water quality treatment function but also has inherent value as a natural resource." [Page 95.] (h) "Dredging projects can also degrade water quality and eliminate the natural appearance of shoreline..." [Page 96.] Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 8 (I) "Wetlands are considered by the District to be a highly valued resource which provides flood storage capacity, water quality treatment and wildlife habitat and value. The District has less than 50% of its pre-settlement wetlands remaining. · ." [Page 138.] Response 5: The MCWD has submitted comments on the EAW and has not indicated that the proposed project is incompatible with their Water Resources Management Plan. With regard to the specific issues raised by the commenter, we find the following: (a) The Lost Lake wetland is not known to provide habitat for any threatened or endangered species. The MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have both been involved in early coordination efforts on the project and, to date, neither agency has expressed any concern about threatened or endangered species. These agencies are responsible for protecting state and federally listed threatened and endangered species, respectively. Lost Lake does not represent an important stopover or staging area for migratory waterfowl since the wetland is almost entirely choked with emergent vegetation and has virtually no open water. Again, if impacts to waterfowl during migration were a significant concern, we would anticipate a comment to that effect from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (b) Issues relating to the Mound Dump and Tonka Toys Main Plant are addressed in the response to MPCA comments. (c) The issue of navigational access is addressed under MDNK and MCWD responses above. A~, (d) The project will result in a net gain of 000 square feet of wetland through the restoration of formerly filled areas. To date there has been no indication that additional compensatory mitigation will be required. If such measures become necessary, we anticipate that the details will be resolved during the applicable permit processes. (e) See "d" above. (f) See "d" above. (g) No activity associated with the project will reduce the Lost Lake wetland's ability to provide stormwater storage and water quality treatment functions, nor will the value of the wetland as a natural resource be reduced. (h) Although a temporary increase in turbidity is normally created during a dredging project, this will be a short-term and minor impact. The City of Mound will work with the MDNR to identify appropriate measures to prevent temporary turbidity from entering Lake Minnetonka. With regard to the shoreline of Lost Lake, there is little natural appearance to protect since the existing shoreline consists primarily of historically placed fill material. (i) Lost Lake wetland's flood storage capacity, water quality treatment and wildlife habitat value will not be appreciably affected by the project. Comment 6: "As I have elaborated above, the EAW is inaccurate and incomplete. A professional survey of flora and fauna should be undertaken during other times of the year to describe all of the natural resources that could be affected by the project." Response 6: Exhibit 9 of the EAW lists natural resources that are likely to occur within the channel in addition to species observed during a site visit by natural resource Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 9 professionals with degrees in botany and wildlife biology. To date, the professional botanists and wildlife biologists within the MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have not indicated any inadequacies in the biological analysis that has been done. It is unlikely that additional surveys would result in any appreciable difference in the list of species likely to occur in the project area. _Thomas E, Casey (Exhibit A) Comment 7: "On page 1, the report asserts "Since abandonment of the street car boat operations, the channel has narrowed and aquatic plants have recolonized historically dredged areas." Comment: This proves that the effects of a dredge are long lasting. It has been over 80 years and the wetland has still not completely healed. The current dredge proposal threatens to do the same and significant environmental effects will result!" Response 7: The commenter appears to be indicating the existing boat channel has had an adverse effect on Lost Lake. As described in the Biological Survey report contained in the EAW, the channel has added some diversity to an otherwise monotypic cattail marsh and, in that regard, has provided some wildlife habitat values that otherwise would be absent. The cornmenter appears to recognize this fact in Comment 4 above, where it is acknowledged that the highest wildlife concentrations occur around the boat channel. The proposed channel dredge represents the maintenance of this existing channel. The City has offered to create some additional open water pockets within Lost Lake to add additional diversity away from the boat channel. Preliminary, discussions with MDNR have resulted in their informal indication that this mitigation measure appears unnecessary and that they would prefer to restrict dredging activities to the channel area. Comment 8: "On page 2, the report states "The project site was reviewed on October 11, 1994 and May 15, 1995." Comment: The field survey was too late in the Spring to account for passing migratory waterfowl; most waterfowl that are not summer residents will have flown past the Lost Lake wetland by May 15th. To be fair, a three season inventory could have been accomplished. Furthermore, the report fails to note the time of day the survey took place, a factor that could have a bearing on what and how many fauna are observed, it is more likely that wildlife can be observed early in the morning or later in the evening." Response 8: See response 6 above. Comment 9: "On page 3, the report states, "... a search of this ecosystem earlier in the growing season would reveal additional common aquatic plant species, it is doubtful that species would be represented of significant size." Comment: The report fails to discuss the likelihood and importance of uncommon or rare plant species being found earlier in the growing season!" Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 10 Response 9: It is true that a search of this ecosystem earlier in the growing season would likely reveal small numbers of additional common aquatic plant species. However, there is virtually no likelihood that any uncommon or rare plant species would be found in the affected area. Hennepin County is known to harbor only two listed uncommon plant species that would utilize marshy lakes or their fringes. Polygonum arifolium (currently special concern but proposed for de-listing by the MDNR) is found on lake margins and was last observed in Hennepin County in 1974. If any suitable habitat for this species ever existed on the margins of Lost Lake, it would have been lost to past filling. Decodon verticiIlatus (special concern) inhabits the fringes of small lakes and swamps but has not been observed in Hennepin County since 1953. This species would similarly have been eliminated by filling if it ever existed along the affected portion of Lost Lake's margin. To date, the MDNR has not expressed anY concerns about the potential presence of rare plant species in the project area. Comment 10: "On page 3, the report identifies only resident ducks and waterfowl. The report admits the inadequacy of the EAW. For example, ".-. it is highly probable that a variety of additional wildlife species utilize the wetland. The report also states that it is "... probable that Lost Lake also provides habitat for amphibians and reptile species fails to state the species and population numbers." Response 10: It is not necessary to identify and quantify every bird, mammal, amphibian and reptile species that utilizes an area in order to "describe fish and wildlife resources on or near" a pro}ect site as called for in an EAW. The Biological Survey report adequately describes the habitat quality and wildlife use of the area for purposes of "rapidly assess[lng] the environmental effects which may be associated with a proposed project"(see Minn. Rules 4410.1000 Subp. 1). Comment 11: "On page 4, the report admits the inadequacy of the EAW. "No field investigations were undertaken on the use of the Lost Lake boat channel by fish." Yet, the report admits, "... it is likely.., that the open water portions of Lost Lake, such as the boat channel and docking areas, may provide limited spawning and feeding habitat for game fish species ..." The EAW implies that "limited" means minimal; but a confined area of space is always, by definition, "limited." In other words, by clever language, the EAW diminished the importance of Lost Lake as a fish spawning area without anY field investigation." Response 11' The term "limited" in the Biological Survey report was intended to be synonymous with "minimal". Due its extremely dense cattail growth, shallow depth and very small open water area, Lost Lake provides little suitable spawning or feeding habitat for game fish. It is not necessary to carry out test-netting or other survey techniques to discern Lost Lake's limited fisheries value. To date the MDNR has not expressed any concerns over potential impacts to fish. Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 11 Comment 12: "On page 4, the report discusses the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and implies that the Lost Lake wetland is not important habitat for this species. The very source that the report cites (Coffin, 1988) states, "Numerous small hunting areas, usually marshes and wet meadows, are also important." Indeed, Lost Lake wetland may qualify as important habitat for the red-shouldered hawk, a species on the list as state special concern!" Response 12: Red-shouldered hawks have not been reported in Hennepin County since 1923. This species requires large contiguous tracts of bottomland hardwood forest for nesting (Coffin, 1988), none of which exist in the Lost Lake area. Marshes and meadows do not provide important feeding habitat to red-shouldered hawks if they are not in proximity to suitable nesting habitat. Lost Lake provides no suitable habitat for this species. Comment 13: "On page 5, the report discusses the king rail (Rallus elegans), proposed to be upgraded from special concern to endangered status. (See DNR proposed revisions, finalized on November 15, 1995.) Indeed, the report admits that it is unlikely that the king rail is present in Lost Lake area; th. is is hardly a surprise given its proposed endangered status. What i_s a surprise is that the report does not suggest that a thorough survey be accomplished in the project area. Coffin, 1988, states, "King rails accept a wide variety of shallow, freshwater marshes ... Small potholes, such as those that are frequented by nesting ducks, appear attractive to the species. It has been suggested that its distribution may be dependent on the muskrat, whose activities in the marsh help create openings for feeding and drinking ... Programs aimed at preserving marshy wetlands benefit king rails as well as many other marsh dwellers. Increased efforts should be made to determine more precisely the population size and distribution of the species in Minnesota." (Cof£m, at page 277.) Certain/y, increased human activity caused by dredging and boat traffic will decrease the chances of the king rail ever being sighted in Lost Lake. The EAW also fails to address the impact of the dredge on king rail habitat." Response 13: The MDNR has not requested a survey for king rails at Lost Lake and has expressed no concern that they may be present. Further, the spring field review was conducted at a time when, were they using the area, king rails would likely be present and audible. Because of the species is so rarely observed in Minnesota and the project area is so disturbed, the likelihood that king rails utilize Lost Lake is too small to wan-ant intensive surveys. Comment 14: "On page 5, the report discusses the common-moorhen (Gallinula chloronopsis). The report states that this bird prefers cattail-bulrush marshes with patches of Phragmites, Carex and Sparganium. The report states that the common moorhen is unlikely to prefer Lost Lake habitat because of the predominance of cattails. Yet, the report on page 3 states, "It is. likely that a search of this ecosystem earlier in the growing season would reveal additional aquatic species; however, due to the dense groxvth form of the cattails, it is doubtful that these species would be represented by populations of Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EAW Comment Responses Page 12 significant size." In other words, if further investigation of Lost Lake occurred, other wetland plant species may be identified that are favorable to the common moorhen. Moreover, Coffin, 1988, states: "Large, expansive wetlands are not necessary; the species will utilize small marshes along the edges of lakes or rivers... Marsh preservation programs benefit the moorhen as well as many other marsh species." [Page 278.] Response 14: Response 13 also applies to the common moorhen. There is insufficient potential for the species to be present to warrant additional surveys and no such surveys have been requested by MDNR. Comment 15: "On page 5, the report discusses the snapping turtle ~ serpentina), a state "special concern" species. The report states the problem of commercial harvesting. Given the contaminants that are found in Lost Lake, the commercial harvesting of this turtle species is likely to be a threat to human health. In addition the dredge may be a threat to the population numbers of this state listed species. Response 15: It is extremely unlikely that any commercial harvest of snapping turtles is or ever will be occurring in Lost Lake. It is even less likely that any turtles potentially harvested in this area would be taken or consumed in such numbers so as to represent a human health hazard. If any harvest is occurring, the renewed use of the channel for boat traffic would likely reduce its use by turtle trappers. Snapping turtles are "one of our most frequently encountered reptiles" (Coffin, 1988). Other than in areas that are commercially harvested with some intensity, snapping turtles are typically very common and populations are not in jeopardy. Comment 16: "On page 5, the report states, "... restoration of the original boat channel and construction of transient and marina slips is not expected to meaningfully reduce the availability of habitat necessary to maintain viable populations of the plant, wildlife or fish species mentioned above." This conclusion is not supportable without an inventory of reptile, amphibian, and fish populations and a study of the impact of boat traffic on wildlife." Response 16: See Response 10. Comment 17: "On page 6, the report states that "... the channel and boat docking areas actually lend some diversity to the otherwise uniform wetland system." This is an incredible conclusion; there is no supportable evidence that the dredge and boat traffic will not. affect the wetland fauna. Response 17: See Responses I through 16. Comment 18: "On page 6, the report states, "Lost Lake has experienced encroachment by purple loosestrife ... The proposed project should not result in any expansion or acceleration of purple loosestrife infestation since this plant colonizes heavily vegetated areas rather than open water." However, I have attached [as Exhibit C]a portion of the Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Lost Lake EA tV Comment Responses Page 13 Field uide to A uatic x tic Plant and Animals Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (c) 1992. Please note that loosestrife spreads" ... along ... canals and dra' ditches." It thrives on disturbed, moist soils often; .... ,~:_~ ~ ...... mage , ,,,*,~u,,~ ,m~r construction activities" Response I8: The proposed dredging activity will occur in areas where purple loosestrife is already present. The proposed dredging will not affect any areas that do not already have purple loosestrife populations. Comment 19: "On page 7, the report opines potential mitigation measures such as "... excavating pockets of open water in other relatively undisturbed areas within Lost Lake." However, the EAW itself (on page 16) states that the DNR's current position is "... not to incorporate this measure into the project at this time because it creates additional disturbance." Response 19: The creation of open water pockets in monotypic cattail marshes is a common, accepted technique for creating additional open water and diversity in such systems. Both the MDNR and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service commonly manage water levels in heavily vegetated marshes to generate this effect. Water levels in Lost Lake cannot be manipulated so excavation represents the only procedure by which additional open water can readily be created. At this juncture, the MDNR has not indicated that such measures will be necessary to mitigate impacts. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance regarding this project. Best regards, Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. EXHiBiT E Minnesota Pollution Control Agency HAR 1 4 Mr. Jon Elam Mound City Manager 5341 Maywood Road Mound, Minnesota 55364 Dear Mr. Elam: Re: Lost Lake D~mp. In 1981 the Tonka Corporation's U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Hazardous Waste Disclosure indicated that the Tonka Corporation may have disposed hazardous substances in the former Lost Lake Damp. in Mound from 1954 to the early 1960's. Pursuant to this disclosure, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) staff initiated an investigation in March, 1982. The MPCA staff has completed its investigation regarding the possible disposal and release of hazardous substances from the Lost Lake Dump Site. The results of extensive records review, aerial photographic searches, six rounds of ground water monitoring for volatile organic comp. ounds, test trenching and sampling and analysis of material in the former dump. demostrate that the Lost lake Dump. Site. is not a source of release of hazardous substances. Based upon this information the MPCA is terminating further inv.estigation of the Site. However, should new information indicate that the Site is a source of release of hazardous substances, the MPCA staff will resume investigations. THe MPCA staff request that the City of Mound maintain the three ground water monitoring wells at the Lost Lake ~Damp Site. These wells are needed in conjunction with investigation of the adjacen~ .Tonka Main Plant Site. We aisc request that the city grant access to the wells for the MZPCA staff and the Tonka Corporation .so that further monitoring of ground water at these locations can be conducted. As you are aware, the MPCA Water Quality Division (.Mark Oppen, 296-7367) staff are also investigating the release of gasoline to the shallow alluvial aquifer and soils from the Metro Service Station adjacent to the Site. To ensure adequate protection of public health, welfare and the environment, the ~I~CA staff request that the city not excavate or otherwise disturb the soils within one hundred fifty (150) feet of the Metro Service Station without first discussing such with the MPCA staff. Phone: 1935 West County Road B2,.Roseville, Minnesota 55113-2785 Recjional Offices · DuluthlBrainerd/Detroit Lake$/Marshalt/Rochester Equal Opportunity Employer Mr. Jon Elam ~age Two The MPCA staff appreciates the cooperation of the city of Mound and especially your cooperation in these rotters. If you have any questions regarding these matters please call me at (612) 296-7710. Thank you. Si~erely, ~ David T. Richfield I] - W · Project Leader ~ Responsible Party Unit Site Response Section '' Solid and Hazardous W~ste Division DTR/rj cc: The Honorable Robert Polston, Mayor, City of Mound Dr. Don Josif, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mr. Fran A!lens, Ecology and Environment Mr. Edward Monteleone, Hennepin County bcc: Donna Portner Mike Convery EXHIBIT F MINNEHAItA CREEK WATERStlED DIS'FRICT BOAR-I) OF MANAGERS RESOLUTION GRANTING PERMIT A. PPLICATION NUMBER 96-280, C'ITY OF 5I(')UND Fcbrua%' 27, 1997 Manager Maple moved, seconded by Manager l.ovc, lhat the following l~.esolution be adopted by the Board of Managers of the Nlinnchaha Creek Watcrsixed District: I. FINDINGS 1 (')n l)ccembe" 1% 1996, thc City of Mmmct submittect a permit appli, catitm to the Minnebaha Creek Watershed District (NICWD) tbr certain activities to take place in and around Lost Lake, a DN~ public water wetland. Lost Lake is below the ordina~ high water mark Lake Minnetonka as established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DN[~). 2. The permit application was assigned permit application number 96-280 and placed on the agenda for the JanuaU 23, 1997 MCWD Board of Managers meeting, the first meeting the permit application was eligible t~r review. 3. Prior to receipt of the permit application, representatives of the MCWD had met with the City of Mound on numerous occasions to discuss the proposed project and thc requirements the MCWD Rules. The MCWD also reviewed thc environmental assessment worksi~cet perfi~rmed for the project anti provided comments on thc worksheet. ~ t~cs of' the project are cm~taincd in the, pc~it application, which is part of the 4. The s cci '. , · .... ~,~wr~ q decision is based. Thc project involves rccm'd bclbr~the MCWD anti upon g~B1Ctl tile ~, several activities which are regulated by the N, ICWD purse:mt to its rules. 5. Thc project involves dredging in a historic channel that connects the CiD' of Mound's property ti) Cook's Bay of Lake Minnetonka. The original channel width was 30 tket. The Applicant proposed drudging flxc channel to a width of 70 feet, one-half mile long, with proposed side slopes at a 5:1 (horizontal to vertical)ratio. Dredging is regulated pursuant to MCWD Rule E. 6. 'I'h~ project involves thc installation of a seawall and riprap. These activities arc rcguhttcd pursuant to MCWD l[ulc F. 7. The project involves placement of structures around thc perimeter of I..ost Lake. These activities arc t-egulatcd pursuant to MCWD Rule D. ,. r r , , 'WD received a Notice oflntervcnticm to intervene in thc 8. On .lanuur5 21, 1 )97, the NIC , . ....... c,~,, motice or'Intervention from John proceeding -md a Memoranttum m buppor[ ,,t- permitting Edcwaard. · 9. At the Board meeting of January 23, 1997, the MCWD Board or'Managers voted to table the permit application pending reviexv of the Notice oflnte~'ention and supporting documents bv each Manager and District Counsel. Thc Board then voted to continue ~hc Board mcetin,, to February 6. 1997. * 10. At the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, after receiving comments Ii'om interested inc!i:'idtxals, the Board votecl to grant the permit application with conditions and direct District Counsel to prepare draft Findings and Conclusi~ms. 1 t. Draft r:indings and Conclusions in the [bnn t)£a draft resolution were made available the public and transmitted to the permit applicant and Intervencr on Febrt,ary 13, 1997. 12. The record for submittal or'written comments remained open tmtil closc-of-busines:; day February 20, 1997. 13. At the February 27, 1997 MCWD Board meeting, the MCWD voted to approve this resolution. A. DNR. General Permit 95-6140 14. The MCWD is not reviewing the City of Mound's permit application under its general permit with the DNR, general permit 95-6 t40. 15. The DNR general permit allows the MCWD to issue a permit for certain types oractivity without the permit applicant also obtaining n permit £rorn the DN'R. The MCWD can issue permits under the DNR general permit for, among other things, tiptop, retaining walls, and cxcavat'ior~ lbr navigatim~. 16. The MCWD will not be permitting the City ol'Motmd's project under the DN'R general permit because the DNR has exercised its right pup.;uant to special provision 5 of the general permit to require a separate individual permit Ibr the project. B. MCWD Rule C - Flt~odplain Ah'eraticm 17. The MCWI') regulatt:s activities taking place in a floodplain pt, rsuant to MCWD Rule C. Rt:le C requires that lltmdplain filling "shall not cattse a net decrease in Ilood storage capacity below thc pro. jectect 100-year llood elevation tmles:; it is shown that the proposed lilling, together with the filling of all other properties on thc al'fleeted reach of the xvaterbodv to the same degree of encroachment as proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or'aggravate flooding on other properties and will not unduly restrict flood flows." 1 ,q, The pcrrnit application meets the requirements ot: MCWD Rule C bccatmc the rec~rd heft)re the Board establis}les that the project will actually increase flood storage cap:miry in the area. .___.___ .... ,,013o C. MCWD Rule D - Wetland Protec.Lim._.! I c~. The MCWD regulates wetland:; pursuant ~o Rule D - Wetland Prolcclkm. Rule D primarily regulates wetlands regulated under the Wettand Conservation Act LWC'A wetlands'~. While the MCWD docs not regulate work in DNR protected water wetlands, the MCWD does regulate activities surrounding DNR protected water wetlands by requiting thnt those activities not take place within a certain area around the wetland. This is the buffer zone requirement. 20. Rule D provides that a buffer zone of 35 Feet be maintained around a wetland that is larger than five (5) acres, such as Lost Lake. A buffer zone is delined in the MCWD rules as "an area of native, unmaintained, vegetated groundcover abutting or summnding a wetland." Activities such as mowing, disposal of yard waste and Ikrtilizer application are not allowed within the buffer zone. 2 I. The record indicates that certain aspects of the project as proposed will take place within the 35 t'oot buffer zone around the pe~eter of the wetland. The record also indicates that the prqiect involves creation of significant wetlnnd revegetation areas and other green buf[Er area:; which do not exist today. These hurters are significantty wider in areas than the 35 leer required by the role. Because a 35 foot hurler will not be maintained around the entire wetland, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I governs issuance o~' a variance. Special conditions apply to INs property that do not 23. ~ In this case, a variance is warranted, the District. Th~ area around the wetkmd is public generally apply to other land or structures in ,, . ,, land that will be used as parkland. Construction of a Iloatmg boardwalk around the perimoter of the wgtland which will serve as an ectucationat tool on wetlands is :t co~dition tmique tt~ thb; project. The use of the site l~r public enjoyment and education is unique to this site. 24. The granting of the w~riance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The applicant has made signiticant eflUrts to minimize tho activities around the wetland and has provided for extensive rcvegetation around portions o(thc wetland and a green buffer around other parts of the wetland. A butTer zone does not currently exist around the wetland. Granting of the variance is necessa~ to allow the applicant access to the clocks. 25. Granting the variance is not contrary to fl~e intent off the rules. The intent of Rule D is to provide protection R~r wetlands and DNR protected water wetlands. The extensive rcvegetation proposed by the applicant around a portion of the perimeter off the wetland combined with the use of a green buffer around an additional portion of tl~e wetland and the use of curbed gutters around the parking area will minimize the impact of upland activities on the wetland while allowing acces:; to the clocks. D. MCWD Rule E - Drettt~ing 26. Thc iMCWD regulates dredging purst,ant to MCW'D Rtllc E. Rule E sets out fbur (4) circtm'tstanc=s where dredging ,,rill he permitted and five (5'1 circumstances where d:'cdging will not ~c permitted. Rule g also se~s out general standards that apply to dredging. Thc ..MCWD finds that tile project c'omplies with the terms oI"MCWD Rule E. I. Compliance with Rule 27. Paragraph 4(a)(2) of Rule [:2 provides that dredging will be pein'fitted "[t}o implement or maintain an existing legal right o[' navigational access." "Riparian rights" arc certain right:; enjoyed hy owners of l:md abutting waterbodies. _8. Thc City ot'Mound owns land surrmmding Lost Lake. Lost l.ake is entirely located below the ordinary Mgh water mark of Lake Minnctonka, and therefi~re cons!deter[ part of Lake Minnetonka. As a result, the City o£Mound has a r/parian right of' navigatiorm! access to Lake Minnetonka. 29. The exercise of riparian rights is not unrestricted, but rather is subject to regulation in thc public interest. 30. 'File MCWD finds that the City of Mound has an existing legal right of navigational access and thc dredging is necessa~ to implement or maintain that legal ',', n~,ht. 3 I. The MCWD has consistently allowed riparian owners to use dredging to accomplish access only if other means ot'nccess are not available. Both MCWD Rule E and the Lake M:innctonka Dredging Joint Policy Statemem entered into between tile M'CWD, DNR, and Lake Minnetonka Conservation Di:;trict (LMCI)), require that dredging be thc "minimal impact" solution to achieving nay!gat!mm! access. This requirement is also reflected in DNII':; rules regulating dredging in public water wetlands. Minn. R. fi115.020I, Subp. 4 (1995). 32. Intervener claims there is no need to dredge to obtain access because the land has access to the Bay via canoes and kaynks. '['hc MCWD and DNR have consistently applied tilt: depth reqtfircmertts set Forth in the Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement to establish what constitutes "navigational access" on Lake Minnetonka. Pursunnt to the Policy Stntement antl MCWD practice, an appropriate dredging depth tbr multiple-user channels is five (5) feet or less. .,.ks a result, tile MCWD has consistently determined that "navigational access" fi'n'a multiple- user chanrml is a channel with a clepth of' five feet. Tim recorcl establishes that the City proposes to dredge to a depth of live .3.3. Because lhe MC\VD lind:; that the City of Mound has an existing legal right of navigatiorml acccs:; and the dredging is necessary' to implement or maintain that legal right, the dredging meet:; the requirements of MC\VD R. ulc E ',14(a)(2)and a pemait may hc issuecl. 2. Compliance with MCWD Rule E Il 4(a')(D 3-1. Thc MCWD als~ finds that a permit {'or thc project may be issued under MCX~ Rule E 4(a)(1) with a variance allowing thc dredging to exceed thc original ch:mncl width. 35. ?aragraph 4(a)(.l) provides that dredging may be pertained "[t]o maintain, or remove sediment from, an existing public or private channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements." In order to issue a pe~it under this section, it must be established that: a. there is an existing channel; b. the dredging is for the pu~ose of maintaining or removing sediment from tim channel; and c. the maintenance does not exceed thc originally permit[cd require[neats. 36. The MCWD finds that thc first condition is met because a channel through Lost Lake currently exists. 37. The MCWD ISnds that the second condition is met because the propt~scd dredging is the purpose of removing sediment from the channel. 38. The MC~ finds that the fl~ird condition is not met because the dredging will exceed the historical dimem;ions, but that a variance is warranted to allow dredging to the proposed dimensions. 39. The record establishes that the original channel was 30 feet wide. Thc channel is proposed to be dredged to a width of 70 feet. ~ a result, a variance is required. MCWD Rule I govcrlls issuance of a variance. 40. [n this case, a variance is wa~antcd. Special conditions apply to this property that do not generally apply to other land or structures in thc District. The granting of the variance is not merely a convenience tt~ the applicant. Ti~e applicant originally requested permission to dredge the channel to a width or' 50 tYect with three boat pull-out areas. The MCWD in Conjunction with thc DN R propt~sed the wider channel in order Io reduce the lYequency of maintenance dredging and, as a rcsutt, reduce the frequency of disruption o~ the wetland and wildlit~e- 41. ,Granting the variance is not contrary to the intent of the rules. The intent of Rule providu l~r sound and respon:;ihle drcdgh~g that provides thc minimal, impact solution Cot reasonable navigational access. The increase in thc width or' the channel promotes sound paosa= oCboat drudging and the ol2jec[ives oC thc rules in that the wider width allows {Br salve """ ~,e . traffic in both directions and requires less frequent maintenance dredging, thereby resulting in thc minimum impact solution. 42. Because the project meets thc criteria {2)r a variance set out in MCWD Rule l, thc MCWD finds that granting of a variance t2~r the wider channel wicittx is appropriate. ,113. The fact that a permit was not issued by a government agency to construct the original channel does not mean that the channel cannot be maintained. The MCWD has interpreted the language "docs not exceed tile originally ?ermittcd requirements" to mean "historic channe{" in cases :vher¢ the origin:ti channel was dredged prior to any dredgiug regulation. Thc "does not exceed the originally permitted requirements" sets lirnit:; on lilt: extent_ of the dred.zintz. not on the types of channels that can be dredged. The intent of the provision was to "grandlhther". in channels that were dredged prior to imposition of thc role. The rule provided for a grandfather clause in part because of the history of the creation ofl..ake Minnetonka. Lake Minnetonka was created by tile dredging of channels betwccn many. small lakes ~,~ create one large lake. The role is intended to recognize that those channels and other:; that were created prior to implementation of Rule E can be maintained as originally constructed. ,14. The MCWD finds that tile project meets Iht requirements of M'CWD Rule E ~ 4(a)l l) and a variance is warranted. ' 3. 'Fix: drethzin.e is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E_'I[. 4(b) 45. [n acklition to estab{ishing circumstances where dredging may be pcmlitted, Rule E also established certain situations where dredging will not be allowed. The MCWD finds that the project is not prohibited under MCWD Rule E. 46. Paragraph 4(b) provides that dredging will not be alloxved: 3 4. 5. Above thc ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to tile l:,ke or watercourse; Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which woulct create a clmnncl to connect adjacent backwater areas ft~r navigational purposes: Where the dredging xvill aher tile natural shoreline of a lake; W'here the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in subsurt~.lc,': drainage; or Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope sleeper than 3:1 in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to I tbr an area at[joi~fing residential lakcshore. · '1.7. Rule E also provides that, ifa dredging proposal fillls under category 1,2 or 3, tile dredging may be alh~wed il'the project complies with applicable DNR rules. MCWD l~,ule E, 4(c). a. l)rethzing above tile ordinary high water level or into tile upland adjacent to the lake or watercourse 48. Thc MCWD linds that the dredging xvill occur in an upland area ac[/acent Io tile lake but that this dredging will be allowed if approved hy the DNR. As a result, thc permit will not be issued until the DNR approves thc pro. iect. 6 ,!.9. The record indicates that dredging would occur i~'t upland adjacent to the watcrcourse. The City (3f Mnund has proposed to dredge upland in a small area at the norfl~ end o~ the channel to crealc tl~c tur~-around area. The record indicates that thi~; area was ;u one time pa,'t or' the channe~ but ~va~; subscquc,~tly filled. b. D~~ich would enlame a natural watercourse landward or which would create a channel ~ connect atF~ter areas for nav~atinnal ~u~ose~ 50. The record indicates that the project as proposed by the City o~ N'lound would enlarge a natural watercourse, [,ake Minnetonka, landward. The City of Mound has proposed to dredge landward in a small area at thc nortk end of the channel to create thc turn-around area. The reco~'d indicates that this area was at one time part of the channel but was subsequently filled. 5 l The McwD finds that the dredging would enlarge a natural watercourse, Lak Minnetonka, landward but that this dredging will be allowed if approved by the DNR. As a result, the permit x~ll not be issued until the DNR approves the project. 52. ~e MC~ finds that the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurf~ace drainage and, as a result, the dredging is not prohibited under this section. 53. The record contains the professional opinion of the District Engineer tl~at the dredging will not cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage. The District Engineer's opinion was based on, among other things, the geotechnical evaluation completed lbr the project and also contained in the record. Dred ~ are~ntains any sl~er than 3: l~n a marina o~7.3:3~2q~n~1' or steeple - than I 0 to 1 liar ~~~d lakeshore. 5,;. The MCWD finds that the slope will not be steeper than allowed by MCk~ Rule E and, as a result, the dredgi~g is not wohibited under thc rule. 55. The record indicates that the sk}pe wilt be 5'I. ;t. The pr~eCt me~~t;mda~ds l~)r dr¢c3~nd the ~m~~o the ~IC kX,~ 56. The MCWD finds that the project meets the general slandards lbr dredging and that the required exhibits have been provided to the MCWD. 57. MCWD Rule E requires flint all dred~in~ em'nply w~th the t~llaw~n~ smndard~: 1. The spoil cl[spo~al sire must be identified and fi~und not to be below the O[.[W ora pLJblic water or public w:ttcr wetland, wetland subject to tim Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to m'osion. 2. in cases ofan identifiable source et'sedimentation under the control of the applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of sediment inlo a waterbody or afl:site. 3. Prior to review by the District, all dredging proposals that inw)lve docking shall be submiucd to and approved by the Minnesota Depamnent of Natural Resources and, in thc case of Lake Minnetonka. by the Lake Minnetonka Consen, ation District. The proposed prqiect shall represent thc "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives such as clock extensions, aquatic nuisance plant re:novel without dredging, [)each sandblankets, excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area of the public water, or management of an alternative water body for the intended pu~ose. ~e dredging shall be limited to thc minimum dimensions necessaw for achieving the sm[ed pu~ose (Reference DNR General Pe~it 95-6150, "Excavation fur Navigation," ~[ 5). If the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging, additional conditions must be met. a. Identificati('m (il'the spoil disposal site 58. A spoil disposal site has not been klentified for the prqject. It is common for municip:tlities to .seek permits before a construction contract has been let. Most construction contracts provide that the contractor is responsible for proper disposal of materials. 59. It is appropriate anti consistent with the IVICWD's past permitting experiences re approve the permit application comlitioned upon tire project receiving a Spoil Disposal Site (SDS) permit from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 60. As a result, tile MCWD tinds that tilt: per'mit may be issued with the condition that the project receive a SDS permit from thc MPCA. b. Minimization of sources of seclimentatitm 6 I. Tile MCWD finds that there are no signilicant sources ofsediment under tile control of the City and tllat tile project does include activities designed to reduce seclirnentation into the channel and wetland. 62. The rule requires that, prior to allowing dredging, an applicant must establish that sourc~zs et'sediment under the ecru[roi of the applicant and which may contribute to the on-going need to dredge trave been controlled. The record indicates that there are no significant sources o[' sediment under the control of thc City. The record also indicates that the project does include activities designed to reduce sedimentation into the channel and the wetland. For example, a buffer zone will be ,-naintaincd around much of the wetland perimeter as:;ociatcd xvith thc project. In addition, riprap erosion protection will be installed along portions of the shoreline to prevent erosion. c. Ap. proval by thc [.lvI(.?D and the DNR 63. The proposed project requires approval from both the LMCD (docks) and the DNR. (dredging and docks). It is appropriate and consistent with the MCWD's past permitting practices for the Board to issue the pein'fit conditioned upon approval by the LMCD and DNR. 64. Thc MCWD tinds that a permit may be issued conditioned upon approval of the project by the LMCD and the DNR. d. lvlinimal impact solution 65. The MCWD finds that the project as proposed represents the minimal impact solution to achieve na¥igational access. 66. The role lists several alternatives that should be considered. Extension ora dock is one alternative the Board should consider. In this case, the canal is approximately V-: mile long. The IvICWD finds fi'tat construction of a dock is not a realistic or reasonable alternative in this case because of the length of a dock. 67. The MCWD finds that aquatic nuisance plant removal with(mt dredging is not a reasonable alternative..,\qtmtic nuisance plant retnoval would not provide the depth necessary for navigati~mal access as set forth in thc Joint Dredging Policy. 68. The MCWD finds that the use ofsandblm'tkets is trot a reasonable alternative. The MCWD considers sandblankets an appropriate alternative to dredging in circurnstances where the placement ot-' sand over a mucky area would provide access. Sandblanketing in this circumstance is not a rcascmable alternative due to the fact that titling would result in rnorc environmental degradation anti further reduce tire depth o f the channel. 60. The MCWD finds that excavation above the bet[ of public water is not an appropriate alternative because dredging above the bed of a public water would not provide navigational access for this site. 70. The MCWD finds that the proposed dredging is the least impact dredging necessary to maiatain navigational access. The record indicates that the chanuel as proposed provides the most direct access. In addition, as discussed almve, the proposed channel design provides thc least impact of other dredging alternatives. There is no evidence that -,,ement of an alternative water body would provide tmvigational access for the City. 9 ~. Minimum dimensions. 71. The MCWD finds that the dredging is limited to the minimum dimensinns necessary fnr achieving navigational access. " " . 72. Paragraph 5 of the Excavation f'br Navigation section oFthe DNR general permit provides the standards tbr determining necessary dimensions for dredging. Paragraph 5 provides that the maximum depth f'br multiple user channels and mooring/maneuvering areas is 923.6 t~et. The recnrd indicates that the depth of the Lost I'.ake channel will be 923.6 lbet, 73, Paragraph 5 also provides that sideslopes of'excavated channels should he 3'1 (horizontal to vertical), "unless substrate conditions and other mitigating thctors warrant a steeper or more gentle slope." The slope o/'thc proposed chan. nel is 5: I. The record contains several documents, including an opinion £rom a geotechnical engineering consultant, that thc 5.'I slope is appropriate and '.rill result in a stable slope. f..Conditions applicable to hydraulic dredging 74. The record indicates that hydraulic dredging will not be used. As a result, the MCWD finds that the additional conditions applicable to h. ydraulic dredging set forth in the rule do not apply. E. MCWD Rule F - Shnreline Altcralio?_.2~ 75. Alterations to shoreline are regulated pursuant to M'CWD Rule F - Shoreline & Streambank improvement. The project involves the plncement oFt/prop and reconstruction antl construct/on ot'rctaining walls, bofl~ of' which are regulated under Rule F. 76. With one exception, the rect~rd indicales that the project as proposed meets tlne requirements ot.'Rule F. The one exception is t/mr the riprap cross-section does not contain alt the in f'om'mtion contained in the text portion of'the permit application. 77. As a result, issuance of thc permit is conditioned upon receipt o/'a revised riprap detail and approval of' the detail by the District Engineer. F..MCWD Rule K - Perlbrmance Bond nr Letter ol:Credil 78. MCWD Rule K provides that a pcr~b~ance bond or letter oFcredit be submitted to the MCWD For projects regulated by MCWD Rules E and F. A pertt~rmance bond or letter of credit has not yet been submitted lbr the Lost Lake project. 79. Thc MCWD has in the past conditioned issuance (ifa permit nn receipt ol'a pertbrmance bond or letter of credit. Issuance of'a permit tier thc prQect is likewise comlitioncd upon receipt ot'a perfbmmncc bond or letter of credit covering thc work regulated hy Rules E and F. t0 G'. Ca--lance ,,v~th Wmer Nfnna~cmcnt Plan~s 80. The proposed project is in compliance with thc MCWD's current water resources management plan dated 1003. The plan states on page V-8 that the policies of the MCWD regard to dredging are: t. Allmv dredging projects to improve the recreational, wildlil~, and fisheries resources ~q'surtSce waters, and when necessary, to implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access. t~rohibit dredging in the watercourses, waterbodies, or wetland areas.., which -' would enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas lk, r navigational purposes. 3. Allow maintenance dredging to remove harm2~l sediment. 8l. The project is in compliance with policy I because, as set forth above, the Board has determined that dredging is necessaU to implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational access. 82. The project is in compliance with policy 2 because the dredging does not enlarge a natural watercourse landward to create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas. The dredging does enlarge a nan~ra[ watercourse landward, but does not create a channel that connects at[jacent backwater areas. The channel is not being created, but rather it is being maintained and expanded. Lost Lake is not a backwater area that is being connected to a waterbocly. Backwater areas ~e areas uncnnnected to a watcrbody. Lost Lake is ah'eacly connected Io Lake Minnetonka. 83. Policy 3, allowing maintenance dredging tn remove harmfld sediment, is not applicable to thc proposed project. H. ~innesota Environmental Rights 84. The MCWD finds that (I) barring a determination by the MPCA tlmt thc project will increase levels of PCB's to a tiu-eshold exceeding acceptable standards, thc project does not air. water, land or other natural resources" result in "' ' tmpa~rment, pollution, or destruction of tlxe and (2) there arc no tcastbl' and prudent alternatives. 85. Minnesota Statutes section i 16B.09 requires an agency in issuing a permit tn consider any alleged "impairment, pollution, or destruction" and l~rbids an agency fi'om allowing activity that results in "impairment. pollution, or dcstnmtion .... so long as there is a t~asible and and , reqmrements land, and other prudent alternative consistent witi~ the rcmsonable ' · · : ol'ti~e public healtlx, safety, well, re and the state's paramount concern for the protection o[ its air, water natural resources i~'om pollution, impairment, or desmmtion." Minn. Stat. ~ I 16B.09, Subd. 2. 86. MERA only fi)rbids actions whicix will resutt in ~'impairment, pollution or destruction" ti~e environment. Tim statute defines "pollution, impairment or destruction" as: II o b. Any conduct by any person which violates, or is likely to viola[e, any environmentnl quality :;tnndard. limitation, rule. order, license, stipulation agreement, or permit of the state or any instrumentality, agency or political subdivision thereof which was issued prior to the date the al lc~2ed violation occurred or is likely to occur; or ~ Any conduct which materially adversely affems or is likely to materially adversely affect the environment. Minn. Stat. § 116B.02. ~qubd. 5. 87. The blCWD has conditioned issuance ora permit tbr the project on approval oFthe project by the LMCD, DNR. U.S. Army Corps of' Engineers and approval oF the spoil disposal site by the MPCA. 'D~e MCWD has also conditioned issuance ora permit for the project on additional testing ['or PCB's by the applicant anti a determination b.v the MPCA that thc project wilt not result in increased levels of PCB's which exceed acceptable standards. IFeach of these agencies approve the project, then the MCWD may conclude that the project will not be in violation oFan environmental qtmlity standard. 88. The MCWD finds that in regard to ~l~e presence oFcontaminants other than PCBs, the MPCA has established standards and found that the project does not exceed those standards. The MPCA testified at the February 6, 1997 MCWD Board meeting that the dredging of the channel would not result in harm to the water quality of Lost Lake or Lake Minnetonka. The MCWD accepts the testimony of the MPCA in this regard due to the expertise of the agency. 89. In regard to PCBs, the MCWD finds that the MPCA did not make a determination as to whether PCB's were present ar a level of concern or whether the project would resuh in increased levels of PCB's which exceed acceptable standards. As a result, the MCWD has placed a condition on the issuance or'the permit that the City will perform sediment testing For the presence of PCB's based upon the method for sampling and analysis prescribed by the MPCA to dete~ine whether the prQect will increase levels of PCB's to a threshold Which exceeds ncceptable stnndards. The results in co~jtmction with mitigative measures prescribed by the MPCA (as necessary) must be dete~ined by the MPCA to meet or be below acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider tinal. O0. [fan enviromnen/al standard is established bv an agency and a prqject is not in violation of that standard, then the project does not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of thc environment as set' lbrth in the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act. 91. The MCWD also finds that the project does not result in "polh~tion. impairment or desmmtion" because the project is not likely to materially adversely afl, ct thc environment. 92. In ME~A cases, courts consider the tbllowing factors in determining whether ll~e conduct in question materially adversely altbcts, or is likely to materially adversely aflbct, thc environment: a. Whether the natural resource involved is rare, unique, endangered, or has histodcal s~gnificance; b. Whether the resource is easily replaceable (~, hy replanting trees or restocking fish); c. Whether the proposed action ~vill have any significant consettucnt~al efl~ct on lost ~f its habitat is other natural resources (tbr exampl , whether wildlife witt be impaired or destroyed); and d. ~kq~cther thc direct or consequential impact on animals or vegetation will aFFect a critical number, considering the nature and location oF thc w[ldli[~ allotted. of Minnesota. ex tel. Wacouta 'l'ownsh~~~w Hardwood Corm, 510 N.W.2d 27, 30 (Minn. App. 19933. 93. Wetlands arc an important natural resource, but thc record shows that the proposed project will actually generate a net gain of wetland acreage in the area. 94. The record shows that the proposed dredging project will not eliminate water or fish from the area in question. The record shows that cattail vegelation would be eliminated in the dredged area, but that this vegetation is not endangered and would be present elsewhere in thc area. 95. Even it' the MCWD determines that the project will result in "impairment, pollution or . ,, pe~it for the project if there are no teas~bl¢ and prudent destmctmn, the MC~ may issue a a ¢matives." Any "feasible and prudent alternative", must be consistent with the reasonable relfquircments of the public health, safety, and ~etthr¢ and the state's paramount ctmcern tk3r the protection of its air, water, land, and other natural resources from pollution, impairment, or destruction. Economic considerations alone shall not justit~ the proposed conduct. ' ' · "no lkasible and prudent alternatNc" analysis is intended to strike a balance between 96. I he ...... d lhe nrotection o[ natural resources. In this case, the right of thc rights of property owner~ City to navigational access must be balanced wifl~ the protection of natural resources. 97. As discussed at length above in the discussion of MCWD Rule E, the MCWD finds that the clredging as proposed represents both the "minimat impact" solution and is the most l~asib~e and pruclent alternative. 9g. The only alternative suggested by Intc~,ener is to allow the City ilo navigational access, except hy way of canoe and kayak. The City's riparian right, however, encompasses navigation for which Lake Minnetonka is reasonably used. Lake Minnetonka is used :;ubstantially [bt nmtor boat navig&tion, and therelbre the City has a legal right o[ navigational access by way of motor boat. Completely denying that fight to the City is not a feasible or prudent alternative, particularly tf the CiW's proposed dredging project is consistent with MPCA and DNtZ standards and permits. Nor does Intewener's suggested alternative strike a balance between property (~wncr rights and protection of natural resom'ces. The MCWD and DNR Lake Minnetonka Dredging Joint Policy Statement, on thc other hand, does strike a balance. 13 99. As a result, the MCWD finds that (I) i£the agencies listed in the pcm'~/t conditions approve Ihe project, then tile project '.viii not result in "pollution, impairment or destruction" of the environment nnd (2) the project represents the most feasible and pti,dent alternative for the xcrc~.,,e oi'the Ctty s right to navigational accuss. II. CONCLUSIONS 100. Tile project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set forth below and the variances discussed above meets Ibc requh'ements ~ffMC'WD Rules C, D, .E, F and I. 10 I. The project as proposed in permit application 96-280 subject to the conditions set R)rth below is in compliance with the Minnt:som Environmental Rights Act. IlL RESOLUTION NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RE-SOLVED by lhe Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distr/ct Board ot'Managers, by a vote ot'5 yeas and 2 nays as Permit number 96-280 will be granted to tile City of Mot,nd for the activities set ibrth in permit application number 96-280 pending approval of the activities by the Lake Minnemnka Conservation District, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and thc U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and with the £ollowing conditions: ' 1. Revised riprap detail be approved by the MCWI3; -- Documentation mu:;t be submitted to the MCWD flint multiple silt flotation cu~ains will be installed within thc channel during dredging; 3. The project receives a SDS permit l'rom the Mim~esota Pollutioa Control Agency to dispose of the dredge spoils: 4. Lighted buoys are placed around the entire turn-around area at the north end of' the channel; 5. The City will peril)tm sediment testing Ibr thc presence of PCB's, based upon the method tbr sampling and analysis prescribecl by the MPCA; the results in conjunction w/th mitigative measures prescribed by the MPCA (as necessary) must be determined by the MPCA to meet or to below acceptable standards, which determination the MCWD shall consider final; and 6. receipt by the MCWD ora perlbrmancc boml Ibr the prqject. GROSS - X_ LABOUNTY -- X LOVE MAPLE -- X - REID · II-lOMAS - NAYS Upon vote, thc Chair declared the Resolution passed. Dated: ~~~L~~, 1997 Monica Gross Secretary Smith Pa rker March 7, 1997 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Economic Development Coordinator City ol'Mound 5341 Mayxvood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 R.e: MCWD Permit Application No. 96-280, City ol'Mound Dear Mr. Chamherlain: Enclosed please find a copy of the Resolution of l.l~e Mhmehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers regarding pen'nit application number 96- 280, City of/VIotmd. . Enclosure Ve~...~v yot~rs, CC: MCWD lloard of Managers Thomas E. Casey Ed Shulke 808 CnkYefl 8uihlin,g .3 N~rO1 Third ~inneapolis MN 5540 I Teh'phone: 612.3~4.1400 Fucsimde: 61Z. 344.15S0 E-moil: °ctmin~sn.thparke~com Smith P afl<er Lou~', N. Smilh Andrew D. Parker Waverley Ehy l~uo/h March 7. 1997 Mr. Thomas Cascy 9854 Cambridge Lane Mound. MN 55364 Re: MCWD Permit Application Nu. o6-280, City of Mound Dear Mr. Casey: Enclosed please find a copy of the Resolution or' the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Bo~d. of Managers regarding permit application number 96- 280, City. of Mound. Very truly yours, Louis N. Smith F. nclosurc cc: MCWD Board o[' Nlm~gers Bruce Chamberlain,./ Et[ Shulke Smith Parker ! p~n~'*,l~ntll bm, ted h~lnh~, l;Ot tnc~:h*p Mr. Ecl Schulke City of Mound 534! Maywond Road Mound, MN 55.364-1687 March 7, 1997 Re: MCWD Permit Application No. 96-280, City of Mound Dear Mr. Shulke: Enclosed please find a copy of the Resolution of thc/Vlinnchaha Creek Watershed District Board of' Managers regarding permit application number 96- ,80, City o£Mound. Enclosure Very truly yours. Louis N. Smith CC; MCWD Board of Managers 'Fhorn:.~s E. Casey Bruce Chamberlain,// ~08 CrJIw,,.tl tlmlding North Third ~treer mczpoh's, MN 55,10 I [:t~'photlix ~ 12.3,1,t. I ,lO0 f~Jc~unih]: 612.34.h 1550 E-maih o&nin(~sm,lhparkcrcum BRAUN INTERTEC EXH BI'I' G Engineers and ~cientists Serving the Built and Natural Environmen~'~ July 16, 1996 Project No. BABX-94-819 Mr. Bruce Chamberlain Hoisin~on Koegler Group, Inc. Suite 525 7300 Metro Boulevard Minneapolis, MN 55439 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: Re: Lost Lake Canal, Envkonmental Assessment Worksheet As you requested, I have reviewed the comments on the captioned subject submitted by Ms. Catherine Zimmer-Lokken and Mr. Thomas E. Casey that were pertinent to the work performed by Braun Intertec (Braun Intertec, 1995), The dates of the comment letters were July 3, 1996 and July 2, 1996, respectively. In this letter I will address each comment in their letters pertinent to our work in the order raised beginning with Ms. Zimmer-Lokken's letter. Response to Comments by Ms. Zimmer-Lokken Item 9. A. Land Use The commenter indicates "These sediments have not been adequately characterized to determine whether TCE, PCBs and other volatile solvent type contaminants are present.' The commenter cites the MPCA Lost Lake Dump file and a monitoring well which contained 140-500 parts per billion 1,2-cis/trans-dichloroethylene (DCE) as well as some recent work performed at the Tonka Toys site which apparently indicates the presence of several volatile organic compounds C/OCs) at high concentrations. When we planned our work we believed there was little potential for the contaminants to be present at the lake so the analysis was not performed. Our view has not changed. The reasons are as follows: There were several investigations of the Lost Lake Dump performed in 1984 by Braun Intertec, then Braun Envkonmental Laboratories, Inc., for the City of Mound (Braun, 1984a and Braun, 1984b). During those investigations, four monitoring wells were installed and sampled for VOCs and metals. The only well in which significant VOCs were observed was one installed on Tonka Toys property north of County Road 15. Two wells were installed in the dump immediately adjacent to the wetland and one well was installed east of the wetland. These latter three wells did not indicate the presence of any chlorinated VOCs, such as TCE, DCE or vinyl chloride although they did contain very Iow concentrations of a few petroleum-related VOCs such as those present in boat gasoline. MPCA recently indicated (Trippler, 1996) that there is significant VOC contamination on the Tonka site but it has not migrated off of the Tonka site. Because there was Hoisin~on Koegler Group, Inc. Project' No. BABX-94-8 I9 July 16, 1996 Page 2 no indication of significant VOC contamination discharging to the project site, no VOC sampling was necessary. VOCs, as their name suggests, are volatile and will disperse readily in water and evaporate. VOCs are not on the MPCA list of parameters routinely considered for analysis for dredging projects. It is not clear to us why the commenter believes that the dredging project would "pull" the TCE contaminated groundwater into the dump, canal and wetland as suggested or how testing now would be indicative of something that allegedly could happen in the future. With respect to the issue of PCB sampling, we are unaware of indications that PCB containing equipment was disposed of in the dump. As part of the earlier work performed by Braun Environmental Laboratories, a magnetometer survey of the dump was performed to determine if there were any indications of magnetic anomalies which could indicate the presence of barrels or other metal objects. Several test pits were dug to evaluate anomalies and nothing of significance was observed (Braun, 1984b). In addition, PCBs are not VOCs and are insoluble or have an extremely Iow solubility in water. Therefore it is highly unlikely that PCBs from small sources, even if present in the dump, could migrate through the groundwater beneath the dump to the wetland. Sampling for PCBs was discussed with MPCA and their conclusion was that absent a municipal wastewater treatment plant discharge to Lost Lake, it was unlikely that significant PCBs would be present and therefore sampling for PCBs was unnecessary. Item 9. B. 1. Table 2 The commenter indicates that the sediment analysis results should be multiplied by 1000 prior to comparison with the standards. This is not according to MPCA =,guidance. The Braun Intertec report (Braun Intertec, 1995), noted in the first paragraph on page 5 that the sediment sample results were reported in milligrams per kilogram (rog/Kg) and Class 2b standards are in milligrams per liter (rog/L) or ~ (ug/L). Therefore the laboratory results and the standards are not directly comparable because one is a measure of the amount of contaminant per weight of solid material (i.e., the sediment) and the other the amount of contaminant per volume of liquid (i.e., the water). However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) guidance for evaluating the potential for the sediment to release contaminants from the sediment to the water in excess of the standards is to compare the numeric value of the contaminant in the sediment expressed in.mg/I~ to the numeric value of the standard expressed in ug/L. The comparisons are made in Table 2 in that manner. The sediment sample results should no._.[t be multiplied by 1000 in order to compare them to the standards according to lVlPCA. We do not agree with the implication that wetlands or wetland muck are significantly less capable of binding or retaining metals than other types of soil. Within wetlands, wetland sediment interacts strongly with trace metals in a number of ways and are therefore capable of significant metal removal. There are three major mechanisms at work: I) binding to soil, sediment, particulates and soluble organics; 2) precipitation as insoluble salts, principally sulfides and oxyhydroxides; and, 3) uptake by plants, including algae, and by bacteria· Wetland soils (i.e., muck) bind metals by cation exchange and chelation. Humic substances, both in solution and as solids, can form bonds with metals (Kadlec and Knight, 1995). Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-$19 July 16, 1996 Page 3 Item 9. B. 2. Table 1 The methodology used was that specified by MPCA and detection limits were discussed with and approved by them. The proper reporting units are mg/Kg. Solid material analysis is not reported in ug/L and the methods used are standard methods for these compounds. Some analytical matrix interference problems were encountered and were discussed with MPCA. The elevated detection limits where matrix interferences were encountered were not considered problems by MPCA. Item 9. B. 3. Section 2.0 Soil and Sediment Sampling The sampling methodology more closely meets the definition of biased sampling than judgmental. We attempted to collect samples at locations which we thought could contain the highest concentrations of contaminants or where sediment could be most stirred up by subsequent boat traffic. The locations were selected so that a sample was collected near the east side (i.e. dump side, #5), west side where post office vehicles were parked (#3), part way up the channel approximately where the boat mm around area began (#6) and at a point in the channel (#4) where another channel splits off to some town.homes in the vicinity of Bartlett Blvd and Lost Lake Road. The number and location of samples was discussed with and approved by MPCA. Item 21. A. Solid Wastes; Hazardous Wastes; Storage Tanks The commenter indicates that the sediment results exceed the hazardous waste limit for lead of 5 mg/L as determined by the TCLP test. This is not true.. No TCLP (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure) test was performed on the sediment. It is inappropriate to compare the total. concentration of lead in sediment, expressed in mg/Kg, to the TCLP concentration, expressed in rog/L, regardless of whether both units of measurement are equivalent to parts per million (ppm). The TCLP test is an acidic leach test conducted to determine whether lead present in a solid matrix will leach from it and if so, to what extent. Due to the test methodology, even if the entire 93 mg of lead in the sample were leached out in the TCLP test, the results would be less than 5 mg/L. There is no indication that DCE or other solvent contamination might be present. Monitoring wells installed b"~ Braun Engineering in the dump adjacent to the wetland did not indicate the presence of DCE (Braun Engineering, 1984a and 1984b) and monitoring wells installed by Bart Engineering for the Tonka site indicate that the VOC plume on the Tonka site has not moved offsite fi'rippler, 1996). We have no' indication that the dredge material would have to be managed as a hazardous waste. With respect to the commenter's conclusions we offer the following response: 2. The contaminants from the Tonka Toys site are known to be confined to the Tonka Toys site. Previous testing on the Lost Lake Dump site did not indicate the presence of TCE or breakdown products. The well installed for this project which contained the DCE was on the Tonka Toys site, not the dump site. 3. There is no information indicating that PCBs are likely to be present at the Lost Lake Dump site. The testing plan was developed in conjunction with MPCA staff. Hoisin~on Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94-819 luly 16, 1996 Page 4 o The evaluation of the analytical data performed on the sediment data was performed as required by MPCA guidelines. The contaminant concentrations are as stated. The analytical methods were specified by MPCA and the detection limits were sufficient to measure the concentrations. Deviations from the plan were discussed with MPCA. The sampling plan was discussed in more detail in the above comments. The plan and number of samples was approved by MPCA. There is no indication that hazardous wastes will be generated as a result of disturbing soils. Response to Comments by Mr. Casey Item 9. Land Use The commenter indicated that ~No where does Ms. Mader's letter indicate that Mr. Wendlund (sic) was asked to comment on the elevated levels of lead or mercury. ' This is true, but Jerry Flora of the MPCA Water Quality Division was asked to comment on the results of the toxics analysis and he indicated that they were not a problem (Mader, 1995, personal communication). In the same conversation, Ms. Mader indicated that the phosphorus might be a problem and she would follow that up with Mr. Wedlund. That review was described in Mr. Wedlund's May 24, 1995 memo. The commenter indicates that the sediment analysis results should be multiplied by 10130 prior to comparison with the standards. This is not according to MPCA guidance. The Braun Intertec report (Braun Intertec, 1995), noted in the first paragraph on page 5 that the sediment sample results were reported in milligrams per kilogram (rog/Kg) and Class 2b standards are in milligrams per liter (rog/L) or micrograms per liter (ug/L). Therefore the laboratory results and the standards are not directly comparable because one is a measure of the amount of contaminant per weight of solid material (i.e., the sediment) and the other the amount of contaminant per volume of liquid (i.e., the water). However, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency OvlPCA) guidance for evaluating the potential for the sediment to release contaminants from the sediment to the water in excess of the standards is to compare the numeric value of the contaminant in the sediment expressed in rog/Kg to the numeric value of the standard expressed in ug/L. The comparisons are made in Table 2 in that manner. The sediment sample results should no.._lt be multiplied by 1000 in order to compare them to the standards according to MPCA. The method used for analysis of PAHs in sediment was required by MPCA. The numeric value of the detection limit for anthracene was greater than the numeric value of the chronic standard but less than the maximum standard. This was discussed with Mi'CA prior to analysis and they considered it acceptable. Chlorpyrifos was not a required analyte (see table 1) but was reported because it was one of the suite of chemicals which had a water quality standard for which results are obtained when using the analytical method Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc. Project No. BABX-94--819 July 16, 1996 Page 5 Item 20. c. Groundwater - Potential for Contamination The commenter ret'ers to "extremely high levels of lead and mercury~. This is simply not true. The concentrations were compared to water quality standards according to MPCA guidelines and were determined by MPCA to not be a problem. Conclusions The commenter refers to "extraordinary high concentrations of toxic chemicals". true as discussed in the response to comments on Item 20 above. Again, this is not References Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., 1984a. Environmental Evaluation, Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site, SW Quad. of Co. Rd. 15 & Cypress Lane, Mound, Minnesota. June I 1, 1984. Braun Environmental Laboratories, Inc., 1984b. Environmental Evaluation, Proposed Trolley Boat Housing Site. November 7, 1984. Kadlec, R.H. and R.L. Knight. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, 893 pp., 1995. Mader, 1995. Phone conversation with Judy Mader, MPCA, 5/23/95. Trippler, 1996. Phone conversation with Dale Trippler, MPCA, 7/15/96. for Land Planning and Design EXHIBIT H Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. December 30, 1996 Mr. Mark Gieseke, Project Development Engineer MN/DOT- State Aid Mail Stop 500, Room 420 395 John Ireland Blvd. St. Paul MN 55155 Re: Lost Lake Canal & Greenway project - S.P. 145-080-01; M.P. TEA 2797(028) S.P. 145-090-01 Dear Mr. Gieseke: Some time ago you requested verbatim minutes from past public meetings regarding the Lost Lake Canal and Greenway project. We have finally completed the transcripts from those meetings which are enclosed. Also enclosed are minutes from the public hearing held on November 12, I996 pursuant to EA requirements. Permit applications are being sent this week including the MDNR. and COE. If you have any questions, please give me a call. I will be coordinating with Robert Evbayekha on the next steps in the process. Sincerely, Bruce L. Chamberlain Project Manager Enc. 7300 Metro Boulevard. Suite 525. Mirmeapolis. Minnesota 55439 (612) 835-9960 Fax (612) 835-3160 Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May '~, 1995 Page 1 Paul Meisel - Chair, Economic Development Commission: I'd like to welcome you all here tonight. Of course what we are talking about tonight is ~4ving information out about the downtown planning efforts that have been made so far. I'd like to mention that we are video taping this whole presentation and a little later on it will be announced in the paper when it will be aired on the television. There are two main things that we want to talk about, two main planning efforts that we have been working on. One is the Lost Lake Channel, and the development of that channel that would allow more boat traffic coming up and making use of that facility. The other project we want to talk about is Auditors Road realignment project, it's quite an improvement for Auditors Road. Paul went on to introduce other volunteers involved in the process. Volunteers and city staff then presented project plans. The follo~ving minutes pick up at the end of the presentation and beginning of the public questiow'answer period.) Ed Shukle - City Manager: So with that I think we have before you an excellent project we are all excited about and you must be excited about. I'm really pleased to see the ~eat turnout here tonight. I thank you all for coming. At this time I'll try to moderate the questions and we'll field those and direct them to the fight individuals, so does anyone have any questions about anything. Audience member: What about the hotel that is proposed? No one touched on that. Bruce Chamberlain - Downtown Redevelopment Coordinator/Lost Lake Project Manager: That's one of the things that we can view informally. That board to your right hand side of the room over there looks that we can do with Lost Lakes site - the site that used to have the public works storage facility on it. As Gary touched on, we looked at that site as possibility for the farmers market. We also looked at it as a transit hub or replacement for the MTC stop or what is called now the MCTO - basically, the bus route downtown. It's very well used by the community members and we see that site as a potential location for that. Also, within that facility there could be a warming house for ice skating on Lost La3ce. We have envisioned having evening skating music on the Lost Lake area and a warming house is part of that. Also restrooms for summertime use, and a bus shelter. Also on that side is the hotel. We have looked at it conventionally, at least up to this point, as a fairly small hotel· It's not a large expansive hotel. It's more glorified B&B and the one that's drawn on the plan represents about 20 room - 15 - 20 rooms. So we feel that is a good size for Mound and something that will be used very well. Also on that side, as I mentioned, is parking and the farmers market pavilion. I'll be happy to describe any of those things as part of that throughout this question and answer and informal viewing process. Also, I should mention on the concept plan that I talked about earlier there is a small marina facility on the Lost Lake Site and that marina facility is more, I guess, designed in detail than it has been in the past. That is shown on the concept plan as well so we can talk about any of those things. Audience member: You said there were certain businesses you were targeting... I was wondering what types of businesses those are. Is there any type of grant or funding that you've established. Chamberlain: The business list that we created really is farrly extensive, we d~dn' t create any type of business funding mechanisms as part of this. Some communities, actually very few communities help business at the business level - I know Minneapolis and St. Paul do, but their situation is a bird of a different color though. We have in the past used store front Iow interest loans as part of a way of helping Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 2 downtown businesses. From a development standpoint, the city has a number of mecharfisms ~ it's disposal or a few at least, one of them includes Tax Increment Financing so as far as putting up structures the city has a mechanism of doing that if they choose to use it. Audience member: Any thoughts for Commerce Boulevard going south toward the beach on the Lost Lake side? I believe that is all zoned commercial. Any discussions or thoughts about proposed ideas later for that area. Shukle: We did talk about that, probably more so on the city council level than we did on the commission level and I know there has been an interest on the city council level to seek some more senior housing, not necessarily section 8 or Iow or moderate income, but not necessarily the Pelican Point type housing (high priced) that's going up in Island Park. It would be somewhere in between. We talked about that ~ maybe some areas there that we could incorporate senior housing. Off and on, properties become available and it would be nice if we could get involved through HRA and maybe start acquiring those properties, but we have talked about that on a very preliminary basis, something we want to look at. Audience member: How about businesses that aren't on the ~targeted business) list that are currently downtown now? What is the plan with that? ...I own the woodshop downtown and on the list I don't see anything... I mean is it going to affect what is down there now? Shukle: Are you talking about the Auditors Road realignment? The only properties that are directly effected are those that John Cameron mentioned that are being purchased or partial purchase of. There will be some impact obviously when County Road 15 gets relocated and other things happen with Auditors Road and development etc, so there will be some impact directly, but misplacement of businesses we don't anticipate that happening at least not right now. Audience member: There's a good deal of cattail area to the south of the dredging. Is there any plans for the future for dredging further down into Lost Lake? Shukle: The DNR is very shy towards picking what isn't akeady dredged or isn't already open water and dealing with that. They want to preserve the wetlands as best as possible. So what you are looldng at for the dredge is essentially the canal that you see. If you stood behind the post office and looked to Cook's Bay you see open water, that's what's going to be dredged, 50 feet of that in width, approximately. There is no intention to expand that. Audience member: So a homeowner to try to make a path to the channel from any surrounding area of Lost Lake would be frowned on. Shukle: Yes. Same Audience member: So you' re basically land-locked. Shukle: Well, not necessarily. We're talking about the development of Lost Lake and a possible marina there, and the transient docks that are going to come off of Auditors Road, so there's ways to get on to the channel. Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 3 same audience member: But a homeowner on Lost Lake... would not have access to the channel? Shukle: Private residences in Lost Lakes' s subdivision - there' s already some docks there that will have access to the channel Ithrough an existing channel]. Audience member: What are your plans for Lost Lake Park to protect it from dred~ng. Are there sea wails planned...? Chamberlain: In the Lost Lake subdivision? same audience member: Yes. Chamberlain: The dredging won't impact that at all. same audience member: Its already sinking. Chamberlain: Are you talking about the sea wall by the townhomes? same audience member: Past that. Chamberlain: Past that, okay. The dredge really won't have any impact on that at all. I understand that the surface of the ground is settling and sinking in that area. But, the dredge really won't impact that at all... We'll Certainly look into that. Every indication that we've gotten from the en~neering work that we've done to this point indicates that there wouldn't be any impact at all on the Lost Lake commons dock area or the Lost Lake subdivision area as far as dry ground. The boat traffic wouldn't have any wake effect within that bay area and the sea wails that are along the townhomes at the entry or mouth of the canal are in fairly good shape and they are on private property. So at this point the city doesn't anticipate rebuilding the sea walls adjacent to the townhomes. I hope I answered some of your questions. We'll look into that further. audience member: The trails that you have marked on there, are they going to go into the Lost Lake subdivision? Chamberlain: Actually we talked about that. The Park Director, Jim, isn't here tonight, but Jim Fackler who is the Park and Recreation Director for the City and I had planned to take a little field trip this spring to see if there is anyway we could get just a small path that goes back to the commons dock area from the Lost Lake site. On that concept plan - that colored drawing there, when you go up to it you'Ll see the hotel and that's fairly close to where the existing ballfields are, they are just to the south of where the farmers market and hotel are shown. We think that there may be an opportuniW to continue that trail or path from the Lost Lake site kind of around the ballfields and then actually it' s not to far from here kind of around the hill and then to the commons dock area down there. But that's something that we wouldn't do unless we had the blessing of the neighborhood - Lost Lake neighborhood. audience member: First of all I'd tike to commend the people who did all of this work. I was telling the Mayor how much we appreciate the fine work that you have done... You. said earlier that we have become the suburban residential area rather than a sef-contained business area. Has there been any thought as to Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 4 expanding the amount of residential area where current buildings are? ...I'm suggesting that maybe i/3 or even half of it could be residential. Chamberlain: Actually, I think residential within a walking distance of downtown is an exciting opportunity for Mound. As Ed mentioned the city council has, at least preliminarily, thought it would be nice to have some more senior housing close to downtown. Personally, I think that's an excellent idea. I think the more traffic, or the more people who live within a quarter of a mile from downtown the better. The areas that are shown at least the buildings in red, I guess the jury is still out if whether those buildings will be single story or two story, or maybe in some cases three story, but probably not more that two. If there is a second story we have some concerns and issues with parking. We don't have a huge area to have a lot of parking. So if there is a second story and it's either potentially residential or office, we'll have to deal with the parking issue somehow. Right now surface parking - there's enough for any retail activities that would happen on ground floor, but there is not necessarily enough for any activities that would happen on a second story. It's something that we think will work itself out, but I think it's good for the community to start thinking about what types of other uses do you want to see downtown. Is it residential? Right now I don't believe the zoning code allows residential in the commercial district. I'm not sure, but I don't believe it does. ff there is second story office, how is that handled - how is handicapped access handled within those buildings and what not. We know we can't have basements. We explored the idea of having underground parking. We can't have basements because of the water table. They're just not allowed there. So we've got some things to overcome, but that doesn't necessarily mean they can't happen though. I think those are good issues to start talking about now because we are expecting development within the next couple years once this street project and canal project takes hold. audience member: Is there going to be some kind of a general theme as far as exteriors of buildings'?. Chamberlain: This document was created as part of the Mound Visions project and it takes a look at detailing kind of those architectural detail types of things that would go into creating a new downtown. One of them is buildings, one is parking lots, open space all kinds of things. As part of this document the design team created what they call a historic resort hotel architectural theme. On Lake Minnetonka, as most of you know, there were really fantastic resorts lining a lot of the lake. I believe all or almost all of those resorts are gone. But, the character or architectural elements of those buildings is really great and it has a lot to do with the history of Mound. The desi~ team felt that by using that character and those elements within new structures downtown we could really create kind of a unique image. An image that' s really all Mound's own. It's something that fits with the historic nature of the community, and that's the direction it would go. But this document has a lot of those more nitty gritty details as far as how things would work. It goes as much into how you handle the streetscape with sidewalks, how you handle parking lots, and pedestrian access through downtown as it does building facades. I want to de-emphasize the building portion of this because it's only one component. Really what it does is create a character for all of downtown - all the public areas of downtown and buildings are cert~nly a component of that. audience member: Are the buildings downtown that are there now going to have to comply with a certain look to go with the rest of the downtown? I'm concerned because it's so close to the development and as I go along I want to make sure I'm doing the fight planning. I don't wrmt to do the wrong thing. Shukle: It's more of a guideline. It's more of someth.ing that we want to achieve over time and as new buildings come into downtown we'd like to have them follow those gnidelines. So we're not going to go Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 5 and, I don't think the Council would ever think about approving or saying this ts the way it's going to this is type of building you have to have. same audience member: I'm just wondering is there going to be some ~.ind of a code now, for example is there going to be a color code, is this all going to have to be color coordinated or ... Shulfle: I don't thinl~ so, I don't think that's going to happen. audience member: You mentioned the time frame of the fall of '96 and spring of '9'7 as when you get the funding. What is the actual construction time. Shukle: The two projects will most likely go simultaneously, but if anything starts ahead of schedule it would probnbly be the roadway because we have the ability through Municipal State Aid to move a little faster than we do with the dredging project because we can't get the funds until 199'7 so it means that the city would have to start up fronting those monies and there's a lot of planning work that has to be done. Where the roadway project is municipal state aid funds, those monies are available right now, assuming the plans are approved. So we hope we can get them going at the same time but if one goes before the other it would probably be the road and the earliest possible would be spring of 1997. John Cameron o City Engineer:. It's possible that we could start with the some of the building demolition and grading by late 1996. Shulcle: What we' re hoping for and when we talk about the buildings being turned and things - the city's not going to be involved in doing that. That's going to be private investment, private sector. We had talleed about partnership earlier and how private sector and public sector had to work together. We are going to facilitate the development. That's basically what we are talldng about here is facilitating the development. Nothing has happened privately, we made some attempts privately, but nothing has panned out so the city is talcing hold and talcing charge and going forward trying to get it going. audience member: Will the projects raise our taxes? Shukle: Under a tax increment financing district, if that were the chosen mechanism - no. same audience member: so it won't result in increased property taxes'?. Shukle: No, it should not be. audience member: On your agenda item six is "phase one development". That implies there are going to be more phases. How many more and what is phase two? Shukle: Phase two is the relocation of Hennepin County Road 15. That would be from Belmont across the railroad tracks to Lynwood Blvd. That's County Road 15 relocation and that's phase two and that's likely to happen at the earliest in the year 2000. We' ye asked Hennepin County to put it on their capital improvement program which is a 5 year pro.am which they update every year. So they are adding projects, deleting projects, and shifting projects around, but since it' s a county movement we have to work with the county on it, and the earliest we can get anything done with them will be the year 2000. One of Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 6 the things that is a rem stalemate as far as city involvement or city participation in that is that they require the city to do all the right away acquisition so we'd be talking about purchasing properties for the right-of- way we currently do not own and they would participate as far as the construction of the project would go. We don't have any idea what the numbers are at this time, that's why we're calling it a phase two. It's off in the future, not the distant fixture - the year 2000 sounds like a long way a way but it really isn't. That would be the earliest time that we would look at. What we have here is we have designed this project on Auditors Road so that it has what we call a temporary stop or temporary alignment on 15 now, so we can build a road and have it perpendicular to Hennepin County Road 15 without having to worry about 15 getting relocated now. It can be done at a later date and that's what we are talking about. same audience member: Is there anything beyond phase two? Ed Shukle: I don't think we've talked about any phase three's unless you want to talk about more development which are off-shoots of the relocation of County Road 15... Probably private development if you want to cml it phase three. same audience member: That would then be completion of the project? Ed Shukle: Yes, well private development isn't going to all occur at one time either - that's going to be over a period of time. Your going to see developers or people coming in and building businesses and it's. going to happen over a period of time. So you might call it phase three but it may last several years. Phase one is pretty clear. We're going to dredge a channel, we're going to realign a road. Phase txvo we're going to relocate a road. Phase three could be a long period of time. Any other questions? audience member: is there any discussion about expanding the reach of Mound Visions to incorporate incoming county parks out here. This dred~ng may affect the tranquility of the upper lake. Chamberlain: The question was; will this project effect boat traffic on the upper lake? We are providing as part of this we are providing a landing as part of the project. We are creating about 12 transient slips, so I guess you could reason that by creating those 12 transient docks slips there are 12 boats that are coming in on the upper lake that may not have been here before. The size of the boats that will be able to use the canal will be limited by the depth of the canal and the bridge. We have approximately 11 feet of clearance between the ordinary high water mark and the bottom of the bridge and the depth of the canal is going to be in the range of 5 feet at the ordinary high water mark and that will be somewhat less if the water is Iow. By having those natural barriers there we are going to limit at least the size of the boats that can get into the canal It won't be the huge yachts that will be able to get in. We certainly don't anticipate the traffic that for instance that Lord Fletchers sees. But there will be more boat traffic, there is no question about that it will happen. I don' t think it will be that much. audience member: Maybe you already said this and I spaced out but as far as business along Shoreline turning themselves around - when do you perceive that to take place? I suppose that would mean part of the road would be closed off, etc. B: One of the things that the County, in discussion with the County Road 15 relocation, one of the things that they said is that it' s a lot easier for the County to do something if they have a push from private Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 7 development- So the structures that are proposed or shown that would be lining Auditors Road would be going over the top of existing County Road 15. So if there were development that follows up the Auditors Road reconstruction, that would help the county justify relocation of County Road 15. So, I guess we see private development of Auditors Road in conjunction with County Road 15 so again we are looking at the year 2000 - some where in there. audience member: Once you start on Auditors Road to when its finished - is that going to be Like a year? More? Chamberlain: It will be done by the fall of 1997. Start in the spring or maybe the fall of !996 ,and construction will be complete by the fall of 1997. same audience member: And is that including the patting along Auditors Road'?. Chamberlain: Yes, but it only includes the temporary alignment. This shows the temporary alignment and eventually there will be on-street parking that continues on the on future phase of Auditors Road· but for now it will dump into the existing County Road 15 and we won't be building the parking on either side of that temporary alignment: So, we'll be building the parking on this portion of Auditors Road but nothing on up here. same audience member: So the existing retailers on that stretch of Shoreline Drive could take the option of make their back door become the front door or have two doors - front and back accessible and market that way7 Chamberlain: Certainly, to be honest I don't expect a lot of traffic or activity on Auditors Road until the overall retail structures redevelop or are built. So I don't know if that will be prudent, but you never know what may happen with traffic. same audience member: They could park in the back so they may as well come in the back door. Chamberlain: Sure. audience member: I own one of those properties that you want which I'm not objecting to, but I have a big black cloud over me right now. I lost my renter and nobody wants to move in. I own my own business; I'm doing well; Fm very happy, but I don't even want to expand in my own building, because anything I bring in ! may be tipping out in a year to six months or what ever. Right now Fm just sitting on · o little while but it' s costing me well over $600/700 a month right now hold and as Ed knows I 11 d it for a that I'm losing, that I had before they found out about my building being taken. There is a lot of people here who have decisions in it and if we are going to do it let's start to move because I don't want to be the only one being penalized for it. · · --.~- ..... e're waiting to do anything to help Mound until we get a audience member: I'm wonoenng w,~y ,, million dollars or half a million dollars. What ~ see in Mound is an energy - a lot of people who are very interested, a l,o_t of people who are here tonight. I see a lot of people around the community. I' m not from Mound, but I m new to the community and one of the things that made me feel welcome is Thrifty White Drug giving coupons to come into the community. If we can give some sort of incentive to the businesses Verbatim Minutes - Mound Visions Public Open House; Mound, Minnesota May 4, 1995 Page 8 that already exist, the people who have gone through 1981 - 1991 who have gone through hard times in Mound - if we oqve them an incentive to build and expand into the open storefronts that are vacant right now that will bring people like me in to downtown. I'm wondering if there is anything happening in that way. Shukle: I am also president of the Chamber of Commerce - just for one year though - the woman that left (Sharon Cook) is going to be the new president. There is a Retail and Professional Council within the Chamber that meets monthly and they talk about promotional things. For example, they just completed the Clean Sweep they sponsored the weekend before last. They cleaned up the community, they do that annually it's community event. Children from all over the community get involved through their schools and participate in cleaning up the areas. In the coming months we have the Mound City Days - their very active in that. That brings people together. The Mound City Days started from nothing and now look at what it's grown to. In the summer they have their Crazy Days. I think if you look in the Laker which is really our only newspaper in Mound, they offer - I mean there are always thinks happening - if you read the newspaper and there are a lot of community organization representatives here that I think can tell you that they meet regularly and talk about a lot of things to do ,and it' you own a business in Mound you've probably been hit so many times by organizations and individuals as'king for funds to do things. I think things are happening. Maybe there not ~ well publicized but those of us who are involved directly are aware of those things. I think a lot of people tend to get complacent to a certain extent, apathetic, and they don't think about the importance of the community. We talked about the residential suburbanite people who work outside of Mound, they shop on their way home and what we are trying to do with this program is get them to shop in Mound, they do a little bit now, but we want them to do more. We want to provide more businesses and opportunities for them. So I think you'll have to look at what we're doing and we are trying to do and your presence here tonight makes us feel good, makes me feel good as a Chamber President, as a City Manager. I think everyone else here that's been involved know that there ,are people out there who do care and want something done. I don't know if I've answered your question or your comment, but there are things happening. Certainly we can do a lot more and we intend to do so. audience member: To pick up on what she's saying, I think the "Buy-a-Brick" program is excellent - where can I buy one? audience member: I also grew up here and every time I come down the main drag past Super America I look at the dump.., and I' m so excited to see you guys finally make some big strides to get this done and do it. This town will survive very very nicely with what your plans are. Shukle: I guess we can wrap it up. Feel free to browse at the drawings. We'd like you to fill out those questionnaires before you leave. I've got Paul Meisel over there and he's ,armed and you can't leave before you fill them out. Just 'kidding. If you want to fill them out when you take them home that's okay too. If you have any more questions about the Ivlound Vision project feel free to call me or the City Hall and we'll be able to put you in touch with all the panelists. Thank you very much. M:XAIO UNDX94.40XTRAN_MA K DO C Verbatim Minutes - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June 18. 1996 Page I. Mayor Bob Polston: We'd like to call the meeting to order. This is our Committee-of-the-Whole meeting of June 18. We have some exciting things happening in Mound. We wanted to have as many people from the community come out and hear Bruce Chamberlain talk about the Mound Visions program and hear how it's going to work and he's got some pretty exciting news to share with you. At this point I'll nlm it over to Ed. Ed Shukle, Mound City Manager, Bruce Chamberlain, Project Manager and John Cameron, City Engineer go on to describe the Mound Visions program, ISTEA fitnding anti the Lost Lake canal and greenway projects and the Auditors Road project before opening to floor to discussion. audience member: If the County Road 15 rerouting doesn't go according to your hopes by the year 2000, how will that affect the current projects. Chamberlain: Auditor Road and the Lost Lake projects have been scheduled for the spring of next year, so we are not contingent on waiting for County Road 15 to get done. same audience member: County Road 15 now goes through portions of Auditors Road Alignment doesn't it? Shukle: No. The alignment actually is behind where the current post office is and will miss the parking lot. In fact the only effect it will have is the intersection where it comes out onto 15. Chamberlain: I can add to that, there is a short portion of Auditors Road that won't be constructed until County Road 15 is reopened, until then it will mean taking a small jog on Auditors Road and connecting to the existing one. audience member: Are we going to get brochures or anything? Shukle: There are brochures back there, you probably picked it up on your way in, but I'll get some and hand them out. The promotional piece I was talking about is out of print right now but will be available later. audience member: You have two grants of half a million each is that fight? Chamberlain: Correct. audience member: I counted the parking spaces in the brochure, I don't 'know if that's accurate, but Mound to me, I've been here 13 years, seems to be one enormous parking lot and the plan seems to be to develop about 400 more parking spaces. The area of town between Auditors Road redevelopment ,and the new County Road 15 has become a huge parking lot. Doesn't that seem ugly or problematic? Chamberlain: What we have tried to do is maintain the necessary allowance of convenience parking in front of the store fronts. The diagonal parking on the street, is where we need to create enough Verbatim Minu{es - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June 18, 1996 Page 2 convenience parking. In the back you've gained over-flow par'Icing in order to accommodate the retail space that is there and also office space, if that's what will eventually happen. Usually the calculation that retailers use in a small community downtown is 1 to 250 sq ft of retail space and then, to be honest, in an office I'm not sure what it is, one of the Planning Commission members may know what it is for an office. Now I believe the last time I looked at the Mound zoning code it was 1 for 150 sq feet for ret,q/l, and that's very excessive. If I could put my own opinion in, that's what's needed for a Target or a Rainbow foods, but for small retail shops it's probably quite a bit more than what is necessary and what is reflected in that plan is a 1 to 250. What you have to do is convince the planning commission that they don't need 1 to 150 audience member: 'In Excelsior there's lots of thriving shops and it's very charming, maybe that's something that we could aim for and it doesn't have big parking lots they me kind of centered in town. audience member: There we go again, we have this ~gantic island of parking which is geographically centered in town. audience member: We have this big ole Gazebo for the current parking lot, you have your christmas tree lighting ceremony right now taking place in a parking lot, would it be possible to take that existing parking lot down in front of the hardware store etc. and perhaps turn it ihto a connecting way between the old development and new development? Chamberlain: One of the goals we had when we first began was to create ways of getting around downtown both as pedestrian and as drivers without getting on the county road. So if you'll look at your plan which is kind of an arrangement between three districts of downtown: the Commerce Place area, the new Auditors Road, and the area west of 1 I0. Those are the areas of downtown we wanted to connect by both pedestrian and vehicle and not have to get on a county road. There will be trees, certainly, and as much green as we can do. I understand what your saying, we'll do the best we can and still accommodate retail we have to have successflfl businesses. audience member: I just want to ~ve a little background. I lived in Mound in 1972 which was when I first moved out here. I was disappointed that the waterfront was not used more and also that the wonderful history we have here was not emphasized more, so since that time I have had the opportunity to travel rather extensively and I have always had a particular area of Mound in mind when I traveled to cities that have successful waterfront developments. When I saw this plan I was very excited because I have a big, long list of notes from various places I visited, Mexico, Florida, Australia, French Rivera, Seattle, Baltimore, Toronto Canada. It concerned me when I saw this map that there was parking between the buildings and lake shoreline. One of the firings that all of the places that had waterfront development had was that between the retail buildings and the lakeshore it was pedestrian there were no cars. I had assumed that that was what this was, I didn't see little niches as parking space. And this greatly concerns me since all these other places that were highly successful did not have parking. Do we want to intem~pt the flow bet~veen the stores and the lakefront activities with cars. It seems like there is plenty of parking without putting cars between stores and the lake. Could we move some of these trees that may be blocking the view to the lake and put them in the parking lot back here and make that more ascetically beautiful or what ever you want to call it. My other concern is that I have an artificial hip and have a difficult time walking so it would be nice to pull right up in front of the store but could you make the back Verbatim Minutes - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound. Minnesota June 18, 1996 Page 3 entrances so you could come from the parking lot right into the store so then you could go from the store to the lake without being afraid of being mn over. The other thing is, instead of going between the store and the lake could they put parking some at each end? I guess I'm asking you to look at what's worked for others and benefit from them. And not one of the those places I visited had a street between the stores and the lake. Chamberlain: Were these places in Europe? same audience member: Well there was Ivlexico, Florida, Sidney Australia, French Rivera, Seattle, Baltimore, Toronto Canada are some of them that came immediately to mind, the ones that were tried and were successful, where people planned, where they gathered, where they did things it was a little community place, a happening place and this is what I envisioned a place where people gather, wander, and browse, and sit and chat and buy. Chamberlain: I agree and we, unfortunately, in America go by cars. same audience member: But in these places they all had parking lots that were close to it, but between the stores and the lakes this is where you had your outdoor cafes, you had your benches, this is where you had you picnic tables etc. Chamberlain: Yes I understand what your saying, there was a big movement in the 70's to take main streets and mm them into pedestrian malls. Out of the dozens and dozens that were done I think there are, I believe, two or three left in the country. same audience member: I' m talking about lake front now, that' s different than a mall. Chamberlain: No it really isn't. same audience member: Yes it is. Chamberlain: Retail is retail. same audience member: But you want to emphasize lake it seems like we'd want to do, I mean I'm looking at people other than from Mound coming and if they are going to come they are coming for the lake and they are not going to want to dodge traffic. And you need things that will serve people from Mound too. And it seems to me, putting doors at the back of the retails right next to the parking lot would make it even more convenient. Chamberlain: We looked at a number of different scenarios and, believe me, we studied all possibilities and we know exactly what you're talking about as far as trying to make it as pedestrian friendly as possible and trying to minimize the impact of automobiles and what the plan shows attempts to accommodate all interests. We knew we had to attract ret,filers and developers to Mound, but we had to accommodate the car to a certain extent. We are trying to balance the impact of the automobile with comfort of pedestrians and that's the reason we've taken the sidewalks in front of retail stores, they are 10 Verbatim Minutes - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June 18, 1996 Page 4 feet wide and the area where the roundabout is, the buildings can be set back from that point to create plazas on either side. Also if you look at the areas of France and Pedestrians spaces that really work well everywhere around the world they all have parking that separates the passing vehicle from the sidewalks. Pay attention to that next time you go somewhere, where the street that really works is the street that has parking separating the danger of the passing automobile with the pedestrians on the sidewalk. The main boulevards of France all have parking on the sides. And that's a situation we want to create. In Mound right now, it's not very comfortable to walk along the County Road 15 or 110 because there is no parking on the street and all the cars are zooming by right next to you without any psycholo~cal protection ~ a pedestrian. So I understand exactly what you are saying but we are trying as hard as we can to make a compromise and to make it work both for the retails and for the people who are downtown. audience member: Will the backs of the stores be accessible or what will it be? Chamberlain: Well, there will be two ways, actually three areas where you can get from the backs of the stores to the front of the store fronts. Retailers prefer not to have a two fronted store or store that has two entrances. Many retailers refuse to do it. The reason is because of security number one, and number two they don't know exactly where they're customers are coming from so they don't know where to market, it's very difficult to market when you have a two sided store, so one of the goals for us was to get all the people on the south side of the store front on Auditors Road. So we are creating a potentially, conceptionally at least, three ,areas where people come from rear par'king area, through the building and then get to the street front to access the stores. So generally the stores would be aesthetically facing on the backside, although there probably won't be any entry's on the backside, there'll be passages that will allow people to get to the front side. audience member: Could we use the back store entrances, because I agree with this lady that you're talking about malls that fall by the way side you're talking about malls in center cities. You're not tel 'king about the waterfront development. Chamberlain: I'm talking about small communities throughout the country that converted their main streets. same audience member: Not a waterfront situation as we have here! same audience member: One of the other things that these waterfront developments had were several lakefront restaurants with outdoor seating I could come over to this area if I wanted I could sit out on a deck under an umbrella table and look at the lake but if I have to hassle with cars it's not going to be quite the same. If you want to draw from other areas I think they are going to have the same reaction as me, well I don't want to sit and watch traffic I want to look at the lake and boats. Where ,are there space for outdoor seating? Chamberlain: All the way along the sidewalk. same audience member: But, I'd have to look over the cars and traffic. Verbatim Minutes - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June 18, 1996 Page 5 Shukle: I think what the Economic Development Commission will be looking at is that as soon as we get those approvals, which should be, the environmental things by what, July? Chamberlain: The EAW by July. Sbukle: As soon as we wrap up the property acquisition and get the right way squared away, then maybe the development commission can start talking about the types of businesses or retail areas that they want to start developing, a request for proposal, in fact we can erect something of substance to give the blind commission to look at zoning or re-zoning, if it's required. But, until we get to that point to start talking about zoning or re-zoning at this point is a little bit premature. I'm not disagreeing its something that needs to be addressed. audience member: There's a lot of research and studies to do before we even start talking about this. audience member: How many of the businesses are going to be effected by this, and I'm going to start at the corner with Lon Grace and come on down to Dr. Loewer, the carpet man, Bodes, etc. and so forth and over to Brildey's and Guy's, have you gone to them and said we're going to be raking your buildings down, what would you like to have to replace what you've got now? Have you done this? Chamberlain: We've talked to most of the retailers. audience member: I don't know of one that you've talked to really, because I've talked to a lot of them and they said no one has talked to them. Shukle: We have. audience member: To property owners or the shop owner. Shnkle: Both. audience member: No body talked to us. Shukle: I' ve talked to your son Jerry. I' ye talked to Scotty B. audience member: I've talked to him about it and you've told us what's going to take place but you've never said what would you Like in exchange? What you describe as being economic benefits from boat traffic being small and this number of the $800,000 is by itself, to weigh the cost of benefits from that vs applying that ~ant money to other redeveloping may have greater impact cause the benefits to the community. So I think the parts of redeveloping might have a ~eater impact on retailers, positive things for retailers. Because I think the monies are scarce and these tax dollars are carefully watched. That's one thing I'd like to see is how this might help the tax payer. Verbatim Minutes - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June 18, 1996 Page 6 Chamberlain: The grant that we received, we lose the money if we don't use it for what we said we were going to. Although the dollars that the retailers will gain directly from the canals are probably fairly small, the atmosphere and the environment that is created in downtown as a result of the canal is absolutely tremendous. Something that's so unique and such an attraction we really think it's going to drive really substantial economic growth in downtown. audience member: Is that based on a study or ............. ? Chamberlain: Yes, it was based on a m~ket projection done in 1992. audience member: How many square feet of retail space will go from 110 to 15 and Auditors Road? Chamberlain: Roughly the way buildings are drawn about 40,000 sq ft. audience member: 40,000 sq ft in retail space? Chamberlain: Correct. Shukle: Don't focus on just that particular area, [ think when the creation and the destination and all the other things and amenities that ,are being created, though there are people who will take exception, maybe because, I don't know it seems like the one lady expressed the concern about the traffic or having the cars on the road in that area. The intent is to create more business and development in the whole downtown area. ff everyone can stay focused on that, the intent is not to hurt or injure any of the business people that we have here in Mound or any who have been in business like Mike's father as been doing business here for years, and Bill you've been in business here and in business for, I don't 'know how many years, but it certainly is not the intent of the Economic Development Commission, nor the City Council or the City staff to hurt or harm any of the existing businesses. We think, I think we genuinely feel and can substantiate that this whole thing is going to benefit the whole downtown area and it's going to change dramatically. We are going to have to face up to some major changes that are going to occur in downtown Mound. But I strongly feel that they are going to be changes that will benefit all of us, all our business people and citizens in Mound in the long hall. It's going to cause some disruption, some pain with the construction and the dredging, it may in fact, in the short term, cause some pain for some of the business people. I've heard it said by a number of people who have left and came back here and they tried it in Mound and nothing has changed. This one guy comes back from California and says "Mound sleeps sound nothing ever changes here". Well, we have an opportunity here we have the plan in place and we're moving toward changing the whole outlook, the whole look of the downtown area. Really doing something to make Mound, to put lvlound on the map. You look at Wayzata and you look what they have there they have the street that runs right through Wayzata. You have people who are using it, it's pedestrian friendly with some of the changes they have made there. They have sidewalk cafes, in Excelsior, they have more parking in downtown Excelsior than we'll have in Monnd with this development if you look behind the buildings where the par'king takes place. We're going to have something that I think is going to be a lot more unique when it's done than Wazyata or Exclesior. We won't have to play second fiddle. I don't think to either one of those cities anymore. So I think it's exciting times and city council so far has really stood behind this project and the economic developtnent commission has done I think an outstanding job in t~ing to bring people into it. Bruce has, it's no easy Verbatim Minutes- Commiaee-o~the-Whole(Ciw Council) meeting;Mound, Minnesota June 18,1996 Page 7 task to put those grant funds together and he has done just an outstanding excellent job. audience member: There was talk about the community center and the old high school was going to be tom down and made into a commtmity center like Chaska has. That there would be a coordination between that project and this. Shukle: I serve on the committee, and I represent the city, I also represented, as far as the City goes, the Mound Visons program and one of the first things we had to do as a task force was to look at our downtown plan and m,'~ce a presentation to remove some of these things and we were well aware of what we were planning and we were very excited about the possibility of being able to tie this thing together with what's going on. audience member: But it isn't officially a part of Mound is it'?. Shukle: No, the property is controlled by the school district they own it, it's theirs and they were looking to the city of Mound and to Spring Park to try and assist them in creating a community center. amlience member: Is there any way it could be coordinated or is it professional? Shukle: Well, a professional survey was done a year ago this summer by the city resources, they enlisted lvlinneapolis phase survey research firm and they did a community study for us, the City, the dentist, and all parties involved and they called on a few hundred houses and the bottom line of the survey was, yes they'd love to have a community center, but they are not willing to pay for it, that's kind of the long and short of it. Ag,fin from the results of the survey I think we have to, because they did spend big monies, I think we have to take that into account before we decide whether to or not to go on this. To go against the survey will probably be a disaster financially for the school district and the City. Mayor: What we're going to have to do, I'm really sorry, we're going to have to move on - on the agenda but, Bruce and John if you'd like to talk with them or you have something you'd like to discuss with them feel free to do it. We have a number of items we have to Work on, they will take some time also. As I indicated earlier the Economic Development Commission does meet the 3rd at 7:00 am. audience member: I have more questions of Bruce and John. Ed: They'll be around. audience member: Your not interested in hearing what the Planning Committee has to say regarding it or not? Ed: Well, we're interested in hearing you. audience member: I think there' s a lot to say even more than we talked about [ don' t -know, I mean as Ph-mning Commissioner we've never, what time did we ever get any info with the Mound Vison Program and as a Planning Commissioner I think some of us on the Planning Commission like Jerry Clapsaddle and myself and a few others feel as a planning commission part of our job is to help plan and not Verbatim Minutes - Comxnittee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting: Mound, Minnesota lune 18, 1996 Page 8 necessarily be a variance machine or be a reviewer of the ordinance changes that are happening as regards the city, granted that is part of our job we realize that, but also part is to hopef-ully plan and help to encourage future growth in the city and one of the reasons that I of course got on the planning commission is that I have the background. I do have other questions with regards to it and we talked about acquisitions as far as other secondary things, I know John talked first things, the secondm-y phase would be the realigning of County Road 15 and the acquisition of property along that, the Bill Clark Oil situation, is the Hennepin County willing to look at realignment in order to take the county road up over the top railroad tracks they weren't interested in 1972, I me,m you know, those are questions do you want to bring those up tonight or if we should walt for another time? Shukle: Mr. Major with the depths and of what the staff and Economic Development Commission have done with relationship to communication with commissions, Jerry Clapsaddle is also a representative of the Planning Commission and on the committee that developed the environmental appearance model and he spent a lot of time on that committee working with several others, I don't know if your able to have some time on your agenda to do that, but there was a relation/liaison sort to speak to the Mound Visions Program. And also the former chairman of the Park Commission was also attending these. In relation to the County 15 realignment, it was the county that had developed and applied for an ISTEA grant but it wasn't funded so yes they are behind us. The project is in their Capital Improvement Program for the year 2000 or 2001, but they ,are behind us, it is no different than their old plan 25 years ago they are behind it they like the idea they're supportive and [ think it's just a matter of how many dollars we get. We were at a chamber of commerce focus meeting last week and some of the people are elective representatives at the state level and have indicated to us that they are behind the project and are willing to help us in any way they can and with the county and with our representative Peggy Steward, I think, I have had a conversation with her and think some of the other people have had conversation with her and the county itself the people that actually do the hiring have indicated to me that they are in favor of rerouting 15 and they are putting it on the 5 year plan which will be 2000 before they can actually do it. I don't think that is going to be a huge problem, it's just a matter of them getting it on the 5 year plan. The difficulty in creating that project is acquiring the monies, the City has to pay 75% or 100% of the highway acquisition costs. I think they are talking 100% aren't they? Cameron: Between 75% and 100% that the city would have to pay out, they will actually pay for the construct of this road, I think the ISTEA the application is for $700,000, and so we, as the City, have to come with the dollars and it's not going to be cheap because we've got to pat a railroad in there, we' ye got Clark oil, and some of the other properties it's going to be very expensive the City's going to have to figure oat a way of financing that so we're looking at- at least the year 2000 before that happens. It's not that we're not considering it, we have to look at other needs but there are parts of Lost Lake that have immediate needs in order to make this a go, this they call a Phase II part of it. audience member: My greatest concern is that we finish all this up with Lost Lake and then we end up with County Road 15 in the same location forever and ever and ever and not make any changes in the area. audience member: I think that if we put this in a priority situation then it all goes, it has to all happen. I Verbatim Minutes - Committee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June I8, 1996 Page 9 mean we have to look at the fact that County Road 15 will be done, not that it might be done, it will be done and Mound is committed to get it done whether a I0 yr plan, or 7 yr plan. Shukle: I think the highway people the planners and engineers will be even more adamant about telling you that they feel the current situation of County Road 15 is the worst possible scenario that you can have. audience member: But like I said costs are the biggest thing and where are the acquisition costs going to come from, in other words, as the Planning Commission and as the Economic Development Commission are we moving forward with setting aside funds to deal with those acquisitions in order to move for~vard so we have a budget set up so we can go out and purchase all that property. audience member: Those are the kinds of things I was talking about and I thought ttmt was going to be part of the meeting tonight, not be just a learning situation. [ realize that the council has accounting and a lot of other things to finish but I would very much encourage any of the EDCs or the council or any of the Park Commission to come to the Planning Commissioner or vs. in order to have these discussions because I do think there are some of us who have positive inputs with regards to the whole plan, they don't necessarily come from the EDC, don't necessarily come from just the Planning Commission, don't necessarily come from just the staff. So I thinlc the multipliness of this meeting was good and had a lot of good input. It can be utilized and can be worked with in order to achieve this goal that we need to do. But keeping a positive attitude and moving forward and not limiting ourselves with meeting every 2-1/2 years with regard to the Mound Vison Program. Shukle: We can certainly have Bn~ce and John attend a Planning Commission meeting and they can get into more depth and detail and also a Park Commission meeting. The reason for this meeting was because the Planning Commission and the Park Commission did have some areas of concern and wanted them brought up. The Planning Commission or Park Commission can certainly ask Bruce and John to spend some in depth time discussing this. audience member: I guess these are helpful, Chamberlain: I attended a Planning Commission meeting, I believe it was last August, and gave an update and also the Park Commission I think that was the last time I sat in one of those groups. audience member: That's not so long ago give us an update. audience member: It was not a request from the Planning Commission to talk to us about or to give us an update. audience member: And that's okay I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying some of us do have good ideas that there are citizens that are going to have good ideas but can't necessarily make every meeting of the EDC, I can:t maize the 7:00 meeting on Thursday morning, but I will malco my Monday night Planning Commission every two weeks. Verbatim Minutes - Co~nmittee-of-the-Whole (City Council) meeting; Mound, Minnesota June 18, 1996 Page i0 Shukle: Well if you'd like we could arrange to have Brace and John attend your meeting and if you want it on the agenda, we'll have them spend some time with you. audience member: I think what your saying is, 1' think he's offering some help and assistance I don't think he's asking for updates, if everyone wants to basically handle this outside that's fine too, but [ think what we're saying here is that we are ready, willing and able to contribute to this. audience member: I can't possibly think that your development committee would do the work 30 miles from here, it just doesn't work for me on a scale but r think them is a lot to be gained from the Planning Commission. I think there could be studies and evaluations of the zoning ordinances they could be doing parallel work that your doing and instead of this thing being a totally lineal thing it could be a little bit more as a whole project. I don't ,know all the specifics or intricacies of it, maybe this offer doesn't fit in or is not advantageous at this point. I think that what may be saying here, I my self, I don't feel jealous that hem I am, the Planning Commissioner, and I don't get talked to as a resource, and I do believe that we have something to offer, the offer still stands. Shukle: And we appreciate that. audience member: See if them is something we can come up with to deal with whether it's pulling together calculations as to the amount of traffic that goes through there with John's help and the staffs help the amount of traffic that goes through there and we want our retailers, we currently have, to know how much new development is happening within the borders around us. And it's interesting to 'know that it's 700 homes in the next three years. We need to put that together in order to give it to the EDC in order for them to put in them RFP's in order to give us something to do and that's all we are really asking for here is to help, I wouldn't have taken time off tonight if I didn't feel that it's important and that we want it to work, but we've got to work together and not just have the EDC and not just have the staff working on it but have ail of us working on it because we're all here, Tom's here, we're all here. Mayor: Anything else before we move on the agenda. Bruce and John will be around if you want to talk with them one on one or have any other questions regarding the program. I guess we will take about a five minute break before we start again. Next item ...... Minutes' - Mou,tH City Cou,,cil - ~Vove,nber 12. ~996 Iessen moved, Ah.tens seconded a motion to approve the following resolution as amended: RESOLUTION//96-115 The vote was unanimously in favor. RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A MINOR SUBDMSION FOR 4739 & 4755 BIr. DFORD ROAD LOTS 7, 8, 24, 25 & 1/2 OF 6 & 27, BLOCK 13, WYCI~D¥OOD, PID'S 19-117-23 32 0214 & 0205, P&Z CASE ~96-63. Motion carried. 1.12 PUBLIC HEARI1NG: ENrVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. City Manager Ed Shukle introduced Bruce Chamberlain, Assistant Planner, staring he would give opening remarks and that it was a public hearing. Bruce Chamberlain: "The public hearing was being held on behalf of the Federal I-Iighway Administration because of the federal funding for the Lost Lake Canal project as well as the Lost lake Greenway project. The two projects are the subject of the Environmental Assessment and it pertains to the canal dredging and the greenway project around tl~e north perimeter. I-Ie informed the public that there was a meeting held with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on October 17, I996. During that meeting there was discussion on the rules on the part of the Watershed District as well as general concern issues people have with the project. Out of that meeting came a couple of changes to the design that is in the packet. The chmages were not completely defined, outcome of this meeting will help define the changes. On November 19th, this EA will be going to the City Council, Planning Commission, EDC and Park Commission and the public, to look at proposed design changes that incorporate the issues that the Watershed District has. Basically, the change includes eliminating the area that was proposed that has the permanent docking facility as well as eliminating the area proposed to be dredged for the transient docking area. We will be combining those two docldng facilities within the turn around area i~elf, so there will not be a dredge beyond the historic turnaround of the canal. Before the meeting on the 19th, he will be working with the agencies and staff keeping them up to date and aware of what is happening with the design changes and getting feedback and input prior to Council review on the 19th of November. The Mayor asked if there were questions tbr Bruce from the Council. There were none. Mayor Polston opened the public hearing askSng if there was anyone who wished to spem.k either for or against the Lost Lake Canal and Greenway projects. Dallas Jensen, 2684 Wilshire Blvd. "I have been a resident in Mound for 20 years. In those twenty years I have made many good friendships in the community. Conversations coming from those friendships usually m~aounting to what is going to happen in Mound. We see a dying community. I think this is one of Oxe mos[ exciting plm~s that has ever come our way. It is a bold plan, no question about it. I think of the City, roughly ten yemxs ago, that re,.tly didn't have a plan. And what have you got, a grape turned into a raisin. I think this is a beautiful 11;15:96 11:1'~4 FAX '-~ ,.,r ..,,~..~, Minutes - Mound City Council - November 12, 1~96 plan. It has a great deal of merit. Certainly, there is room for changes along the time frame that they have bracketed i'or this. I want you to know that I totally support this plan. I think it is a great shot of adrenalin for th.is community." Sue Cathers, 3008 Highview Lane. "I have been a resident of Mound my entire life. I have seen it deteriorate over the yea.rs and I too, suplmrt this plan. I think that the Mound Visions has put a lot of work and effort and study into this. [ worked on the Design Team a few yea.rs ago and I think it is a great idea. I don't know of anybody else that has my better of an idea. Last, but not least, my mom was the one that was hit at the crosswalk a few weeks ago. I think r. his helps the pedestrians too." · Jerry Longpre, 2631 Granger Lane. 'I came here 35 years ago. I remember we had a Chamber that at that time was trying to think of something that could be done with Lost I n__ke. I remember a picture of Dick Schwert standing there in the weeds and something was going to get done. And, you know, we ail felt and we ail 'knew that ~e future of Mound was tied in with the Lake. So finally, we are doing someth/ng about it. I just think it's super." Mayor Polston asked if there were any more comments. There were none. He closed the public heating and returned the item to the City Council. Mayor Polston: "I would like to say thank you to the people who worked on this, not only on the Economic Development Commission, but to all of the other 41Y-50-60 volunteers who have worked hard and given of themselves for a number of years on this project. I see a lot of them here tonight. Liz has served on the Economic Development Commission as our liasion. I can't say how proud I am of the people and of Bruce, who have brought this thing to the point that it is at now. I take my hat off to you. I am really looking forward to the project moving forward. Are them any other thoughts?" Councilmember I-Ianus: "Just to echo those same thoughts. A lot of people put a lot of work into it for a long period of time. It's right on the brink now and we are about to see something happen. I am very happy to see it and very happy to see the public involvement in the project alSO." Councilmember Jessen: "I will say the same thing. I won't have much more chance to say ir. So, I will may it now. I am very proud of all of you that have worked so hard on ir. I am so pleased to see it moving forward and I will be standing back there cheering for it all of the way." Mayor Polston: "To those people who are with the Mitmehaha Creek Watershed District and are here tonight, I see some of them, I appreciate you coming back to Mound to visit with us. We appreciate the diligence and hard work that you hax, e put in so far on the project. Like we talked about at our workshop, there is nothing etched in concrete, We are willing to work to do whatever we can. I think this is one giant step for the City of Mound and for the west Lake 6 11,' I,~,' 96 ll:l.l$ F.{-'( CITY OF .q0l..~D w_~,.,,,~ ....... ~ Mi,,ut~s - Mound City Council - November 12, 1996 area. With that I will shut up and let somebody else talk." 3essen: "What do we need to do here?" Sh-kl¢: "We need a motion to approve the .. correct? Tell us what we need." Chamberlain: "Actually there is no action that is requized on the part of the Council. As I mentioned at the beginning of the public hearing, this is on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration. It is up to them to review the comments that were made this evening as well as previous comments that were made at previous meetings. To make their input and review of the Environmental Assessment. To make this part of the official documentation of that document." Jenson: "So the Federal Highway .. will get all of thL~ documentation.." Chamberlain: "Correct, verbatim Minutes." Jansen: "Then, we hope they are going to come up with the finding of no significant impact?" Chamberlain: "Correct. That is one of the options. The other option is that they request project modifications or require an Environmental Impact Statement.' Jenson: "So they could still do that?" Chamberlain: "They could, yes." Jenson'. "Assuming that they don't. Then we are going to be ready to move on this in the spring, correct'.)'' Chamberlain: "The process that we are undertaking is that we ~vilI be looking at the design modifications in a week. We will be, hopefully, submitting permits to all of the permitting agencies in two weeks, and then look at a 60-90 day turn around for most of those permits. In the meantime, the Environmental Assessment documentation will continue to move th.rough the channels that it has to move through with the Federal Government and State Government. Yes, hopefully, we are prepared for construction whenever it causes the lea~t environmental impact to begin the project, which we think will be June." Iensen: "It is really exciting to see this thing moving forward and I wanted to add those comments as well. It seems that we have been looking at this for a long time. I have only spent two years with the EDC, and ~[ commend all of them for the work that they have put into making this happen, or to help make this happen. I remember sitting in a few meetings where we would talk among ourselves about when will something happen, will something ever happen. People were saying nothing is ever going to happen.' I remember some suggestions about let's put a bulldozer out there and move it a.round a little bit. Maybe it will help people get a positive 7 11:13:96 Minut~_s . Mound City Council - 2Vovc. rn3er 12, 1996 attitude. It is really moving forward and it is truly exciting. I have talked to all of the people who have made this happen. I am really excited for Mound. Ahrens: "I too want to echo the comments and commendations of my fellow Councilmembers. I just want to know Ed, that two foot high stack of studies that were don~ over twenty-five years before I got on the Council, that you gave me, can I throw them away now?" Shuk. le: "Wait until they actually dig into the channel and then light them on fire. Yessen: "Bruce, does ti'ds need anything further as an official approval by the Council?" Chamberlain: "Not by the Council, no." Discussion dealt whether the public hearing had been closed. It had. City Attorney David Kennedy: "Bruce, do you think it would it be inappropriate for the Council to adopt a resolution saying we think this is great'? I sense that, it probably wouldn't hurt the process, but it certainly would not harm it." Chamberlain: "I don't see a problem with it at ail. It is something that can be made part of the public record that the Council is behind this project. That can be incorporated into documentation that we have." Attorney: "Perhaps the staff can be directed to prepare .." Polston: "Phyllis, since is action may be the last that you take on this project, would you like to offer a motion to ..." ~lessen: "I'd love to. We are going to make it a resolution?" Polston: "Yes." Jessen: "l would like to move that as a Council, give our full support behind the Lost Lake Canal and Greenway Project." Ahrens: "Second." Polston: "All in favor, say aye." The vote was unanimously in favor.' Motion carried. Polston: "You folks on the Economic Development Commission, I tel1 ye, and all of the volunteers that worked on this project, you have my thanks and my hat is off to you. I certainly hope that we are moving ahead and the Federal Highway Commission will look favorably upo~ the project. Thanks for your efforts and for coming tonight." N'ovember 26, 1996 RESOLUTION RESOLL~ON OF TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TI~ CITY OF MOUND EX]PllESS~NG STRONG SIYPPORT t~Olt TE[E LOST LAKE CANAl, A~N'D GREENWA. Y PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN MOUND WIIEKEAS, the Ci~y of Mound has conducted a. 5 year plmming process called Mound Visions involving extensive c~.~iz~ pardcipal:ion; and, WtIEREAS, the primary emphasis of the Mound Visions design concept is to refocus downtown on the Lost La.k~ m:~; and, ~S, the design concur was adopted by the City Council in the spring of 1992 as the framework for futur~ public investment ~nd solicitation of private investment; and, WI:rER~AS, ex~en_~ive environmental and ecological testing and study has b~n conducted in the projec~ area finding no significant concerns; and, ~JREAS, the project being proposed is believed to have very positive social, economic and environmental impacts on the community; and, ~AS, an official public heating held on November 12, 1996 displayed overwhelming public support for the projeca. NOW, Tt~_ _~KEFO~, BE IT RESOLVED by unanimous decision of the City Council of the CiW of Mound, Minnesota: A Thc City of Mound strongly supports the comple~on of the Lost Lak~ Canal and Greenway projects. B. Th~ City of Mound v, ilI coordinate closely with permi~ng and funding agencies through the course of the projects to ensure smooth and successful completion. The foregoing resolution was mov~ by Counciimember Akmns and seconded by Councilmember Hanus, Thc following Councilraembers vot~ in the affirmative: Ahrens, Kanus and ?olston. Iensen and lessen were abs~t and excUSed. The followLug Councilmembers voted in the negative: None Ma~or AtteSt: Acting C~ty C~ra Resolution adopted November 26, 1996 BRAUN INTERTEC April 17, 1997 40 ~ .ir'earS ~ Braun In~'ertec 1345 No~/ond Ori, e Mendoto Heights, Minnesota 55120-1141 612-683-8700 Fax: 683-8888 Engineers and Scientists Serving the Built and Natural Environments* Project No. BABX-94-819 Mr. Ed Shukle City Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Re: Sediment Sampling, Lost Lake Canal In accordance with your authorization, Braun Intertec and Geosphere Midwest have completed the sediment sampling and geophysical analysis of the eastern part of the proposed dredge area of the captioned project. In summary, no landfilled material was observed in the proposed dredge area and no PCBs or mercury were detected in the sediments. Lead concentrations were less than previously observed and do not indicate that there is a significant difference between the surficial sediments and those that will remain in place following completion of the proposed dredge. The details of the work are contained in the attached report. I have forwarded a copy of the report to Judy Mader at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and to Bruce Chamberlain at Hoisington. If you have any questions concerning the report, please feel free to call me at (612) 683-8752. Sincerely, Richard M. Johnston Project Manager, Principal Attachment: Report C~ Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Judy Mader, MPCA kal%n: \babx\94\819\819-r0 I. wpd 1. Introduction The City of Mound was required to collect sediment samples for analysis for PCBs as a condition of the dredge permit recently granted by the Mirmehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The work was to be conducted in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) requirements and the results submitted to MPCA for their review and approval. In addition, the City of Mound requested that the sediment samples collected for PCB analysis also be analyzed for lead and mercury. This report presents the results of that sampling and laboratory analysis. 2. Background The City of lVlound is proposing to redredge an existing channel referred to as the Lost Lake Canal from Lake Minnetonka to the downtown area of the City of Mound. The project location is shown on the attached Figure 1. Braun Intertec sampled and analyzed sediments from the project area in 1995 according to a work plan reviewed and approved by the MPCA (Braun Intertec, 1994). The results of that work and a brief description of the project are presented in a report (Braun Intertec, 1995) which was submitted to MPCA for their review. During the subsequent public participation process for environmental review and permitting, concern was raised regarding the potential for the presence of PCBs in sediments in the project area due to an adjacent disposal area. No evidence of the disposal of PCBs in the adjacent area was presented. PCB testing had not been required by MPCA. In addition, concern was raised regarding the potential to excavate dumped material during the dredging process as well as concern that the previous sampling and analysis had focused on the sediment that would be excavated and had not considered the quality of the sediment that would remain in place and would be exposed to the water column. Pursuant to the MCWD requirement for PCB testing, a work plan was prepared (Braun Intertec, 1997) and submitted to the MPCA for their review and approval. MPCA approved the work plan on February 26, 1997. City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 April 17, 1997 Page 2 3. Methods Two geophysical surveys were conducted; an electromagnetic conductivity survey using an EM31 and a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey. The geophysical surveys were conducted by Geosphere Midwest in and adjacent to the east side of the proposed dredge area to evaluate it for the presence of landfilled material. The survey area included part of the wetland and 20 to 30 feet of the upland area on the east side of the project. The Geosphere Midwest report is attached as Appendix B and is summarized below. Braun Intertec sampled the sediment on March Ii, 1997 in accordance with the MPCA approved work plan. The work plan is included in this report as Appendix C. The elevation of the ice surface in the project area was obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District the morning of the field work. The elevation was 929.06 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). Sediment samples were collected at previous sampling locations//5 and #6, which were designated locations #5-2 and #6-2. Two discrete samples were collected at each location. One sample was collected at each location from the upper foot of sediment (designated samples 5-2-A and 6-2-A) and one sample was collected at each location from the foot of sediment between elevations 923.6 feet and 922.6 feet AMSL (designated samples 5-2-B and 6-2-B). The latter interval is the upper one foot of material which will remain in place following completion of the proposed dredging. 4. Results Geophysical Survey The electromagnetic (EM) conductivity survey was conducted in the area along the east side of the dredge area including approximately 20 to 30 feet of the upland area adjacent to the former disposal area. According to Geosphere Midwest, the results of the EM survey indicated that "This leads to the conclusion that no landfills are present within the limits of the investigation." Minor anomalies were observed in two areas during the EM survey. Therefore, a GPR survey was conducted in those areas. Following completion of the GPR survey, Geosphere IVlidwest concluded that "The radar data did not detect any features in the sediments that would indicate landfill material." Several bent 2-inch diameter pipes were observed by Geosphere Midwest field personnel sticking up through the surface, but they did not detect additional material beneath the surface. City of Mound Project No. BABX-94-819 April 17, 1997 Page 3 The details of the Geosphere Midwest results are in their report (Geosphere Midwest, 1977) which is attached in Appendix B. PCB Analysis PCB analysis was performed on the four samples collected. No PCBs were detected in the samples above the reporting limits. The results are summarized in Table 1. The laboratory report is in Appendix A. Metals Analysis Lead was detected in three of the samples at concentrations ranging from 5.3 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg or parts per million) to 21 mg/kg. Lead had previously been observed at concentrations of less than 2.6 mg/kg, 17 mg/kg, 48 mg/kg and 93 mg/kg, which the MPCA had indicated was within acceptable concentrations for this project. The lead concentrations do not indicate a significant difference in concentration between the soils currently exposed to the water column and those which will be exposed following completion of the proposed dredge. Mercury was not detected during this sampling event at detection limits ranging from 0.13 to 0.44 mg/kg. Inorganic Analysis Total solids of the samples ranged from 9% to 30%. The total organic carbon content of the samples ranged from 4.7% to 6.1%. 5. Summary No landfilled material was detected on the east side of the proposed dredge area. No PCBs or mercury were detected in the sediment samples. Lead was detected at concentrations ranging from 5.3 mg/kg to 21 mg/kg. Based on previous discussions with MPCA staff, these concentrations are within acceptable limits. _9 lgO City of Mound Project No. BABX-ga-gl9 April 17, 1997 Page 4 6. References Braun Intertec, 1994. Work Plan for Sediment Collection and Analysis in Support of Individual Dredge Permit Application, Lost Lake Canal, Mound Minnesota, December 19,1994. Braun Intertec, 1995. Soil and Sediment Sampling and Analysis, Report in Support of Individual Dredge Permit Application, Lost Lake Canal, Mound Minnesota, May 23, 1995. Braun Intertec, 1997. City of Mound, Lost Lake Canal Project, Letter to Ed Shulde from Richard Johnston, February 24, 1997. Geosphere Midwest, 1997. Geophysical Investigation of the Lost Lake Site, Mound Minnesota. Geosphere Midwest, March, 1997. Minnesota Pollution Control' Agency May 2, 1997 Board of ~[anagem Miunehaha Creek Watershed District Grey Freshwater Center, Suite 37 250b Shadywood Road Excelsior, Nflnnesom 55331 RE: Lost Lake Canal l{~habilkation and Green"ay ?rojzct. (Depaca'nent of N'aturaJ Resources Protected %'aters invcntoQ' Number 27-01 gO\V) Evaluation of Additional Sediment Analyses Dear Board of Managers: The ~Minnesom Pollution Con~rokAgenc¥ CvfPCA) reckived Braun Inte~ec's repor~ on Se. Aiment .... Sampling. for'the Lost Lak~ Canal.project on kpril 18,.. 1997. The MI~CA did not review the resutt~ of the G¢otecknical Inv. estigat~on, bu~ rather, 'llm~¢d. its. evaluation to the re. suits of the additional sediment sampling and analyses. That additional sediment work was conduc¢¢d based on concerns voiced by others ac some of the watershed &istrict'.s meetings. In the absence of. se.d~ment szandards/crkeria/guid¢Iines set by mud specifically for Minnesota, the MPCA used the Ontm-io M~n{stry' o{.the Ezivironment' s.(OM-E) Sediment Quai[~' Guidelines (SQG) for comparison ~,'kh thc sediment analy'd.cal r~'suks. **~c OM~E developed their guidelines.~br use in e~aluating sediments throughou~ O~mrio and are intended to/~ro~ae ~J~,~:~ (e~i~ ~adea) a=~ d'e.cisi°mmak~ng .'.m reiation to s. ed. in~, enl. issues. Sediment ~tandardm, criteria or ~idclincs ar,..uscd to classify sedumeats as to me~r ~evei of contamina6.0n and identify scd~menzs th,t'may or m.~y not bc disposed of ir~ open w~.tcr. (Historically, the MPCA has not pcrmktcd the in-water disposal of se~{~ments.) These guidclines arc not intended to preclude the removal of con*.~m~uated sed~m~uts from an aquatic en~Sz.o~ment; in fact. sedimezzs with higher con ~tm~inant concen::r~tions ~e belief c~didates for removal than clcanc'} s~imcm~s. "T~e purpose of the SQGs is to pro,ecl the aquatic erwironmen~ by setting .'~.~% levels ~br metals; nutrients (subsumc~s which promote the growth of algzc) and organic compounds .... ./he guidelines arc desi.m'~ed to help environmental managers ... make decisions on a whole range of issues that affect thc q~Ety of scdimcnL" '~fhe guidelines as se~ ou~ define uh~ee levels of ccoto:dc effects and are based on the chronic, long-term effects of cont,~_r~nan~s on benthic organisms. These levels arc: · A ~',~ Effect Lev¢t at ~:aich no toxic effects have b~en observed on aquatic o~ganimus. This is the level at which no biomafn~f~cation through thc food chain is expected. Other w~ter qualky and use gu~de!ines will also bc met at tkis le.vcl. Sediment that h~ a No Effect Level rating is considered clean and no m-a.uagement decisions are required. Fm-chcrmore, it ma), bc placed in.rivers and lakes provided it does not ph.],,~vicalI.v (emphasis added) affect the fi~h habitat or e:dsting v~-atcr uses - for example, a water intake pipe. 520 Lafayer, a Rd. N.; St Paul, MN ~5155-4~94; (612) 296-6,300 (Voice); (612) 282-5332 fi/Y) Regional Offices: Oulutn · 8rain,rd - Detroit Lakes · Marshall · Rochester ~a~ ©acertut';iN 5mp;cyer o Pdn~e~- on rec/cied paper containing' at least 20% fibers from paper recyclec; ~y =ff~.c~ he, vel indica'dng a level o.f sediment contmrAnation that can be tolerated by the majority, of beanie organis'm$. Tae sediment is clean to m~g/na!ly polluted. Dredged sediments contair~iug concentrations of organic contam/nants - PCBs or pesticides, for example - that fall bec'eon the No Effect Love[ and the Lowest Effect Level may not be disposed of in an in-~vater (clariE, cation added) area where rke sediment ar r_he proposed d/sposal site ha~ been rated at ~e No Effect Level or better. · r} Se,?:e~e Effect r,.eve} ia.dicazing a level at wh/ch pronounced disturbance o£the sedirnanr awemng commmrv co.a be e×¢ecred. TNs is the sediment concentration of a comr~ou~'t.~at would be derr/meat~t to the ma}or/r7 of benthic s~ecies. I£the level of conr.~d, naribn exceeds rlae Severe Egect Level, then test/.u~ is r~qu/red to determir~e whether or not ~e sediment is acutely to,'cic." - · TSe contamin~t concentration_s reported for Last L'~e C~al sediment d0otla the overlying sediment and the sediment layer ~at wo~d be exposed a~fier dredgiug) -are .typic~'for lake sedim, enrs in · Minnesota, especialI:, those that receive urban storm water mad boa~ing tra~c (PCA. Hieskari. 1996-). tn fact. the POB results for ali four of the Lost Lake samples came back belo'~ r_ke Lowest Effect Lim/t £6r to~ PCBs (please see ~e enclosed table, wkich was cop/ed firom Gu/deli~es for the Protec~on and Martagement of Aquatic Sediment Qua.LiE; in Ontario, August 1993). · .-- And ~. commu-ison of the results for the samples fi.om the top of the sediment cores wSth ~e 'results for the bomom samples at both sires demom'rrates ~at remo~Sng ~e overl>5.ug sediment w/il no_._gt expose, more kiglxly contaminated sediments to ~e aquatic environment than have been exposed to thi_q point. Nor witi the sediment removal res%tit in any si-o-nificant en'r~ronmentaI chmages to the dredged area or to Lake M.k~netonka. The Loxt Lake ~an.at sediments cart be dredged usLag appropriate dredge and disoosai methods - the MPCA does not plan to impose any exw-a condit/ons, beyond ~ose 5a ~ typical dredged mater/al dispos~ permit, on tlxis project. ' If you have any ques~ons regarding r_Ns matter, please feel free to contact Judy Mader dJ. rec~ly ar (612) 296-73 I5. - - .rolm N : . ~OICK~ Nonpoiat Source Compliance Sect/on Water Qu~iry DbSsion JNH:!s cc: ~'B'mc=~e~.berl~a, EoisN~on Koch. er Groum Nc. ND. Joe Y~ St. Pa~ Dis~cg U.S..~y Corns of Encee=, St. Pa~, N~ Ms..L~ Le~Ss, Field Supe~Ssor. U.S. F/s~ ~a WiI~kee Sedco, Bloomln~on, ~ N~. Kent Lo~esmoe,'Dkeeror. DiMsion of %~ters, N.~ Si Pa~. N~' Mr. Steve CotvN, Ecolo~c~ Scm'ices, Ea~onmem~ Revie~v, N~ St Pa~, ~- ~k. Tom C~ey, Mound (~v/enclosme=) ' ' ' I ...... I[I [Ill I'l ! [[ BEC .... · J~-BHC DDT(to~ ' .. .op+p~DDT pp-DDD · ' p~DDE .. . I Table 2~: Prua~nc~l Sediment Quaii~ GuJdel'mes fo~ PCDs and Organoch!orine Pesfic~e~... · ":7.. (,ffl. u~ iu ~g/g (~). ar/~c ~ 0~r~.aot~a) .. ~omoo~d' '" ~o. Eff~ ~vtI ' -. ~w~ Effe'~'.. · '. S~tr~ ~ea ~I . · .. 0.003 ·. · 0.005 : ' (o.~? 0.007 ' ' 0.008'.. .0.008 '. 0.005 - · "0.002 0.003 · . 0.~ · 0.~07 ·. 0.07 '(0.06)~ . · '.(0.0~)~... .. -.' .(o.oo~ '. ·. -(o.oo~,. ~2 71 5' 91 '130 .' 24 130 ~0 ... (~o).· ... , . d 0.005' - 0.0006 · 0.01.. .0.0003 0.01 , carbon) * ." aad Scvcr-~ F./:f-.x:~ .~v¢I~ a~c ba~td'0n thc 'Sth ~mcl. 95th p~c..~r~ r~pec~weIy of · Lower Eff¢ct Levels .. thc Scr .~;t~5 LeVel Concen~adon (SLC). (s~.S~on 40.4) c.xccpc where notm:l otherwise_ ( ) O~aot~ te. ntadve guia. eEu~s. .-.... · ' - Val~es le~s f~,:'. 10 ha~'c bee~'roancicd t0'I'sigr~c~t ~ Yalu~ g~ti= rh~.~ ~0 have bctn '. "t& 2 ~r.~m~('digits cx~pt'for rotmd nnmb~rs whick r~mai~ .' . '. .-, . ... '-~.. .-' -.:. .. : . ..' ~. - . .... .. " *' I0% SLC.. ' .~: A~nlya~' for PC2B' AXochlors a.rk =ot m-'mda~0'.tY.ual~s spe~.' cally reclue.st~t .by.. MOE~ .. :. ". FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION STATE OF MINNESOTA Department of Transportation CITY OF MOUND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for the Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project - S.P. 145-080-01, TEA 2797 (028) and the Lost Lake Greenway Project - S.P. 145-090-01 From: Cooks Bay on Lake Minnetonka To: Downtown Mound. MN 0.8 km (½ mile) Work Description: The Lost Lake canal project is primarily a dredging project to rehabilitate an historic boat canal. In addition to dredging, the project includes constructing docks and a fishing pier, restoring previously filled wetland areas and improving wetland edges. The Lost Lake greenway project includes construction of landscaping, trail, transit park & ride lot, and a transit boat boarding pier - all around the north perimeter of Lost Lake. Edward J. Shukle ~, ity Manager Recommended ~vxs~on State Aid Engineer Reviewed and Recommended ~, tDirector, Division of State Aid for Local Transportation Approved /~-'D~,i;ion Administrato; Federal Highway Administration Date Date Date M:Vd O UNDO4 -40~_.A. CVR MOUND QUADRANGLE MOUND, MINNESOTA NW/4. LAKE MINNETONKA 15' QUACRANGL~. ~~~ _'.~] ~,~ u.-' :~~% , ' . .. . , 7~~~'~" TM ' , ' - ~- : ~~~2 ,~ ~~~~~j,', , '" .,~-~' ~' : ~' ' -' '" ' ~ ~,,//'.', . . -~. - . - , ~ .... . ..... . ' . ~.~ ~ ~ '~ ..,~ .. .... , m '.. ~ ' = · .- ' ,.' : ~ ~L'~ '~'~ ~/ x, ,; ." .. ....' I 1000 0 1 ~ 2~0 3000 SI~ LOCA~ON MAP LOST ~KE CANAL Q~ OF MOUND ~OUNO, ~NNESOTA Hennepin County I,~ Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 1 June 14, 1996 I. Report Purpose This Environmental Assessment ~A) provides background information about the Lost Lake Canal project in downtown Mound, Minnesota including: 1. The need for the proposed project 2. Reasonable alternatives considered 3. Environmental impacts 4. Agencies and persons involved This document has been prepared as part of the federal NEPA process and state environmental process to fulfill requirements of both 42 USC 4321 et. seq. and MN Rules Chapter 4410. At the federal level, it is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for an EIS or that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. At the state level, it is used to provide sufficient environmental documentation to determine the need for a State EIS or that a Negative Declaration is appropriate. This document is made available for public review and comment prior to the above decision on significance of environmental impacts. II. Project Description In 1906, during the peak of Lake Minnetonka's resort era, a boat canal was excavated from Cooks Bay to downtown Mound through a wetland now called Lost Lake. The 0.8 km (V2 mile) long canal was originally about 15 m (50 ft.) wide and terminated close to the center of downtown with a large cul-de-sac where the passenger steamboats would board and drop off their guests. The historic canal, and associated transportation facilities are the focus of Mound's current downtown revitalization efforts and the focus of this Environmental Assessment. The project site is located in the SW1/4, Section 24 and SE1/4, Section 23, Township 117 North, Range 23 West, Mound, Minnesota. The existing Lost Lake canal bisects approximately 22 ha (55 acres) of contiguous wetland. The National Wetland Inventory map for the area indicates the complex to be comprised predominantly of seasonally to semi-permanently flooded palustrine emergent wetland (PEMC and PEMF; Circular 39 types 3 and 4 shallow and deep marsh) with one area of excavated semi-permanently flooded palustrine unconsolidated bottom wetland (PUBx; Circular 39 type 5 open water). Lost Lake is connected to Cooks Bay of Lake Minnetonka via the Lost Lake boat canal. The canal runs south beneath Bartlett Boulevard Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal June 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-0! & 145-090-01 Page 2 (County Road 125) which bridges the canal, providing sufficient clearance for recreational boat traffic. As the resort era faded on Lake Minnetonka around 1925, the Lost Lake canal and wetland fell into neglect. The canal has narrowed to about 20 feet as siltation has occurred and aquatic plants have recolonized historically dredged areas. Until recent wetland laws, land in downtown slowly crept further into the wetland without regard for the wetland edge. In the 1960's, a large portion of the wetland and canal were filled to erect a new Post Office and street. Another comer of Lost Lake was filled by a garbage dump and the land mass later became the City's public works storage site for road sand, salt and snow. There is little or no buffer between paved surfaces and the wetland. Stormwater mn-off from nearly all of downtown is piped or runs overland directly into Lost Lake without treatment or detention. See Exhibit 1 showing an aerial view of the area. Even though Lost Lake plays little importance in the community today, the City hopes to transform it into the center of community life and vastly improve its environmental integrity in the process. In 1991 the City of Mound began planning for major downtown revitalization. The City enlisted extensive public involvement to create what came to be called "Mound Visions". The Mound Visions team of community volunteers developed a number of strategies for revitalization, including a redevelopment concept plan focusing on the rehabilitation of the Lost Lake wetland and canal. In 1994 Mound was selected for ISTEA funds to rehabilitate the Lost Lake canal. This selection prompted the City to undertake an adjacent street realignment and reconstruction project at the same time. Both projects are scheduled for construction in 1997. Recently the City was selected for additional ISTEA funds to construct the "Lost Lake Greenway to be constructed in 1999 which includes a linear park, trail, transit boat pier and park & fide facility adjacent to Lost Lake. A federal Environmental Assessment and state Environmental Assessment Worksheet are being completed for the Lost Lake canal project because federal dollars are involved and because the project meets the Minnesota mandatory EAW threshold described in Section 4410.4300 subp. 25 regarding expansion of a marina or harbor project and subp. 27 regarding work in wetlands and protected waters. The Lost Lake greenway project is being incorporated into this EA to expedite future project administration. Defining the Lost Lake projects and all related projects is somewhat cumbersome because of the complexity and breadth of changes expected in downtown Mound. The Lost Lake projects represent the first step to redevelopment of nearly the entire downtown. Two categories of activity are defined in this document. 1. Direct project activities: This category describes all connected and phased actions of the Lost Lake canal and greenway projects. Construction timing is noted for each activity. These activities are the subject of this Environmental Assessment. Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & Page 3 June 14,1996 2. Related activities: This category describes projects anticipated to occur in the future which are related but unconnected to the Lost Lake canal and greenway projects. Direct Project Activities ~: This activity includes re-dredging the canal from Cooks Bay on Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound. This component of the project includes only the dredging needed to restore the canal to a historic and minimally safe width of 15 m (50 feet) plus three boat pull-outs for boater safety (see Exhibit 2). The canal will be constructed according to the cross sections shown in Exhibit 3. The water surface area of this component of the dredge is 12,918 sq. m. (139,000 sq. ft.). A majority of the proposed surface area is currently open water, the remainder being cattails. This activity will occur entirely below OHW. To be constructed in 1997) Transient dock and boat maneuvering area dredge: This activity includes dredging the transient dock area west of the canal and the boat maneuvering areas outside of the historic dredge limits (see Exhibit 2). The water surface area of this component of the dredge is 4,833 sq. m. (52,000 sq. ft.). This activity will occur entirely below OHW. To be constructed in 1997. Permanent docking facility dredge: This activity includes dredging a small portion of wetland needed to gain access to the permanent docking facility (see Exhibit 2). The water surface area of this component of the dredge is 372 sq. m. (4,000 sq. ft.). This activity will occur entirely below OHW. This aspect of work is an unscheduled future activity. Restoration of previously filled wetland: This activity includes excavation of historic wetland areas which have been filled over the years for development including the post office site and the future boat docking facility (see Exhibit 2). Restoration of the docking area is unscheduled but the post office site is a 1997 project. The total area of wetland restoration is 2,881 sq. m. (31,000 sq. ft). (14,000 sq. ft. - post office site, 17,000 sq. ft. - dock site). Roughly % of the restoration areas will be open water and 1/3 will be restored wetland vegetation. Wetland vegetation restoration: This 1997 activity includes revegetating some of the dredged areas with native, low growing emergent vegetation (see Exhibit 4). Low vegetation is proposed to allow adequate sight-lines for boater safety in the center of the boat maneuvering area and to create a native wetland edge in other areas. The City proposes to conduct on-going management of these areas to prevent the reestablishment of an exotic cattail monoculture. The area of restoration is 2,695 sq. m. (29,000 sq. ft.). · Restoration and stabilization of the north wetland edge: Four types of edge treatment are Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 4 Sune 14, 1996 proposed: 1) rip-rap edges in the boat docking areas, 2) vegetative edges in the wetland restoration areas, 3) rehabilitated edges where previous filling has degraded the natural edge and 4) wall edges under the fishing pier and around the transit boat landing (see Exhibit 4). This is a 1997 activity. Rip-rap edges will be granite boulders at a 2: I slope. Rip-rap will be extended only 0.6m (2 ft.) above the OHW to minimize visual impact. Vegetative edges will be planted with native emergent and transitional wetland plant species. The City proposes to conduct on- going management of these areas to prevent the reestablishment of an exotic cattail monoculture. The rehabilitated edges are all filled edges and very steep, the City proposes to pull the slope back (at the discretion of the DNR) to create a higher quality edge. Wall edges are proposed only at the piers for structural and boat docking purposes. See Exhibit 5 for cross sections of edge treatments. Reconstruction of sea walls at the south end of the canal: The southern 60m (200 ft.) of the canal (from the Bartlett Blvd. bridge to the mouth) narrows to 9m (30 ft.) and runs through a residential area. There are existing sheet pile sea walls along the edges of the canal which will be replaced in their current location. A portion of this area has a rip-rap edge which the City proposes to replace with sea walls to allow adequate width for boats and to protect the adjacent residences (see Exhibit 6). To be constructed in 1997. Brid~e and utility, modifications: When the Bartlett Boulevard bridge was constructed, little-attention was paid to cleaning up concrete over-runs at the abutments and temporary wood pilings were never removed from the bottom of the canal. These two items will be removed from the canal bed to allow dredging to the designed depth. There are also utilities under the canal which will likely need to be lowered to accommodate dredging. These activities do not impact the structure of the bridge itself. To be completed in 1997. Construction of transient docks and fishing pier: This activity includes constructing 12 slips (6 docks) and a fishing pier in the transient dock area. The docks are proposed to be the floating type. Each dock will be attached to shore individually which helps minimize the dredge area and allows for native plantings along the top edge of the rAp-rap shore. The pier is proposed to be a permanent structure with an arched-opening concrete perimeter and wood decking spanning the water below. The shoreline under the pier will be sheet pile with a concrete cap. The surface area of the pier is 112 sq. m. (1,200 sq. ft.) in an oval form. The pier extends roughly 18m (60 ft.) along the shore and extends up to 8.5m (28 ft.) into the wetland. See Exhibits 7 & 8 for plan and details of docks and fishing pier. To be constructed in 1997. Construction of a transit boat pier: This activity includes constructing a pier for docking and boarding an historic transit boat and providing the dock-to-land connection for the permanent docking facility. The pier will be constructed outside of the current wetland Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 5 June 14,1996 boundary and then the wetland will be restored around its edges (see Exhibit 7). The pier will be a permanent structure constructed of concrete. The pier is a 1999 activity. Construction of permanent docking facility: This activity includes constructing up to 22 boat slips. Docks are prop(~sed to be the floating type using a marginal dock connected to the transit boat pier and each of the finger docks will then connect to the marginal dock. There will not be a fueling station or boat lift as part of this facility. This aspect of work is an unscheduled future activity. Nearly all of the docking facility will be constructed within a previously filled wetland area. Construction of a boardwalk across a portion of the wetlaml. Approximately 200 feet of floating boardwalk is proposed across the north end of the wetland as a 1999 activity (see Exhibit 7). The boardwalk is intended as a wetland interpretation experience and to provide access from downtown to the transit center/farmers market site. Installation of wildlife nesting structure~: As part of the 1997 project, nesting structures will be installed in appropriate areas of the wetland and shoreline to accommodate waterfowl, song birds, bats, butterflies, etc. · Creation of a greenway around the north perimeter of Lost Lak< The greenway includes a trail, landscaping, bike facilities and park amenities. The greenway will act as a vegetative buffer and linear park between the built environment of downtown and Lost Lake. The greenway will also allow the planting of overstory trees to shade the shoreline and reduce heat gain from paved surfaces. Along with areas of turf, the greenway will have significant areas of native and low maintenance plants including wildflowers, native grasses and perennials. The greenway land will be set aside as part of the 1997 project but enhancements and landscaping will not be implemented until 1999 (see Exhibit 7). · Construction of a transit park & ride 10t: A 50+ stall park & ride lot will be constructed in 1999 on the former public works storage site to accommodate commuter bus users. The lot will be buffered from the wetland by the Lost Lake greenway (see Exhibit 7). Related Activities Construction of Auditors Road: Auditors Road is currently a back alley in downtown. Reconstruction of the street scheduled for 1997 will transform it into the new main street of Mound. Eventually new retail structures will be developed along the street to face Lost Lake (see Exhibit 7). Creation of the downtown storrnwater management plan: The City of Mound is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to create the stormwater plan. As redevelopment occurs, stormwater will be detained and treated according to the plan Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal June 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 6 using NURP standards. Lost Lake currently receives nearly all downtown runoff, none of which is treated. Redevelopment of the public works storage site: For many years the City has stored their public works material including road sand, salt and snow on a site adjacent to Lost Lake. Runoff from the site into the wetland has been an environmental concern for some time. In preparation of the Lost Lake canal project, the City has built a new storage facility in a suitable location with proper containment. The old site will be redeveloped as a result of the Lost Lake canal project and the greenway will buffer any development on the site from Lost Lake (see Exhibit 7). Relocation of County Road 15: County Road 15 is scheduled for relocation in the year 2000. This activity will have the greatest impact on the quality of stormwater runoff entering Lost Lake. Stormwater Ponds built to NURP standards will be constructed as part of the roadway project to accommodate downtown runoff (see Exhibit 7). The project will also enable much of the commercial redevelopment in downtown. Redevelopment of downtown structures and sites: The majority of downtown will be redeveloped especially in the Lost Lake area. Lost Lake will become the focus of the community with a complete integration and co-existence of residence, commerce, recreation, transit and the natural environment. III. Cost and Funding Source Defined below are anticipated costs for the Lost Lake Canal project scheduled for 1997 and the Lost Lake Greenway project scheduled for 1999. Note that future activities are not included. For both projects, the federal share is roughly 80% of construction costs. The City of Mound accepts responsibility for the remainder of construction costs plus project administration costs. Project costs for the Lost Lake canal project are: · Dredging ............................................................ · Shoreline stabil. & bridge mod. at mouth ........... · Dock facilities & pier ........................................ · Historical story board and marker ........................ · Shoreline stabil, at north end .............................. Subtotal ................................ · Design, engineering, permitting & admin ............ Total .................................... Funding Sources: Federal ISTEA funds City of Mound funds $255,000 $225,000 $124,000 $5,000 5; 141.000 $750,000 $134.000 $884,000 $500,000 $384,000 Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 7 ~lune 14, 1996 Project costs for the Lost Lake greenway project are: · Trail ................................................................ · Transit boat boarding pier ............................... · Landscaping .................................................. · Pedestrian and bicycle facilities ........................ · County Road 15 streetscape ............................. · Park & ride lot Subtotal ........................................ Design, engineering & administration ............... Total ....................................... Funding Sources: $90,000 $72,000 $131,000 $184,000 $94,000 $67.000 $638,000 $140.000 $778,000 Federal IS'rEA funds City of Mound funds Project Schedule (Note the EA and EAW are on concurrent tracks.) $498,000 $280,000 June 14,1996 June 21 July 3 July 5 July 12 July 23 August 27 October 8 October 9 October 14 December December 2 December 9 January 6, 1997 Submit EA to MN/DOT Metro and Central State Aid offices for review and comment Submit permits to necessary regulatory agencies End of 30 day EAW comment period Revise EA as per MN/DOT comments Submit EA to MN/DOT Metro and Central State Aid offices and the FI--IWA for review and approval RGU review of EAW comments and determination of need for project modifications anct/or EIS Opportunity for public hearing (EA process) Public Heating for EA process (if necessary) Revise EA as per comments Submit final EA to MN/DOT State Aid offices and FHWA for signature and FONSI (finding of no significant impact) Completion of Auditors Road right-of-way acquisition and canal easement acquisition Anticipated FONSI finding Submit Study Report to MN/DOT for review Revise Study Report as needed Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-0I & 145-090-01 Page 8 January 13 December - January 1997 January 1997 February - March April May May September October - November December April 1998 or 99 May June June September June 14,1996 Submit Study Report to MN/DOT for final review and approval Preparation of final plans and specifications for canal project Submit canal project plans to MN/DOT State Aid office for review and approval Advertise for bids for canal project Open bids Award contract Begin construction Complete construction Preparation of final plans and specifications for greenway project Submit greenway project plans to MN/DOT State Aid office for review and approval Advertise for bids for greenway project Open bids Award contract Begin construction Complete construction Please note that R/W acquisition is being conducted for the Auditors Road relocation project. Portions of properties being acquired are within the project limits of the Lost Lake canal/ greenway project but the acquisition is required for and being conducted through the street project. V. Need for the Project The Lost Lake canal/greenway project is the foundation for Mound's downtown revitalization efforts and is the basis for a broad intermodal transportation system. It is important to note that without the amenities that the Lost Lake canal project brings to the community, it may be very difficult or impossible to encourage other economic and environmental investments in downtown Mound. THE HEART OF THE COMMUNITY: Rehabilitation of the Lost Lake canal/greenway is the key element of the first phase of redevelopment in downtown Mound. Through extensive public involvement over a period of five years, the Mound Visions downtown revitalization program has identified and tested, through public forums and a community volunteer process, the goals of the community in regard to their downtown. The process found that reestablishing the historic relationship and transportation link to Lake Minnetonka is the foundation of redevelopment. TRANSPORTATION NEED: The Lost Lake canal is needed to provide access for recreational Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 9 June 14,1996 and transit boats from Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound. The greenway is needed to provide convenient facilities for non-motorized transportation and mass transit. Five modes of transportation; boats, pedestrians, bikes, cars and buses come together and are accommodated at Lost Lake. The project will rebuild the historic link between downtown Mound and the transit boat system on Lake Minnetonka. It will extend a trail network in several directions from the transit hub, build a park & ride lot for an MCTO transit stop and provide bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL NEED: State and local environmental agencies have identified numerous environmental problems in Lost Lake due to neglect and lack of investment (e.g. untreated stormwater runoff, highly disturbed wetland edges, encroaching development, large amount of impervious surface, etc.). Lost Lake rehabilitation will provide an opportunity to clean up these problems in a highly visible way which in turn creates an opportunity for environmental education. ECONOMIC NEED: Rehabilitation of the Lost Lake area is the essential first step to the downtown revitalization efforts of Mound. A market projection conducted for the City determined that "wi&in two years ora substantial redevelopment project including targeted retail additions of 25,000+ S.F., the City of Mound could see an overall increase in retail sales of 68% or roughly $24 million from the 1990 level." The City believes that rehabilitation of the Lost Lake canal and creation of the greenway will be the catalyst for this level of private investment in downtown Mound. VI. Alternatives The purpose of this project is to provide recreational and transit boat access from Lake Minnetonka to downtown Mound and to provide the facilities for non-motorized transportation and mass transit. The project will transform Lost Lake into a community amenity and destination. Do nothing alternatives: If nothing is done, the canal will continue to be unnavigable and the impetus to make substantial related investments in transportation, the environment, recreation and redevelopment would not exist. If the canal and greenway projects are not completed, private investment will be very difficult to secure and the enthusiasm of the community will fade away. As a result, downtown Mound would continue to be economically marginal. The preferred alternative is to construct the project according to the description in Section 11 above and the exhibits enclosed. This alternative is preferred based on practicality, historical precedence, environmental impact and community input. The alignment of the canal is the historical alignment and since there is only one riparian outlet from Lost Lake to Lake Minnetonka, there is only one place to begin the canal. The transient dock area is located to have the greatest user relationship to downtown. The docking facility is located to have the greatest Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal June 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 10,5-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page I0 relationship to adjacent development and to have the least impact on the wetland by restoring previously filled wetland rather than excavating existing wetland. The greenway is located to have the dual benefit of providing environmental improvements and providing a circulation and recreation corridor which intercontlects many uses in downtown. Reasonable options have been considered through the concept development process and incorporated into the plan to create more positive impact on the wetland in the following ways. The docking facility has been reduced in size from about 35 slips originally to a proposed 22 maximum. The docking facility has been moved from within the existing wetland to a previously filled wetland location to have less impact. The center of the boat maneuvering area was originally intended to be open water but the vegetation restoration option is proposed to still provide boater safety but diversify and improve the wetland habitat. Originally a wall was proposed for the shoreline in both docking areas but rip-rap is now proposed at DNR request. VII. Social, Economic and Environmental Impacts (SEE) To gain a full understanding of the Lost Lake canal project's environmental impacts, two studies have been conducted: 1) a biological survey of the Lost Lake wetland and 2) soil and sediment sampling and analysis of the proposed dredge areas. Discussion of the findings is as follows. Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. has completed a biological survey for the Lost Lake canal project. Their study includes 1) classification of predominant vascular plant communities, 2) an assessment of the potential for the site to harbor any threatened and/or endangered species, 3) a qualitative evaluation of available fish and wildlife habitat and 4) an analysis of anticipated impacts associated with the restoration of the canal and construction of docking areas. The full report is enclosed as Exhibit 9. Portions of the report which pertains to SEE impacts are copied below. (The following is copied from Biological Survey Report, Lost Lake Boat Chat~ ',el Restoration - Mound, MN, May 19, 1995; Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.) The restoration of the original boat channel and construction of transient and marina slips is not expected to meaningfully reduce the availability of habitat necessary to maintain viable populations of the plant, wildlife or fish species mentioned above. The proposed channel restoration will essentially re-establish conditions as they existed at the turn of the century and will increase wetland acreage by removing fill deposited during the construction of Auditors Road. While the boat channel bisects Lost Lake, it only affects a small proportion of a large monotypic marsh dominated by cattails. Based on our field observations, the channel and its associated boat docking areas actually lend some diversity to an otherwise uniform wetland system. The boat channel has provided muskrats with direct access to the center of Lost Lake, as indicated by a substantial number of muskrat houses on either side of the channel. The muskrats have created more open water through their feeding and house building activities, which in turn has Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mouna, Minnesota. State Project # $.p. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 l age I 1 June 14, 1996 increased the value of this area for nesting and feeding waterfowl as well as for herons and other wading birds. The wildlife that we observed during our field review were concentrated in and around the channel, due apparently to the feeding opportunities provided by the interspersiqn of vegetation and open water. Because of Lost Lake's relatively large size in proportion to the channel area and proposed marina, marsh fragmentation does not appear to represent a significant problem. Lost Lake has experienced some encroachment by purple loosestrife; however, this encroachment appears to be relatively minor in the channel area. The proposed project should not result in any expansion or acceleration of purple loosestrife infestation, since this plant colonizes heavily vegetated areas rather than open water. The existing channel is already infested with Eurasian watermilfoil; the proposed channel restoration should not result in any exacerbation of the existing problem. However, care should be exercised in the cleaning of dredging machinery and the disposal of dredge spoil to ensure that no severed plant pans reach other uninfested waters. Based on a study completed by the MDNR in 1994, measuring the average boat traffic generated at marinas and transient docks on Lake Minnetonka (Tim Kelly, MDNR per. comm. with Bruce Chamberlain, Hoisington Koegler Group, Inc.), the projected boat traffic in the restored channel would total twenty six trips per weekend day and nine trips per weekday. The south end of the existing channel already receives a substantial amount of boat use from the approximately nine water craft that are currently moored there. However, the central and northern pan of the channel are relatively unaffected due to the channel's narrow width and the presence of only one dock. The wildlife species observed in the channel are relatively tolerant of human activity; however, the increased boat traffic may impact species whose nesting and feeding behavior occur in the channel and adjacent vegetation. In panicular, waterfowl, wading birds (that are generally secretive), turtles and fish may limit their movements and breeding activities within and adjacent the channel corridor and proposed marina, however, given the relatively large amount of marsh habitat available it is doubtful that the project will adversely impact wildlife populations. In a response to a threatened and endangered species inquiry the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) Natural Heritage Program listed the red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and the ram's head lady's slipper (Cypripedium arietinurn) as historically recorded element occurrences within one mile of the project area. These species are listed as state special concern and endangered species respectively. Prior to receiving the MDNR response letter PEC conducted a review of the MDNR state threatened, endangered and special concern range maps provided in Minnesota's Endangered Flora and Fauna (Coffin, 1988) to evaluate the potential presence of species which have an affinity for occurring in marsh systems. Based on this review we Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 12 June 14, 1996 determined that the project area provides potentially suitable habitat for three special concern species; (1) king rail (Rallus elegans), (2) common moorhen (Gallinula chloropsus) and (3) snapping turtle (Chelyrdra sprpentina). The proposed project is not anticipated to have any adverse effect upon threatened, endangered or special concern species. While it is possible that common moorhens and king rails exist in the Lost Lake area, we believe it is very unlikely. Further, the proposed project does not entail any substantial loss of wetland habitat which is the most likely reason for the decline of each of these species. Snapping turtles should also be unaffected by the project, since they are rather cosmopolitan and inhabit a wide variety of wetland habitat types. The proposed project does not involve any reduction in wetland acreage nor should it result in any direct snapping turtle mortality. (End of copy) Braun Intertec Corporation conducted soil and sediment sampling and analysis of the dredge area to determine the presence of pollutants in the dredge material and, based on their findings, appropriate mitigation and disposal methods. A full copy of their report is enclosed as Exhibit 10. Letters in response to the report from the MPCA is also enclosed as Exhibit 11. The section of the report which pertains to SEE impacts is copied verbatim below. (The following is copied from Soil and Sediment Samt~ling and Analysis Reoort. Lost Lake Canal - Mound, MN; May 23, 1995: Braun lntertec Corporation) The depth of water at sample locations g4 and #6 in the channel area is approximately 3 feet and in the vicinity of location #5, approximately 2 feet. Based on the samples collected at those locations, the material which will be dredged at a depth of 6 feet in the remnant channel and in the maneuvering area is a highly decomposed organic muck with a low (17% to 20%) solids content. In addition to the muck, the surficial dredged material will contain cattails. There are no sediment standards but MPCA compares the results to class 2b water standards. The concentrations of potential contaminants of concern at locations g4, #5, and #6 are below chronic standards except for lead and mercury. Concentzations of those compounds exceed chronic standards but are below maximum standards. Based on the boring at location #3, the material which will be excavated in the previously filled area near the post office is a silty clay fill underlain by peat. Concentrations of contaminants of concern in the peat are below chronic standards except for mercury which is above the chronic standard but below the maximum standard. MPCA has verbally indicated that the toxics concentrations do not appear to be a problem. The exceedances do not appear to be limiting in either the excavation or reuse of the material, although MPCA is still evaluating the phosphorus concentrations to determine if any restrictions or conditions would be necessary in the dredge permit to control algal blooms. (End of copy), (see Exhibit I I) Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-0l & 145-090-01 Page 13 June 14,1996 SOCIAL, ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ISSUE QUESTION RESPONSE Will the Project ... :Access change access to prop- This project will not change access to Control erties (close, change any properties in any way. locations, make one-way, etc.) Asthefics affect visual qualities? The project will greatly improve the asthetics of the Lost Lake (view fo or from facility) area. It will improve the view of the wetland from downtown and the view of downtown from the wetland. Views from residential areas will not be significantly effected. Air affect air quality? The project will increase boat traffic in Lost Lake but will Quality ~roduce negligible impact on air quality. The greenway project will encourage the use of mass transit and non-motorized transportation. 'Bicycles & affect bicycle and/or The project greatly enhances bicycle and pedestrian Pedestrians , pedestrian movement?, movement. Construction i Cause construction impacts~ The 6 month canal project construction period will cause noise Impacts (erosion, noise, air, and in some cases vibration. Sheet piles will be pile ddven into vibration, etc.) ~lace causing vibration. All possible measures will be taken to ensure minimal disruption to adjacent residences dudng pile driving. There will be truck activity in downtown and on local county roads during construction. An erosion control plan will be created to minimize erosion. MPCA Best Management Practices will be followed. Critical be in the Mississippi River No work will be conducted in the Areas critical area? Mississippi River. Economics affect business activity or The project will greatly enhance the opportunity for have other economic economic activity in Mound. Other projects in downtown Impacts? will displace businesses during redevelopment but every effort will be made to fairly compensate and relocate business and property owners as necessary. Endangered affect any endangered The proposed project is not anticipated to have any adverse Species species due to project effects upon threatened, endangered or special concern location or design? species. The MDNR Natural Heritage Program has been !consulted. (See discussion at the beginning of this section.) Energy have major energy The project will have negligible effects on Impacts ~mplications? energy use. Overall downtown improvements will enhance energy conservation. Erosion ~nvolve major soil distur- The project will disturb the wetland bottom during bance (depth or volume) or construction causing suspended sediments. Mechanical =have erosion potential due dredging rather than hydraulic will be used to minimize this. to landforms, wind patterns An erosion control plan will be created and followed or water volume? to minimize erosion and sediment loading. Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Iune 14, 1996 Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 14 Excess involve disposal of excess The City is currently working with a composting Material materials outside planned company to have the dredge spoils mixed with yard waste construction limits? to produce composted soil amendment. A composting site has not yet been selected but one is anticipated to be found within a few miles of the project site. Farmlands require any Right-of-Way? The project does not effect any farmland. Floodplains cross or lie adjacent to The project is within the floodplain. It any floodplain area? slightly increases the buffering capacity of the floodplain but does not significantly alter the cross-section of lie. Groundwate affect groundwater, geolog~ Construction of the project will produce a limited amount of Geology, or cause earthborne ea~hborne vibration from driving sheet pile sea walls. The Earthborne vibrations? ~roject will not affect groundwater or geology. 'Handicappe affect sidewalk or curb and The project does not effect existing handicapped access. gutter (Design For)? Boat docks, piers, trail, boardwalk and parking lot will accommodate handicapped access. Hazardous involve a bridge replacemer The project does not involve the use, transport or disposal Wastes over water, former of hazardous waste. Minor amount~ of lead and mercury disposal/storage sites, or are present in the dredge spoils but at levels below maximum hazardous materials route? standards. (see Exhibit 11) Historical, affect any historical The Minnesota Historical Society has Archaeologi, archaeological or conducted a Section 106 review of the Cultural cultural site? 2roject area and declared no impact. Land be consistent with local and The project is consistent will local and Use rec~ional land use plans? regional fand use plans. Noise affect noise sensitive Construction activity will produce typical construction noise. receptors? Boat traffic noise in Lost Lake will increase but will be minor due to the canal's designation as a "no wake zone". Parks, use any significant public The project does not affect ti" :. use of any public park or Recreation 2arks, recreational or wildlife refuge. The project does not affect any historic site. The 4(0 Recrn or waterfowl refuges, or any 2roject does not affect any LAWCON land. 6(0 LAWCOI~ historic site. Will the project affect any LAWCON land? Right of way require any right of way (or Some land on which the canal project is proposed to easement)? be constructed is currently being purchased through an adjacent state-aid street project. 100% of the affected ~ropedies are being purchased for the street project regardless of the eventual design of the canal project. Access easements are being purchased using City funds from two property owners where the canal meets Lake Minnefonka. This area is the historic canal location and it is the only ri0arian link between Lost Lake and Lake Mtka. l nvironmantal Assessmant - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # $.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 15 June 14, 1996 Relocation require any relocations of The Lost Lake canal project itself does not require homes or businesses? relocation of homes or businesses. The adjacent state-aid street project does require business and home acquisition · and relocation. Minnesota state-aid guidelines are being followed in the acquisition and relocation process. Stream change the course, current, No impact. modification 'cross section of any stream? Social affect public safety (i.e. The project does not adversely affect public safety. Boater police or fire protection, safety will be maximized by creating a no-wake zone in Lost accidents])? Lake, constructing boat pull-outs along the canal and establishing iow growing wetland vegetation in some areas to maximize sight distance. impact sensitive groups The project does not adversely impact any sensitive group. (children, handicapped, The project creates public amenities and access to minorities, poor, etc.)? Lake Minnetonka. affect accessibility to schools The project does not adversely affect accessibility. The churches, rec facility, etc.? p~oject creates access to recreational facilities. Affect community cohesion'., The project does not adversely affect cohesion. The project and related projects will create a central focus and gathering place for the community. Controversy is the project controversial or Extensive public involvement has been incorporated into the likely to cause controversy? Lost Lake canal project since its inception 5 years ago. No significant controversy has surfaced in that time and concerns raised have been resolved through 'changes in design or programming. There is broad community support for this project. Future controversy is not expected. Traffic correct capacity deficiencie The canal project does not affect traffic in any way. IS there a detour or major Related projects will decrease daily trips by encouraging traffic delay? mass and non-motorized transit. Transit affect transit routes? The canal project does not affect transit routes. Related projects will increase transit use. Vegetation E affect vegetation, fish or The project does affect the wetland habitat of Lost Lake. wildlife wildlife? See the discussion at the beginning of this section. Water qualit affect water quality of lakes, i Suspended sediments will be increased during construction. streams, wetlands, etc.? An erosion control plan will be created to minimize this. Quality of stormwater runoff entering Lost Lake will greatly ~mprove due to retated projects. Increased boating in Lost Lake will have negligible impacts on water quality. Wetlands are wetlands present within The majority of the project is located within the Lost Lake construction limits? wetland. will project destroy or Jmprov iThe project includes restoration of previously filled wetland create wetland habitat?, areas. The project will diversify the wetland habitat (see discussion at the beginning of this section). Wild & affect a wild & scenic river o~ The project does not affect any river. Scenic rivers canoe and boating river? aaoO Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 16 June 14, t996 VIII. Mitigation A number of plan modifications haye occurred to minimize environmental impact. The docking facility has been reduced in size from about 35 slips originally to a proposed 22 maximum. The docking facility has been moved from within the existing wetland to a previously filled wetland location to have less impact. The center of the boat maneuvering area was originally intended to be open water but the vegetation restoration option is proposed to still provide boater safety but diversify and improve the wetland habitat. Originally a wall was proposed for the shoreline in both docking areas but rip-rap is now proposed at MDNR request. (The following is copied from Biological Survey Report, Lost Lake Boat Channel Restoration - Mound, MN, May 19, 1995; Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc.) With the proposed marina development the project represents a net increase in wetland acreage, thus no further wetland replacement appears to be warranted by the project. The additional open water to result from the project may potentially increase the habitat value for some wildlife and fish species currently using the area. The only potential adverse impact that might result from the project is wildlife disturbance associated with boat traffic. Should this occur, the most appropriate mitigation measures would be to increase the diversity of other areas within Lost Lake to replace in-kind the diversity currently offered by the boat channel. Additional diversity could be established by excavating pockets of open water in other relatively undisturbed areas within Lost Lake. These pockets could be connected to the boat channel by narrow, non-navigable channels to foster fish and wildlife movement into these areas. Additional habitat enhancements could be accomplished by improving the interface between Lost Lake and adjacent uplands, particularly where past filling has degraded the habitat value of those uplands. An example exists where the slope fro~: County Road 15 adjoins Lost Lake. The upland-wetland fringe in such areas could be in, proved by; (1) grading them to be broad and flat, (2) removing debris, (3) coveting any exposed fill with suitable topsoil, and (4) planting groundcover and woody plants that both improve nesting habitat and also provide some visual screening between the wetland and the highway. (The following is copied from an office memo dated May 24, 1995from Richard Wedlund to Judy Mader, both with the MN Pollution Control Agency. See Exhibit 11 for a full copy of the memo.) "I recommend that at least two canal water column samples for total phosphorus be taken about 1 month prior to dredging so that the laboratory has sufficient time to return the baseline data before the dredging impacts begin... If the current velocity in the canal is very low, it is likely that much of the sediment phosphorus will resettle before being discharged into Lake Minnetonka... It is recommended that the contractor monitor for total phosphorus Environmental Assessment- Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 17 June 14,1996 twice per week at site 4 during dredging. It would be helpful to conduct flow gauging at the culvert downstreatll 0f sample site 4 since fl0w data and phogphom concentration data are needed to estimate phosphorus loadings to the lake... In general, I believe that prudent control measures should be tak~. n to reduce the loads to the lake, and that this project does not appear to have the potential for significant impact on the lake if these measures are taken. I recommend that the project proposer prepare a total phosphorus and flow gauging plan prior to dredging." The preceding information indicates that substantial mitigation measures for this project are not necessary. The recommendations suggested for construction and monitoring will be incorporated into the project plans and specifications with the exception of dredging additional pockets of open water for wildlife habitat. This measure is not currently supported by the DNR. If their position changes, the measure can be incorporated into the project. IX. Public and Agency Involvement Public involvement in the Lost Lake canal project began with the concept's inception in 1991. Since that time numerous articles have been written about the project in the local newspaper and city newsletter. There have also been many public meetings and open houses to receive input from the community. Community support for the project has been very strong. In May 1995 a public open house was held to present the Lost Lake canal project once again to the community. Turn-out was strong and comments were very supportive. Consultation has occurred with the Minnesota DNR since 199 I. When the ISTEA application was written in 1994 the Corps of Engineers, DNR, conservation district and watershed district were consulted regarding the viability of the project with positive response. Since the project was selected for ISTEA funding in 1994, agency involvement has become more intensive. An informational meeting for all involved permitting agencies was held in March 1995. Representatives from the Army Corps of Engineers, DNR, Fish & Wildlife, PCA, local conservation district and local watershed district attended the meeting. The project was presented and input was taken regarding various aspects of the work. Some project modifications resulted from the meeting. More intensive public and agency input will result from the EA and EAW processes underway. There are numerous permits required for the project as follows: A) B) C) D) E) U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Section 404 permit DNR Protected Waters permit Minnehaha Watershed District Grading permit Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Section 106 review (COMPLETED, See Exhibit 12) LMCD grading and dredging perm/ts Environmental Assessment - Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 18 F) G) H) J) PCA Water Quality Certification LMCD dock permit DNR dock permit MPCA Individual Dredge Disposal Permit DNR Aquatic Management Permit June 14, 1996 Permits A, B and F are being submitted concurrently with the EA and EAW. Other permits are more construction related and will be submitted just prior to beginning construction. The Project Manager for the Lost Lake canal/greenway project is: Bruce L. Chamberlain, RLA Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 7300 Metro Blvd., #525 Minneapolis, MN 55439 Ph. # (612) 835-9960 fax # (612) 835-3160 M : hI,I O U N IY~4-4 t3,F-.A. D O C Environmental Assessment. Lost Lake Canal Mound, Minnesota. State Project # S.P. 145-080-01 & 145-090-01 Page 19 ~une t4., T996 List of Exhibits: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) Aerial view of Lost .Lake. Plan showing dredge categories and area calculations. Canal cross sections. Plan showing wetland edge treatments and vegetation restoration areas. Cross sections of wetland edge treatments. Plan of south end of canal. Downtown Mound Concept Plan. Details of pier and transient docks. Biological Survey Report - Lost Lake. Sediment Sample Report - Lost Lake. Correspondent from MPCA. Section 106 clearance from SHPO. EXHIBIT 1 Aerial photo of Loxt Lake taken in May 1989. EXHIBIT 2 Lost Lake Wetland Lost I,&ke Wetland Legend  C anal Dredge (~9.ooo ,0 Transient Dock/ Boat Maneuvering Area Dredge (§2,000 Permanent Docking Facility Dredge (4.000) · " ".. Restoration of Previously · Filled Wetland (-ql,O00 st) See exhibil Wet/and Vegetation 4 Restoration Areas (~9.000 st) See 'Dtrect Project Ac~/T~t~es' i~ mccompin~inf text for description of 8rels defined i~ this eThlbit~ Lost Lake Canal Rehabilitation Wetland Dredge/Restoration Areas Project EXHIBIT 3 Typical Existing Cattails ~~ Ave, existincj bottom elev. : 925.01T~! Dredge Limit Canal Cross-section Typical Plan View Dredge Limit 100' Three pull-outs are proposed along the length of the canal for boater safety. Navigation Canal of Pull-out Existing Cattails ---~~ Ave. existing bottom elev. = '~26.0 I J~ 2.5' ~o.0' 75.0' Oredge Umil Canal Cross-section at Pull-out areas Losf Lake Canal Proposed Canal Details Rehabilitation Project no scale J I, ~, I, ,. tli EXHIBIT 4 -~co Future Retail/Office Development Vegeta~io~ · - Existin~ Wetland ~ ~ . .~enter Pa,-: 53 330' rip-rc -- ~eLland VegeL:~ Restoration Ar future phase I00' CLosf Wetland Lake Canal Rehabilitation Project Edge Treafmenfs and Resforafion Areas no scale Shoreline EXHIBIT 5 ~mf. ored x/~g~tc:tion Shoreline Tr~otment Rehabilitation Project OLost Lake Canal Proposed Shoreline Treatment Details no scale EXHIBIT 6 7 7~/~ ~33 EXHIBIT 7 EXHIBIT 8 OLosf Lake Canal Pier and Dock Details Rehabilifafion Project no scale 4~/2 Il. .J, J,.. ,J .,,. EXHIBIT 10 App~mlL~ A Aplx~"'x ~ Appe~dLx C oo - o-ooo ooo - o v¥¥v¥ ¥¥v¥¥ vvvvv vYvv ooooo ooooo ooooo oooo "~a'° vvvvv vvYvv vvvvv vvYv VVVVV VVVVV VVVVV VVVV Appendix Appe~dL~ E EXHIBIT ~[I~-E$OTA HISTORICAL SOCIETY EXHIBIT April 24, 1995 Mr. Bruce L. Chamberlain Hoisington Koegler Group Inc. 7300 Metro Boulevard, Suite 525 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55439 Dear Mr. Chamberlain: Re: Lost Lake canal rehabilitation, dredging, shoreline stabilization, docks, S13/24, Tl17, R24, Mound, Hennepin County SHPO Number: 95-1523 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above project. It has been reviewed pursuant to the responsibilities given the State Historic Preservation Officer by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the Procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36CFR800), and to the responsibilities given the Minnesota Historical Society by the Minnesota Historic Sites Act and the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Based on available information, we conclude that no properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places are within the project's area of effect. Please contact Dennis Gimmestad at 612-296-5462 if you have any questions regarding our review of this project. ~rely, ~ puty State Historic Preservation Off~'~r BLt:d mb 343 KELLOGG BOULEVARD ~'EST/ _~AI.NT PAUL..~[I.N.NESOTA .55102-1906 ! TELEPHO~'E: 612-296-6126 MEMORANDUM June 6,1997 TO: FROM: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ED SHUKLE, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION PROGRAM As you know, the sump pump disconnection program has been underway over the past couple of months. It has not been easy in getting property owners to comply with our new ordinance regarding the inspection program. Residents have been reluctant in calling for inspection appointments, refusing to schedule inspection appointments, questioning the issue of privacy and constitutional rights, indicating that they do not have a sump pump and therefore, do not need an inspection, etc. We began in Section 1 (Three Points area) in April and performed nearly 700 inspections. There are approximately 1,200 residences in this area. We initially sent a packet explaining the program, included a copy of the ordinance, etc. The response was poor and we sent another mailing and responses picked up slightly. Visu-Sewer ran an advertisement in The Laker, articles were published in The Laker and in the City Newsletter. We began in early May with notifying the residents of Section 2 (The Highlands) and we have about 500 to 600 inspections performed in this area out of approximately 900 to 1,000 residences. We have now just sent the initial mailing to Section 3 (Island Park) which totals approximately 1,000 to 1,100 property owners. We are concerned about citizen response and the fact that the ordinance calls for inspections to be completed by August 1, 1997 in order to be in compliance. Since the response has been negative, we, as staff, are prepared to send a mailing beginning with Section 1 that indicates that the $100 per month fine will be imposed on them if they have not scheduled an appointment for an inspection within a certain number of days after receipt of the notice. The fine would be included on their next utility bill, which in the case of Section 1, would be on or about August 15, 1997. Memorandum to Mayor and City Council June 6, 1997 Page 2 I have included a draft of this notice for your review and consideration. We would follow the same procedure for Sections 2 and 3 but would send them out in July and August respectively. Visu-Sewer Representative Ron Fenney will be present Tuesday evening to answer any questions regarding the status of the program. If there is some method that we haven't tried and that you think is worth trying, we would be happy to explore it further. However, sometimes the only way you are going to get a person's attention is to use the fining mechanism. If you have any questions, please contact me. DRAFT June 16, 1997 Dear Property Owner: As you know, the City of Mound has implemented a sump pump disconnection program. The City has contracted with Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc., of St. Louis Park, to undertake a physical inspection of properties in the City of Mound for purposes of determining the connection of sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system. We have previously sent a packet of information which includes a cover letter explaining the program, a copy of an ordinance approved by the City Council which prohibits sump pumps from discharging into the sanitary sewer system, information on how to disconnect and reconnect sump pumps appropriately and information on what the inspection program is all about. The packet specifically calls for you to make an appointment with Visu-Sewer to have the physical inspection performed. To this date, you have not made that appointment. Under the city's ordinance, you are required to be in compliance by August 1, 1997. The City has attempted to perform the inspections in an orderly manner by dividing the city into three areas. Your area, Section 1, was to have its inspections completed by early May. With the number of properties still remaining to be inspected in Section 1 and what is left in Sections 2 and 3, we are going to be forced to impose a surcharge called for in the city's ordinance which is $100 per month. The ordinance states under Section 600:25, Subdivision 7: A surcharge of One Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($100.00) per month is hereby imposed on every sewer bill mailed on and after August 1, 1997, to property owners who are not in compliance with this ordinance or who have refused to allow their property to be inspected to determine if there is compliance. All properties found during yearly reinspection to have violated this ordinance will be subject to the $100.00 per month penalty for all months between the two most recent inspections. In order for you to avoid the surcharge, we are asking you to schedule an appointment within five (5) days after receipt of this letter. You may call Visu-Sewer Clean & Seal, Inc., directly at 920- 9711 to set the appointment. If an appointment is not set within the five day period, your sewer bill which will be mailed to you on or about August 15, 1997, will include a $100 per month surcharge. Letter to Property Owners Sump Pump Inspection Program June 16, 1997 Page 2 We ask that you cooperate and act promptly in setting your inspection appointment. Sincerely, Bob Polston Mayor JUN-O~-I~? 15:lC3M INNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124710682 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District P. 02/04 Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life G ray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior. MN 5533%9578 Phone: (612) 471-0590 Fax; (612) 471-0682 Email: admin@mmvaTershed.org Web Site: www.mnwatershed,org Board of Managers: ~ E. Thomas Pamela G. BlixT ¥[ce Pre.qdent Monica Gross Secretary Thomas W. LaBounty Treasurer C. Woodrow Love Thomas Maple, Jr, Malcolm Reid Dielrict Office: Eugene R. Strommen District Director Suzanne M. Weedman AssL District Director June 3, 1997 Mayor Bob Polston City of Mound Re: Stormwater Management Task Force Dear Mayor 'Polston: On May 28, 1997,' the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources ("BWSR") approved our Water Kesources 'Plan, The Plan is the culmination of nearly two years of work with our Citizens Advisory Committce, Municipalities, the Metropolitan Council and state agencies to develop a plan to guide the MCWD activities for the next five years, Near the end of the approval process for our Plan, several municipalities expressed concerns regarding stormwater management policies; watershed district property tax levies and the need/bt local cost sharing; and the process of transferring stormwater management authority from the MCWD to municipalities. The BWSR's approval of the Plan ]'effects several revisions addressing these issues. We are appreciative to Hennepin County, BWSR, and the City. of Richtield for working with us to identify mutually acceptable revisions to our Plan. Perhaps the issue that has gained thc most attention from municipal officials within our watershed recently is the stormwater management rule (Rule B) which we adopted 18 months ago to provide for greater protection of water quality. Specifically, we now require that land development, and redevelopment within the watershed [neet the established standards of the Environmental Protection Agency's National Urban RunoffProgram (NURP). From the beginning, municipal representatives have affirmed our perspective that it is preferable to develop a system of"regional'ponds" to manage stormwater runoff, rather than have smaller ponds at each individual site of development. As a result, our rules provide that where it is not feasible to construct a pond meeting NUKP standards on site, a developer can, in the alternative, contribute a payment (based on an equitable detailed formula) to JUN-03-199? 15:19 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED 6124718682 P.O3x04 June 3, 1997 Page 2 cover the equivalent cost of providing stormwater treatment capacity in a larger regional pond off-site. Our rules also recognize that it is inappropriate to accept a developer's contribution if there is no concrete plan in place for a regional pond within the subwatershed area eomaining the development (the MCWD is divided into 15 subwatersheds which vary in size but are approximately ten square miles on average). Rule B requires that in order to accept a developer's contribution, there must be an agreement in place with the relevant municipality for a regional pond or a planned District stormwater treatment project within the same subwatershed. Currently, the MCWD has either signed agreements or active discussions developing agreements with seven municipalities within the watershed. We have found thus far that developers not only understand and endorse the purpose ora regional stormwater management system, but prefer to make contributions instead of constructing and maintaining individual ponds. After 1 g months of experience with these revisions to Rule B, we would be the first to recognize that'this initiative in stormwater management policy has also encountered some controversy along the way. Several municipalities within the watershed would prefer to assume complete responsibility for stormwater management, and are close to doing so in conjunction with the approval of their local water management plans, pursuant to the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act. Other municipalities see the need for regional ponding systems, but are looking to the MCWD for substantial technical and financial assistance. Some municipalities have become frustrated with the provision of Rule B that requires that a ponding agreement be in place prior to developer's comribution and watershed district approval of the development and acceptance of the developer's contribution. We believe that all of these concerns reflect reasonable dit~rences in perspectives about challenging problems: providing for sound land use and development policy, protecting our water resources, and minimizing unnecessary delay. The MCWD has concluded that it is appropriate and timely to convene a Stormwater Management Task Force to address these concerns with .Rule B. Our goal is to maximize public input from citizens, municipalities, other RESOLUTION 97- RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT WHEREAS, Hennepin County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data base which was designed and built to be used in conjunction with "Ultimap", an automated mapping facility software product (which proprietary geographical digitized data base is hereinafter referred to as "Proprietary Data Base"; and WHEREAS, the City of Mound desires to use the County's Proprietary Data Base in the course of conducting the City's business; and WHEREAS, Hennepin County is authorizing the City of Mound's use of the Proprietary Data Base pursuant to a conditional use agreement attached hereto and made a part thereof. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Mound, Minnesota enters into a conditional use agreement with Hennepin County pursuant to the attached agreement and authorizes the Mayor and City Manager to sign the agreement on behalf of the City of Mound. Mayor City Clerk Agreement No. CON]DITIONAL USE AGREEMENT GOVERNMENT ENTITY THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN (Department of Property Tax and Public Records - Survey Division), a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound hereinafter referred to as the "Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-1687. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data base which was designed and built to be used in conjunction with "Ultimap", an automated mapping facility software product (which proprietary geographical digitized data base is hereinafter referred to as "Proprietary Data Base" and which is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof); and WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's Proprietary Data Base the course of conducting the Entity's business; and WHEREAS, the County intends that any additions and modifications to the Proprietary Data Base relatin9 to the County remain wholly compatible with the County's Proprietary Data Base for the period of the copyright and information added to the database by either the County or the Entity shall be made available to either party; and WHEREAS, in acknowledgement of the Entity's above stated purpose, the County is agreeable to provide to the Entity the Proprietary Data Base described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order to adequately protect said Proprietary Data Base; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, as well as the obligations herein made and undertaken, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Section 1 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 1.1 This agreement shall apply to the Proprietary Data Base. 2.1 3.1 4.1 Section 2 GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE The County hereby grants the Entity a non-exclusive and nontransferable license to use the Proprietary Data Base. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the copyright unless terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof. Section 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RESERVATION OF TITLE The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the Proprietary Data Base are the exclusive property of the County and include commercially valuable information which reflect the effort of skilled development experts and required the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has treated such trade secret and Proprietary Data Base as confidential information, which County entrusts to the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all Proprietary Data Base furnished to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights, protection and benefits afforded under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting said Proprietary Data Base, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret information and said copyright. This agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or to any Proprietary Data Base of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited right of use of such Proprietary Data Base, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in any Proprietary Data Base of the County. Section 4 PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Obligations of Confidentiality; Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose, furnish, sell, transfer nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the Proprietary Data Base of the County furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person, firm, entity, or organization, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or (2) any employee of the Entity who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its rights under this agreement. Unless specifically authorized in writing by the County, the Entity shall not copy or otherwise reproduce any Proprietary Data Base of the County. Under no circumstances may the Entity disclose or disseminate any Proprietary Data Base to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the Proprietary Data Base itself and not to any graphic representations or products produced by the Entity while using the Proprietary Data Base. 2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Compatible Data Ba~e Modifications. Unless otherwise explicitly provided in writing by the County, any additions or modifications to the Proprietary Data Base shall be compatible to the preexisting Proprietazy Data Base, including but not limited to the program, data base, documentation, map project reference numbers (Exhibit C) and the symbol dictionary (Exhibit D) provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement. To insure standardization and compatibility with the preexisting Proprietary Data Base, the Entity agrees that any additions and modifications to the Proprietary Data Base shall be approved, in writing, by the County. Requests for additions or modifications to the Map Project Reference Numbers contained in Exhibit C and the Symbol Dictionary contained in Exhibit D shall be directed to and approved by the County Surveyor. Additions and modifications to the Proprietary Data shall be made available to the County for its use and any additions and modifications made by the County will be made available to the Entity for the conduct of its business. Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all Proprietary Data Base be kept in a secure location at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-1687 and maintained in a manner so as to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to Proprietary Data Base protect same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Except for off-site backup, the Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of business or the place of business of any Proprietary Data Base or any copy thereof without the prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity, the Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any use, copying, or disclosure of any Proprietary Data Base by any current or former Entity personnel - or anyone else who may have come in possession of said Proprietary Data Base while the same was in the Entity's possession - in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred. Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting confidentiality of the Proprietary Data Base shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any Proprietary Data Base furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce its copyright and proprietary interests in all Proprietary Data Base. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 6.1 Section 5 TERM, TERMINATION This agreement shall continue for the period of the copyright beginning from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other. The terminaticn of this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such termination, the County shall have the right to take immediate possession of said Proprietary Data Base, and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5) days after the termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the Proprietary Data Base, all copies thereof to the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall destroy all of the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed. It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute. The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant agreement or stipulation of the contract, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the County stipulates thereto in writing. Any such written consent shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right. Section 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The Entity acknowledges and agrees that disclosure or use of any confidential or Proprietary Data Base contained herein could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages. Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which may be available. 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Section 7 MISCELLANEOUS No Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business association between the parties hereto. No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no force and effect. THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE PROPRIETARY DATA BASE ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO, FITNESS, MERCHA/TrABILITY OR THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPRIETARY DATA BASE. THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS THE USE OF THE PROPRIETARY DATA BASE FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages (even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such damage) or loss of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage arising out of performance or failure of performance of this contract by the County. 5 The Entity shall defend, indemnify and hold the County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from (1) all liabilities arising out of performance or failure of performance of this contract by the County of any nature whatsoever, except to the extent any such liability is caused by a negligent or intentional act of the County, and (2) any liability, claim, damages, costs, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Entity, its agents, employees, officers or contractors in the performance of this contract, and (3) all loss by reason of the failure of said Entity to perform in any respect all obligations under this contract. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by either party of the limitations on liability provided in ~ Ch. 466. 7.8 7.9 7.10 Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party address as follows: To The Entity: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator A-2300 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0233 Copy to: Manager, Taxpayer Services A-600 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0060 Copy to: Hennepin County Surveyor A-703 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0073 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas" clause on page one of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference. Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and warranties of the Entity under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.6, 7.7 and 8.3 hereof and the obligations and warranties of the Entity which by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance thereof by the Entity, shall so survive the completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement. 8.1 8.2 8.3 Section 8 FEES Fees for the Proprietary Data Base shall be calculated pursuant to the "Pricing Policy for Products" contained in the County's Administrative Manual, Section P-9. The terms and conditions of payment are contained in Exhibit B and are made a part of this Agreement by reference hereto. The full amount of the fee will be paid to the County no later than twenty (20) days after receipt by the entity of an invoice for the Proprietary Data Base. In the event the Entity and the County enter into a contract subsequent hereto wherein the County furnishes to the Entity additional Proprietary Data Base, whether the same as or different from the Proprietary Data Base described in Exhibit A, the type and/or amount of fee charged hereunder shall in no manner preclude or affect the right of the County to charge the Entity for said additional Proprietary Data Base (at a commercial rate pursuant to the authority of the County). Entity, having signed this contract, and the County having duly approved this contract on , 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to legality form and execution. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date: County Administrator Date: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 By: Title: MAYOR Title: CLERK / CITY MANAGER (Plan A City)-(Plan B City) EXHIBIT A OF AGREEMENT PROPRIETARY DATA BASE PROVIDED TO (THE ENTITY) BY THE COUNTY Response to a list of data base elements requested indicating which data is available from Hennepin County's "MAPS" data base. ULTIMAPS data base extract format and requested data from Hennepin County's "MAPS" data base for segments and/or records requested in Item #1. PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM data base extract formats and requested data for the following data bases to facilitate locating property addresses, and ownership data. a. Current Year Tax data base extract format (PID02). EXHIBIT B OF AGREEMENT PAYMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Pursuant to the Hennepin County Pricing Policy for Products as it relates to Hennepin County Political Subdivision are as follows: ** Personnel Services - base salary + current year overhead rates = $ 42.27 ** Supplies - tape, disk, cartridge, etc. = $ 1.50 - 25.00 ** Current Year Tax Data Base Extract (PID02) = $ 200.00 ** These charges will be adjusted by the County effective on the 1st of each year subsequent to the execution of this contract. 10 EXHIBIT C OF AGREEMENT HENNEPIN COUNTY MAP PROJECT REFERENCE NUMBER USAGE To keep the Property Maps Data Base compatible within the scope of available reference numbers, it is hereby required that the Entity restrict its activity to the range of reference numbers that fall between: 3,146,000,000 - 3,147,999,999 If the Entity is creating data bases for purposes wherein compatibility is not an issue, then the above restriction does not apply. 11 EXHIBIT D OF AGREEMENT HENNEPIN COUNTY MAP PROJECT SYMBOL DICTIONARY To keep the Property Maps Data Base compatible within the dictionary usage of all end users, it is hereby required of the users in the distribution network to: 1. Utilize existing spaces in the Symbol Dictionary from entry number 1600 through number 3200. Numbers 0-1599 will be reserved for future expansion. 2. Coordination of additions or changes within existing symbols with the Hennepin County Surveyors Office Symbol Coordinator. 3. Do not eliminate items from the parent categories of Property, Survey and/or Waterway. If the Entity is creating data bases for purposes wherein compatibility is not an issue then restriction does not apply. 12 Agreement No. CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT GOVERNMENT ENTITY THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN (Department of Property Tax and Public Records - Survey Division), a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "County", and the City of Mound hereinafter referred to as the "Entity". For purposes of this Agreement, the address of the County is A703 Government Center, Minneapolis, MN 55487-0073 and the address of Entity is 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-1687. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the County has developed a proprietary geographical digitized data base which was designed and built to be used in conjunction with "Ultimap", an automated mapping facility software product (which proprietary geographical digitized data base is hereinafter referred to as "Proprietary Data Base" and which is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof ; and WHEREAS, the Entity desires to use the County's Proprietary Data Base the course of conducting the Entity's business; and WHEREAS, the County intends that any additions and modifications to the Proprietary Data Base relating to the County remain wholly compatible with the County's Proprietary Data Base for the period of the copyright and information added to the database by either the County or the Entity shall be made available to either party; and WHEREAS, in acknowledgement of the Entity's above stated purpose, the County is agreeable to provide to the Entity the Proprietary Data Base described in Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, the parties agree that the execution of this Agreement is necessary in order to adequately protect said Proprietary Data Base; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, as well as the obligations herein made and undertaken, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows: Section 1 SCOPE OF AGREEMENT 1.1 This agreement shall apply to the Proprietary Data Base. 2.1 3.1 4.1 Section 2 GRANT OF LIMITED LICENSE The County hereby grants the Entity a non-exclusive and nontransferable license to use the Proprietary Data Base. Said license shall commence on the date of approval of this agreement by the County and shall extend throughout the term of the copyright unless terminated sooner, in accordance with the provisions hereof. Section 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION RESERVATION OF TITLE The Entity acknowledges and agrees that the Proprietary Data Base are the exclusive property of the County and include commercially valuable information which reflect the effort of skilled development experts and required the investment of considerable amounts of time and money, and that the County has treated such trade secret and Proprietary Data Base as confidential information, which County entrusts to the Entity in confidence to use in the conduct of the Entity's business. The Entity agrees that the County owns and reserves all rights, protection and benefits afforded under federal copyright law in all Proprietary Data Base furnished to the Entity as unpublished works, as well as all rights, protection and benefits afforded under any other law relating to confidential and/or trade secret information respecting said Proprietary Data Base, and that the Entity will abide by all relevant laws, rules, regulations and decisions which afford protection to the County for its confidential and trade secret information and said copyright. This agreement does not effect any transfer of title in or to any Proprietary Data Base of the County. The Entity acknowledges that it is granted only a limited right of use of such Proprietary Data Base, which right is not coupled with an interest, and the Entity shall not assert nor cause or cooperate with others to assert any right, title, or interest in any Proprietary Data Base of the County. Section 4 PROTECTION OF PROPRIETARY INFORMATION Obligations of Confidentiality; Limitations of Use. The Entity shall neither disclose, furnish, sell, transfer nor disseminate, in whole or in part, the Proprietary Data Base of the County furnished to the Entity to (1) any other person, firm, entity, or organization, except as expressly authorized hereunder; or (2) any employee of the Entity who does not need to obtain access thereto in connection with the Entity's exercise of its rights under this agreement. Unless specifically authorized in writing by the County, the Entity shall not copy or otherwise reproduce any Proprietary Data Base of the County. Under no circumstances may the Entity disclose or disseminate any Proprietary Data Base to any other public or private entity. The obligations of the Entity to protect confidentiality which are established by this Agreement apply to the Proprietary Data Base itself and not to any graphic representations or products produced by the Entity while using the Proprietary Data Base. 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 Compatible Data Base Modifications. Unless otherwise explicitly provided in writing by the County, any additions or modifications to the Proprietary Data Base shall be compatible to the preexisting Proprietary Data Base, including but not limited to the program, data base, documentation, map project reference numbers (Exhibit C) and the symbol dictionary (Exhibit D) provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement. To insure standardization and compatibility with the preexisting Proprietary Data Base, the Entity agrees that any additions and modifications to the Proprietary Data Base shall be approved, in writing, by the County. Requests for additions or modifications to the Map Project Reference Numbers contained in Exhibit C and the Symbol Dictionary contained in Exhibit D shall be directed to and approved by the County Surveyor. Additions and modifications to the Proprietary Data shall be made available to the County for its use and any additions and modifications made by the County will be made available to the Entity for the conduct of its business. Secure Handling. The Entity shall require that all Proprietary Data Base be kept in a secure location at 5341 Maywood Road, Mound, MN 55364-1687 and maintained in a manner so as to reasonably preclude unauthorized persons from having access thereto. The Entity shall devote its reasonable efforts to ensure that all persons afforded access to Proprietary Data Base protect same against unauthorized use, dissemination or disclosure. Except for off-site backup, the Entity shall not remove or cause or allow to be removed from the Entity's place of business or the place of business of any Proprietary Data Base or any copy thereof without the prior written consent of the County, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Assistance of the Entity. At the request of the County and expense of the Entity, the Entity shall use good faith and reasonable efforts to assist the County in identifying any use, copying, or disclosure of any Proprietary Data Base by any current or former Entity personnel - or anyone else who may have come in possession of said Proprietary Data Base while the same was in the Entity's possession - in any manner that is contrary to the provisions of this Agreement so long as the County shall have provided the Entity with information reasonably justifying the conclusion of the County that such contrary use may have occurred. Survival of Confidentiality Obligations. The Entity's obligations respecting confidentiality of the Proprietary Data Base shall survive termination of this Agreement for any reason and shall remain in effect for as long as the Entity continues to possess or control any Proprietary Data Base furnished by the County. In addition, the County shall remain entitled to enforce its copyright and proprietary interests in all Proprietary Data Base. 5.1 5.1.1 5.1.2 6.1 Section 5 TERM, TERMINATION This agreement shall continue for the period of the copyright beginnir~3 from the date hereof, unless sooner terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days written notice to the other. The terminatic~ of this Agreement shall automatically and without further action by the County terminate and extinguish the license. In the event of any such termination, the County shall have the right to take immediate possession of said Proprietary Data Base, and all copies thereof wherever located, and without demand or notice. Within five (5) days after the termination of this Agreement, the Entity shall return the Proprietary Data Base, all copies thereof to the County, or upon request by the County, the Entity shall destroy all of the same and all copies thereof and certify in writing to the County that the same has been destroyed. It is agreed that any right or remedy provided for herein shall not be considered as the exclusive right or remedy but shall be considered to be in addition to any other right or remedy hereunder or allowed by law, equity or statute. The County's failure to insist upon strict performance of any covenant agreement or stipulation of the contract, or to exercise any right herein contained shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right, unless the County stipulates thereto in writing. Any such written consent shall not constitute a waiver or relinquishment of such covenant, agreement, stipulation or right. Section 6 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF The Entity acknowledges and agrees that disclosure or use of any confidential or Proprietary Data Base contained herein could cause irreparable harm and significant injury to the County, which may be difficult to measure with certainty or to compensate through damages. Accordingly, the Entity agrees that the County may seek and obtain against the Entity and/or any other person or entity injunctive relief against the breach or threatened breach of the foregoing undertakings, in addition to any other equitable or legal remedies which may be available. 4 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.6 7.7 Section 7 MISCELLJ~NEOUS NO Agency. The parties hereto are independent contractors, and nothing herein shall be construed to create an agency, joint venture, partnership or other form of business association between the parties hereto. No Waiver. No delay or omission by either party hereto to exercise any right or power occurring upon any noncompliance or default by the other party with respect to any of the terms of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof unless the same is consented to in writing. A waiver by either of the parties hereto of any of the covenants, conditions, or agreements to be observed by the other shall not be construed to be a waiver of any succeeding breach thereof or of any covenant, condition, or agreement herein contained. All remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be cumulative and in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other remedies available to either party at law, in equity, or otherwise. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties, and there are no understandings or agreements relative hereto other than those that are expressed herein. No change, waiver, or discharge hereof shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the party against whom such change, waiver, or discharge is sought to be enforced. No Assignment. Neither party shall assign, sublet or transfer this Agreement, either in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the other party, and any attempt to do so shall be void and of no force and effect. THE ENTITY AGREES THAT THE COUNTY IS FURNISHING THE PROPRIETARY DATA BASE ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT WHATSOEVER, AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY, INCLUDING BUT NOT IN ANY MANNER LIMITED TO, FITNESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR THE ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE PROPRIETARY DATA BASE. THE COUNTY'S SOLE LIABILITY AND THE ENTITY'S EXCLUSIVE REMEDY FOR ANY SUBSTANTIAL DEFECT WHICH IMPAIRS THE USE OF THE PROPRIETARY DATA BASE FOR THE PURPOSE STATED HEREIN SHALL BE THE RIGHT TO TERMINATE THIS AGREEMENT. In no event shall the County be liable for actual, direct, indirect, special, incidental, consequential damages (even if the County has been advised of the possibility of such damage) or loss of profit, loss of business or any other financial loss or any other damage arising out of performance or failure of performance of this contract by the County. 5 The Entity shall defend, indemnify and hold the County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from (1) all liabilities arising out of performance or failure of performance of this contract by the County of any nature whatsoever, except to the extent any such liability is caused by a negligent or intentional act of the County, and (2) any liability, claim, damages, costs, judgments or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the Entity, its agents, employees, officers or contractors in the performance of this contract, and (3) all loss by reason of the failure of said Entity to perform in any respect all obligations under this contract. Nothing herein shall be deemed a waiver by either party of the limitations on liability provided in ~L~ Ch. 466. 7.8 7.9 7.10 Notice. Any notice or demand shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party address as follows: To The Entity: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 To Hennepin County: Hennepin County Administrator Ao2300 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0233 Copy to: Manager, Taxpayer Services A-600 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0060 Copy to: Hennepin County Surveyor A-703 Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487-0073 Whereas Clauses. The matters set forth in the "Whereas" clause on page one of this Agreement are incorporated into and made a part hereof by this reference. Survival of Provisions. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligations and warranties of the Entity under Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.6, 7.7 and 8.3 hereof and the obligations and warranties of the Entity which by their sense and context are intended to survive the performance thereof by the Entity, shall so survive the completion of performance and termination or cancellation of this Agreement. 6 8.1 8.2 8.3 Section 8 FEES Fees for the Proprietary Data Base shall be calculated pursuant to the "Pricing Policy for Products" contained in the County's Administrative Manual, Section P-9. The terms and conditions of payment are contained in Exhibit B and are made a part of this Agreement by reference hereto. The full amount of the fee will be paid to the County no later than twenty (20) days after receipt by the entity of an invoice for the Proprietary Data Base. In the event the Entity and the County enter into a contract subsequent hereto wherein the County furnishes to the Entity additional Proprietary Data Base, whether the same as or different from the Proprietary Data Base described in Exhibit A, the type and/or amount of fee charged hereunder shall in no manner preclude or affect the right of the County to charge the Entity for said additional Proprietary Data Base (at a commercial rate pursuant to the authority of the County). 7 Entity, having signed this contract, and the County having duly approved this contract on , 19 , and pursuant to such approval and the proper County official having signed this contract, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisions herein set forth. Approved as to legality form and execution. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA Assistant County Attorney Date: County Administrator Date: City of Mound 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364-1687 By: Title: And: MAYOR Title: CLERK / CITY MANAGER (Plan A City)-(Plan B City) EXHIBIT A OF AGREEMENT PROPRIETARY DATA BASE PROVIDED TO (THE ENTITY) BY THE COUNTY Response to a list of data base elements requested indicating which data is available from Hennepin County's "MAPS" data base. ULTIMAPS data base extract format and requested data from Hennepin County's "MAPS" data base for segments and/or records requested in Item #1. PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM data base extract formats and requested data for the following data bases to facilitate locating property addresses, and ownership data. a. Current Year Tax data base extract format (PID02). 9 EXHIBIT B OF AGREEMENT PAYMENT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Pursuant to the Hennepin County Pricing Policy for Products as it relates to Hennepin County Political Subdivision are as follows: ** Personnel Services - base salary + current year overhead rates = $ 42.27 ** Supplies - tape, disk, cartridge, etc. = $ 1.50 - 25.00 ** Current Year Tax Data Base Extract (PID02) = $ 200.00 ** These charges will be adjusted by the County effective on the 1st of each year subsequent to the execution of this contract. 10 EXHIBIT C OF AGREEMENT HENNEPIN COUNTY MAP PROJECT REFERENCE NUMBER USAGE To keep the Property Maps Data Base compatible within the scope of available reference numbers, it is hereby required that the Entity restrict its activity to the range of reference numbers that fall between: 3,146,000,000 - 3,147,999,999 If the Entity is creating data bases for purposes wherein compatibility is not an issue, then the above restriction does not apply. 11 EXHIBIT D OF AGREEMENT HENNEPIN COUNTY MAP PROJECT SYMBOL DICTIONARY TO keep the Property Maps Data Base compatible within the dictionary usage of all end users, it is hereby required of the users in the distribution network to: 1. Utilize existing spaces in the Symbol Dictionary from entry number 1600 through number 3200. Numbers 0-1599 will be reserved for future expansion. 2. Coordination of additions or changes within existing symbols with the Hennepin County Surveyors Office Symbol Coordinator. 3. Do not eliminate items from the parent categories of Property, Survey and/or Waterway. If the Entity is creating data bases for purposes wherein compatibility is not an issue then restriction does not apply. 12 PROPOSED RESOLUTION RESOLUTION TO REGULATE AND LIMIT LAWN SPRINKLING WHEREAS, Section 610:55 of the City Code allows the City to declare a water shortage or water pressure emergency; and WHEREAS, this has been an unusually dry two months and is beginning to put a strain on all the municipal wells and pumps. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Mound, Minnesota, does hereby declare the existence of a water pressure emergency in the City of Mound. The following limitations and regulations shall be begin immediately and continue until notice is given in the city legal publication, The Laker Newspaper. 1. Lawn sprinkling will be allowed on an odd/even system. Even numbered homes on even numbered days are permitted to sprinkle their lawns between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. bo Odd numbered homes on odd numbered days are permitted to sprinkle their lawns between the hours of 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 A.M. AND 8:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. JUN-03-199? 15:20 M ! NNEHAHA CREEK hlATERSHED 6124710682 P, 04$04 June 3, 1997 Page 3 government agencies, developers and environmental conservation organizations. We invite your city to name a representative to this task force. The first meeting of the task force will be June 24, 1997 at Gray Freshwater Center at 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Meanwhile, please do not hesitate to contact me or any &the members &our Board of Managers, or our new District Administrator, Diane Lynch, to discuss these issues. Your involvement is necessary to a successful outcome. Very truly yours, John E. Thomas, President MCWD Board of Managers cc: City Administrator/Manager Public Works Director TOTAL P. 04 MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT THIS .LAST THIS'YEAR LAST ~_R S>--_6 OF MAY 1997 MON%~I MON/]{ TO DATE TO DA/E ~0. ,OF C.-~LLS 73 62 287 345 ~OUND FIRE 16 18 67 81 E~RGE~ 23 22 76 126 >fl .~'NETONKA BEACH FIRE O 0 5 3 EMERGEN~ 0 0 0 5 X~XNET.~ISTA ~IRE 6 3 20 27 $RONO FIRE 3 4 17 33 K~fERGENChf 2 0 7 10 SHOREWOOD FIRE 0 1 1 O EMERGENCY 0 0 1 3 FIRE 5 2 8 11 3?R!~;G PARK .... I~."~GE~L-"f 12 4 36 30 FIRE 3 0 5 3 >',U?UAL AiD ., ]~MERGENCY O 0 1 1 TOTAL FIRE CALLS 33 28 123 158 TOTAL EMERGENCY CALLS 40 34 164 187 CO~fIiRCI AL 0 1 1 7 ?gSI DENT!AL 2 4 20 21 LhrDU S2Tci'AL 0 0 0 1 ~RASS & MISCELLANEOUS 19 15 47 52 AUTO 0 2 3 10 F.~i~SE ALARM / FIRE ALAR~ 11 6 48 65 hq. OF H(TJRS ,FIRE 325 431 1554 1867 - MOUND '.~MERGEAL'Y 451 442 1910 2560 T~ 776 873 3464 4427 FIRE 0 O 82 55 - MTKA BEACH E~{FRGENCY 0 0 0 1OO TOTAL 0 0 82 155 .F, IRE 103 49 539 545 ~ ' TRI STA ~I.fERGENCY 51 186 498 243 TOTAL 154 235 1037 788 FIRE 54 240 540 720 - ORONO ~I~ERGENCY 45 0 115 213 TO~AL 99 240 565 '933 FIRE O 21 21 O SHOREWOOD FMERGENCY 0 0 21 68 .TOTAL 0 21 42 68 SP. PARK .~GENCY 246 83 668 652 TOTAL 372 123 847 839 FIRE 124 0 184 76 - I~3qUkL AiD EMERG]~CY 0 0 20 27 TOT3%L 124 0 204 103 YOTAL DRILL HOURS 170 167.5 857.5 857.5 TOTAL FIRE HOURS 732 781 3099 3450 YOTAL EMERGENCY HOURS 793 711 3232 3863 --~L~ ~L FIRE & E~ERGENCY HOURS 1525 1492 6331. 7313 ~UTUAL AID RE.CEIVED 0 1 3 0 >~UTUAL AID GIVZN 3 0 6 4 MOUND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT MOUND, MINNESOTA FOR MONTH OF MAY lg97 FIRE FIGHTERS DRILLS & MAINTENANCE FIRE & RESCUE 5/12 5/19 ~ H[LRS HI_RS PAlE _'iF= -' !,~P S~I' X X % 19,00 5 52 6.50 338.00 2 q~,EG ~'.in~qaN X X 2 19.00 5 5~ 6.50 364,~ > PAlq. ~ X X 2 19.00 5.5 57 6.50 370.50 >AV~O ~,~ X X · 2 19.00 9 32 6.50 208.~ ~ SCOTT ~Rvc~ X X 2 19.00 22 38 6.50 247. 6 JIM C.~ X X 2 19.00 1 32 6.50 208.~ 7 ST~ COLLINS X X 2 19.00 3 34 6.50 221. S ~0B CLqI'~ORD X X 2 19.00 4 56 6.50 364.00 ~ P_kh~Y EqG~T X X 2 19.00 21 34 6.50 221. O0 _0 STEi~ ERICKSON X X 2 19.00 0 52 7.00 364.00 . ~ ~,.~ 'GIDDY X X 2 19.00 4 49 6.50 318.50 '.2 XEVIN G~Y X 1 0.50 ~ ~q 6.50 P~. l] XPfTC~ CYTqT~.:SON X X 2 19.O0 O 34 6.50 I 22] i~ CP!IG ~ER~n~ X ~E~ 1 9.50 3 43 6, 279.50 15 PAm. ~Y X X 2 19.00 1 ~2 6.50 208.00 16 ~3_~ ~GR~ X X 2 19.00 4.~ 49 ~, 50 318.50 !7 R~ ~Y~ X X 2 19.00 4 43 6,)0 279.50 16 ~0~ h~iSON X ~ 2 19.00 3 52 6.50 338. 19 J.~0N ~'~tS X ~ 1 9.50 2 36 6.50 234.00 !0 JO~: ~S X~ 1 9.50 2.5 32 6.50 208.00 l! f.C'~S ~SON X X 2 19.00 2 43 6.50 279.50 !2 B~ ~CCN~ X X 2 19.00 5 40 6.50 260.~ '~ G~G P.~ X X 2 19.00 0 43 279.50 '~ 6.50 14 H!i~ P}~I X X 2 19.00 6 58 6.50 377.~ l~ ~llI P~ X X 2 19.OO ~,5 ~7 6.50 ~ 240.50 !6 G~G PEDE~ON X' X 2 19.00 0 42 6. ~ 283.50 17 EllIS PO~ X X 2 19.OO 4 ~3 6.50 ~27q.50 28 TO~ ~SS~: X X 2 19.00 2 22 6.50 143.00 19 RIC~ R~S X X 2 19.00 5 5~ 6.50 ~4.50 30 iiI~ SAVAGE X X 2 19.00 7 52 6.50 338.~ 31 K~IN SIPPR~L X 1 9.50 3 13 6.50 84.50 32 RON S%~ X X 2 . 19.00 5.5 29 6.50 188.50 }3 BRUCE SVOBODA X X 2 ~9.00 2 39 6.50 253.50 34 ED V.~C~ X X 2 19.00 5 40 6.50 260.~ }5 RICK ~'~I~ X X 2 19.00 .2.5 44 6.50 286.00 36 r!H UILLI.~.{S X E] 1 9.50 3 39 6.50 253.50 37 D~P~S wO~ X~ 2 19.00 5 36 6.50 234.00 87. ~ ~ 9,949.00 ~ 5 82.5 170 646.00 174 1525 170 ~nR~ 646.00 174 ~ 1,167.00 ~ 11,762. O0 TO: FROM: RE: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER GINO BUSlNARO, FINANCE DIRECTOR MAY FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPORT Investment Activity Balance: May 1, 1997 $3,322,149 Bought: Money Market 4M Plus 2,194 Money Market 4M 325 Money Market First Bank 90,008 Money Market Norwest Bank 372 Money Market Smith Barney t25,000 CP Smith Barney 428,194 CP Smith Barney 551,914 Matured: CP Smith Barney (246,731) CP Smith Barney (576,277) Balance: May 31, 1997 $3,697,148 Financial Reports On May 13 the City Council accepted the 1996 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the independent auditor's unqualified opinion. As a follow up to that publication, Finance was required to: - prepare data to be published in the local newspaper. - compile forms to be sent to the Government Finance Officers Association for their review as part of the program of Excellence in Financial Reporting. - Complete an extensive report to be used by the State Auditor Office and other state agencies. - send to the State Auditor Office detail data on the Commerce Place tax increment financing district. Sump Pumps Joyce and I are working with Visu-Sewer, the City Manager and the water department on the sump pumps project. In addition to keeping track of the cost, the two of us are helping with the process of sending notifications and collecting data. Joyce assists also when people call with questions. 1997 Legislative session I am sure that you followed the news coming from St. Paul. The tax bill, as signed by the Governor, will have significant impact on the City. The levy limits will have implications on our ability to levy taxes next year. The tax rates changes and classification consolidation will cause some shifting on how much property owners will pay. City of Mound Monthly Report Utilities Month of: May 1997 Residential Commercial 06/05/97 Utility-97 Total No. of Customers: Water Sewer Water Used: (in 1,000 gallons) Billing: Water Sewer Recycle Total 1,152 1,151 16,277 $27,321 $57,786 $5,278 $90,385 126 126 3,439 $6,462 $17,111 $106 $23,679 1,278 . 1,277 19,716 $33,783 $74,897 $5,384 $114,064 Payments: Water Sewer Recycle Total $27,302 $57,952 $5,213 $90,467 $4,392 $13,O45 $82 $17,519 $31,694 $70,997 $5,295 $107,986 CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 June 3, 1997 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL AND CITY MANAGER JOEL KRUMM, LIQUOR STOP~ MANAGER MAY 1997 MONTHLY REPORT Weatherwise, May was a very cold month, with temperatures nearing the 70° mark seldomly. The only exception was the last weekend in May when we finally reached the 80° mark. This introduction may lead you to assume that sales were not very good. Quite the opposite occurred however. Gross sales totaled $159,675. Customers were 10,733. Last year in May customers totaled 10,196 and sales were $144,807! Why this strange aberration happened, I don't know, but we will take it. We must be doing something right. What really amazes me is the accuracy of my clerks before the Memorial weekend holiday. Fro m Thursday through Saturday we had $30,000 in sales. For those three days we were collectively over by only 87C. I must applaud them for their excellent job. JK:tf printed on recycled paper LEN HARRELL Chief of Police MOUND POLIC 5341 Maywood Road Mound, MN 55364 Telephone 472-0621 Dispatch 525-6210 Fax 472-0656 EMERGENCY 911 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Ed Shukle Chief Len Harrell Monthly Report for May 1997 The police department responded to 1,047 calls for service during the month of May. There were 19 Part I offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 burglaries, 1 aggravated assault, 14 larcenies, 1 vehicle theft, and 1 arson. There were 73 Part II offenses reported. Those offenses included 2 child abuse/neglect, 2 weapons, 2 narcotics, 6 damage to property, 1 liquor law violation, 7 DUI's, 3 simple assaults, 15 domestics (6 with assaults), 6 harassment's, 11 juvenile status offenses, and 18 other offenses. The patrol division issued 121 adult citations and 4 juvenile citations. Parking violations accounted for an additional 34 tickets. Warnings were issued to 72 individuals for a variety of violations. There were 2 adults arrested and 3 juveniles arrested for felonies. There were 27 adults and 12 juveniles arrested for misdemeanors. There were an additional 7 warrant arrests. The department assisted in 11 vehicle accidents, 3 with injuries. There were 27 medical emergencies and 48 animal complaints. Mound assisted other agencies on 10 occasions in May and requested assistance 10 times. Property valued at $5,451 was stolen in May. MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT - MAY 1997 II. III. INVESTIGATIONS The investigators worked on 2 child protection, 1 adult protection, and 1 criminal sexual conduct case in May. Other cases investigated included robbery, burglary, assault, theft, forgery, possession of stolen property, harassing communications, hazardous material dumping, tax evasion, and absenting. Formal complaints were issued for assault, malicious discipline of a child, failure to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk, resisting arrest, felony controlled substance, obstructing justice, hit and run accident, evading taxes, no insurance, DWI, driving after cancellation, false information to police, and tampering with a motor vehicle. Personnel/Staffine The department used approximately 98 hours of overtime during the month of May. Officers used 110 hours of comp-time, 91 hours of vacation, 84 hours of sick time, and 12 holidays. Officers earned 86 hours of comp-time. Reserve Dan Monsrud was hired for the summer to fill an opening for CSO while James Packard attends skills in Alexandria. IV. ~ All police personnel attended 8 hours of community policing and problem- solving training in May. Other courses included emergency driving skills, commercial vehicle investigation, narcotics task force coordinator, defensive tactics/dynamic entry's, juvenile conferencing, and leadership training. IV. COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICERS Officer Packard and Monsrud addressed 18 animal complaints, ordinance violations, and 132 miscellaneous calls for services. The reserves donated 152 hours during the month of May. 30 MOLrN-D POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 1997 OFFENSES CLEARED EXCEPT- CLEARED BY ARRESTED REPORTED UNFOUNDED CLEARED ARREST ADULT JUV PART I CRIMES Homicide Criminal Sexual Conduct Robbery Aggravated Assault Burglary Larceny Vehicle Theft Arson 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 14 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 TOTAL PART II CRIMES 19 1 0 4 2 3 Child Abuse/Neglect 2 0 0 1 1 Forgery/NSF Checks 0 0 0 0 0 Criminal Damage to Property 6 0 3 0 1 Weapons 2 0 2 0 0 Narcotic Laws 2 0 0 2 2 Liquor Laws 1 0 0 1 0 DWI 7 0 0 7 7 Simple Assault 3 0 1 1 0 Domestic Assault 6 0 2 4 4 Domestic (No Assault) 9 0 0 0 0 Harassment 6 0 2 0 0 Juvenile Status Offenses 11 1 2 7 0 Public Peace 1 0 0 1 1 Trespassing 0 0 0 0 0 All Other Offenses 17 0 0 11 11 TOTAL 73 1 12 35 27 12 PART II & PART IV Property Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Medicals Animal Complaints Mutual Aid Other General Investigations 8 3 0 27 48 10 828 TOTAL 924 HCCP Inspections 3 28 TOTAL 1,047 12 39 29 15 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT CRIME ACTIVITY REPORT MAY 1996 GENERAL ACTIVITY SUMMARY Hazardous Citations Non-Hazardous Citations Hazardous Warnings Non-Hazardous Warnings Verbal Warnings Parking Citations DWI Over .10 Propety Damage Accidents Personal Injury Accidents Fatal Accidents Adult Felony Arrests Adult Misdemeanor Arrests Juvenile Felony Arrests Juvenile Misdemeanor Arrests Part I Offenses Part II Offenses Medicals Animal Complaints Ordinance Violations Other Public Contacts THIS MONTH 53 59 2 52 67 34 7 6 8 3 0 4 31 3 13 19 73 27 48 28 828 YEAR TO DATE 444 365 105 359 338 361 42 34 4O 17 0 17 188 10 49 85 327 127 264 120 3,450 LAST YEAR TO DATE 299 229 100 267 337 352 17 13 31 8 0 20 119 31 72 117 283 166 159 86 3,312 TOTAL Assists Follow-Ups HCCP Mutual Aid Given Mutal Aid Requested 1,365 7O 30 3 10 10 6,742 322 196 15 51 44 6,018 356 169 29 78 61 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 1997 DWI More Than .10% BAC Careless/Reckless Driving Driving After Susp. or Rev. Open Bottle Speeding No DL or Expired DL Restriction on DL Improper, Expired or No Plates Stop Arm Violations Stop Sign Violations Failure to Yield Equipment Violations H&R Leaving the Scene No Insurance Illegal or Unsafe Turn Over the Centerline Parking Violations Crosswalk Dog Ordinances Code Enforcement Seat Belt Overweight Vehicles Miscellaneous Tags TOTAL ADULT 7 5 1 5 1 40 3 0 24 1 5 1 1 0 8 0 0 34 2 2 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT MAY 1997 Insurance Traffic Equipment Crosswalk Animals Trash/Derelict Autos Seat Belt Trespassing Window Tint Miscellaneous TOTAL WA=RPJkNT ARRESTS Felony Misdemeanor 23 14 17 0 0 4 0 0 1 10 69 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run: 2-Jun-97 9:10 PRO03 Primary I~N'~ only: No range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 y codes: Ail Property Status: All Property Types: All Property Descs: All Brands: All Models: All Officers/Badges: All Prop Prop Inc no ISN Pr Prop Date Rptd Stolen Tp Desc SN Stat Stolen Value B Prop type Totals: E Prop type Totals J Prop type Totals S Prop type Totals: W Prop type Totals: Y Prop type Totals: Totals: 88O 3 1,600 1,275 1,500 193 5,451 MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Property Report STOLEN/RECOVERED BY DATE REPORTED Page Date Recov~d Recov'd Value Quantity Act Brand Model Off-1 0ff-2 Code Assnd Assnd 3.000 1.000 1.000 3.000 1.000 4.000 13.000 tun: 2-Jun-97 8:41 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: NO )ate Reported range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 ~ime range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Of(icers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ~CTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE N-~q~BER OF INCIDENTS Page SPEEDING J-SPEEDING NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L J-NO D/L, EXPIRED D/L OPEN BOTTLE STOP SIGN FAILURE TO YIELD EQUIPMENT VIOLATION CARELESS/RECKLESS CROSSWALK VIOLATION STOP ARM VIOLATION ALL OTHER TRAFFIC NO SEATBELT J-NO SEATBELT PARKING/ALL OTHER NO TRAILER PARKING DAS/DAR/DAC PLATES/NO-IMPROPER-EXPIRED NO INSLrR/LNCE/PROOF OF OVERWEIGHT VEHICLE CHANGE OF DOMICILE LOST PERSONS 40 1 3 2 1 5 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 28 6 5 24 8 9 1 1 Run: 2~Jun-97 8:41 CFS08 Primary ISN's 0nly: No range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 HOW Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enf0rs Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NL~4BER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 9309 9310 9312 9313 9314 9315 9430 9450 9451 9561 9566 9710 9730 9732 9800 9801 9900 9904 FOUND/RUNAWAY FORFEITURES FOUND ANIMAJ~S/IMPOUNDS FOUND PROPERTY FOUND VEHICLES/IMPOUNDED UNCLJ%IME DESTROYED ANISt~LS DERELICT AUTO PERSONAL INJLrRY ACCIDENTS PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENTS H/R PROPERTY DAMAGE ACC. DOG BITE ANIMAL ENFORCEMENT TICKETS MEDICAL/ASU MEDICALS MEDICALS/CI ALL OTHER/UNCLASSIFIED DOMESTIC/NO ASSAULT ALL HCCP CASES OPEN DOOR/ALARMS SERVICES BY OFFICERS INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT HANDGUN APPLICATION 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 3 6 2 1 2 I 25 1 6 9 3 4 1 4 3 9920 9930 Page 2-Jun-97 8:41 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No ~ate Reported range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 'ime range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All .CTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION UNWANTED GUEST SUSPICIOUS PERSON INFO/INT WARRANTS MISC. VIOLATIONS MUq73AL AID/8100 MUTUAL AID/6500 MUTUAL AID/ ALL OTHER MUTUAL AID/NARCOTICS ASLT 2 FEAR BODILY HARM-POS FRRM-CHLD-FAM ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-H3dgDS-ADULT-STR ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-H~gDS-CHLD-ACQ ASLT 5-THRT BODILY F~5~RM-NO WEAP-ADLT-ACQ DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-AC DOM ASLT-MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HArDS-ADLT-ACQ BURG 3-UNOCC RES FRC-U-UNK WEAP-COM THEFT BURG 4-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK NEGLIGENT FIRE-MS-OT PROP-299 LESS MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE NUMBER OF INCIDENTS 1 v/ 2 2 7 2 6 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Page Run: 2-Jun-97 8:41 CFS08 Primary I§N's only~ No range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 HOW Received: All Activity Resulted: Ail Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDEN~ ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE ACTIVITY CODE NIfMBER OF DESCRIPTION INCIDENTS 13060 J2501 J2701 J2E01 J2R01 J3501 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD TRAFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-LrNK INJ-LrNK VEH TRAFFIC-GM-AGG DUI-UNK INJ-MV TRAF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO Sb~MIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV TRAFF-ACCID-MS-DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-LrNK INJ-MV TRAFFIC MS-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFEN~DER JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO JUVENILE-CURFEW JUVENILE-RUNAWAY DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CON-DUCT DISTURB PEACE-MS-H~-RRASSING COM~ICATIONS PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP D;G~AGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT STLN PROP-GM-POSSESS-OTHER PROP-250-500 THEFT-UNK LVL VAL-FRM CABLE COMM SYS-SERVICES THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP 2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP 2 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 4 6 1 6 1 5 1 1 1 2 2 1 J3R01 M3001 M3005 M5313 M5350 N3030 N3190 P2110 P3110 Q2294 T0142 TC029 TG059 TG099 Page 4 Run: 2-Jun-97 8:41 CFS08 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 How Received: All Activity Resulted: All Dispositions: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All Patrol Areas: All Days of the week: All ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION U0550 U1493 U3060 U3288 U3498 U3499 VE081 W3150 W3980 X2080 X2200 X3200 Y3230 FRAUD-UNK-FIN-TRAN-CARD-NO-CONSENT-UNK-LOSS THEFT-FE~BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-501-2500 THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-UNK THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO-MOTOR-35000-OR-MORE VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER-Al/IX) WEAPONS-MS-DISCHARGE-EXPLOS-INCED-NO CHAR WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CH/kR CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-GM-OBST LEGAL PROCESS CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-MS-GIVE FLSE NAM POL CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH **** Report Totals: MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Calls For Service INCIDENT ANALYSIS BY ACTIVITY CODE N-~ER OF INCIDENTS 334 Page Run: 2-Jun-97 8:52 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: NO lep range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Repor~ OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 1 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED - - - ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JI~;ENILE BY EX- ~ PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED A2414 A5353 A5355 AL351 AL352 AL551 AL552 B4890 DA540 DC500 F?005 13060 J2501 J2E01 J2R01 J3501 J3E01 J3R01 M3001 M5313 M5350 ASLT 2-FEAR BODILY HARM-POS FRRM-CI~LD-FAM 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-HANDS-ADULT-STR 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 100.0 ASLT 5-MS-INFLICT BD HRM-RAN-DS-CHLD-ACQ 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 DOM ASLT-MS-INFLT BODILY HARM-~JLNDS-AD-FAM 3 0 3 0 1 0 2 3 100.0 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-INFLT BODLY HRM-HNDS-ADLT-AC 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 DOM ASLT MS-FEAR BODILY HARM-HANDS-AD-FAM 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 ASLT-DOMESTIC-MS-THRT BODLY-HRM-HNDS-ADLT-ACQ 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 BURG 3-UNOCCRES FRC U-UNK WEAP COM THEFT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 BURG 4-UNOCC NRES NO FRC-U-UNK WEAP-UNK ACT 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 DRUGS-SM AMT IN MOT VEH-POSS-MARIJ-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 DRUGS-DRUG PARAPH-POSSESS-UNK-UNK 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100 . 0 NEGLIGENT FIRE-MS-OT PROP-299 LESS 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 CRIM AGNST FAM-MS-NEGLECT OF A CHILD 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 50.0 TP~AFF-GM-DUI LIQUOR-UNK INJ-UNK VEH 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 100 . 0 TP~AF-ACC-GM-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAFF-GM-FAIL TO SUBMIT TO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 TRAFF-ACCID-MS~DRIVE UNDER INFLUENCE 5 0 5 0 5 0 0 5 100.0 TRAF-ACC-MS-AL 10 MORE-UNK INJ+MV 4 0 4 0 4 0 0 4 100.0 TRAFFIC-MS-FAIL TO SUBMITTO TEST-UNK INJ-MV 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 100.0 JUVENILE-ALCOHOL OFFENDER 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100 . 0 JUVENILE-USE OF TOBACCO 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 100.0 JUVENILE-CURFEW 4 0 4 0 0 4 0 4 100 . 0 JUVEN I LE - RUNAWAY 6 1 5 1 0 2 2 4 80 . 0 Run: 2-Jun-97 8:52 OFF01 Primary ISN's only: No Date Reported range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 Time range each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All ACT ACTIVITY CODE DESCRIPTION N3030 N3190 P2110 P3110 Q2294 T0142 TC029 TC159 TG059 TG099 U0550 U1493 U3060 U3288 U3498 U3499 VE081 W3150 W3980 X2080 X2200 X3200 DISTURB PEACE-MS-DISORDERLY CONDUCT DISTURB PEACE-MS-HARRASSING COMMUNICATIONS PROP DAMAGE-GM-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT PROP DAMAGE-MS-PRIVATE-UNK INTENT STLN PROP-GM-POSSESS-OTHER PROP-250-500 THEFT UNK LVL VAL-FRM CABLE COMM SYS-SERVICES THEFT-501-2500-FE-BUILDING-OTH PROP THEFT 501-2500-FE-MOTOR VEH-OTH PROP THEFT~LESS 200-MS-YARDS-OTHR PROP THEFT-LESS 200-MS-SELF SRV GAS-OTH PROP FRAUD-UNK-FIN-TPJIN-CARD-NO-CONSENT-UNK-LOSS THEFT-FE-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-501-2500 THEFT-MS-BY SWINDLE OR TRICK-UNK THEFT-MS-SHOPLIFTING-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO MOTOR-200 OR LESS THEFT-MS-BICYCLE-NO-MOTOR-35000-OR-MORE VEH-200 OR LESS-MS-TAMPER-AUTO WEAPONS-MS-DISCHARGE-EXPLOS-INCED-NO CHAR WEAPONS-MS-OTHER ACT-FIREWORKS-NO CHAR CRIM AGNST ADMN JUST-GM-OBST LEGAL PROCESS CRIM AGNST ADM JUST-GM-GIVE FLSE NAM-POL CRIM AGNST ADM J/3ST-MS-GIVE FLSE NAM POL MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enfors Offense Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING 1 0 1 0 6 0 6 4 1 0 1 0 5 0 5 3 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 i 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 Page 2 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- ~ PERCENT ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED 1 0 0 1 100 . 0 0 0 2 2 33 .3 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 0 2 2 40.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 1 0 1 100.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0.0 1 0 0 1 100.0 0 0 1 1 100.0 0 0 1 1 100.0 1 0 0 1 100 ~ 1 0 0 1 100.~ 2 0 0 2 100.0 Run: 2-Jun-97 8:52 OFF01 Primary ISN'S 0nly: NO range: 04/26/97 - 05/25/97 each day: 00:00 - 23:59 Dispositions: All Activity codes: All Officers/Badges: All Grids: All MOUND POLICE DEPARTMENT Enform 0ffenme Report OFFENSE ACTIVITY DISPOSITIONS Page 3 ..... OFFENSES CLEARED . ACT ACTIVITY OFFENSES UN- ACTUAL ADULT JUVENILE BY EX- ~ PERCENT CODE DESCRIPTION REPORTED FOUNDED OFFENSES PENDING ARREST ARREST CEPTION TOTAL CLEARED Y3230 CRIM AGNST GOVN-MS-ESCAPE TAX-MTR VEH 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.0 **** Report Totals: 77 2 75 24 27 12 12 51 68.0 CITY 0 F MOUN-D 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOU ND,-MI NN ES'O-T-A 553'64 -~68-7- (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 June 6, 1997 May Activity Repo~-t Public Works Street Department The first half of the month we finished sweeping street. From that we did water main break patches. Kamida Construction completed the concrete repairs for sidewalks and curbing. We have started patching for the sealcoating project. We will have Allied start the week of July bJate~- Department We Flushed fire hydrants this month. We will be replacing 2 hydrants that were found to be broken. We have been going street by street this [nonth to locate, measure water shut- off's, and checking the operation of the shut-off. Sewer Department Lift station wet-wells were cleaned and panel checks were done. We have started to clean sewer, storm sewer lines and catch basins. This will go on until the end of September. printed on recycled paper CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-168' (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM TO: .MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL PARKS; The month of May is always very busy, we are constantly trying to keep up with the mowing. The summer staff that are college students have not started work yet and we are relying on just two seasonal fulltime empolyees to do the needed maintenance and mow. The weather cooperated with us by being cold and dry so the grass and dandelions are slow growing. I have had a number of calls relating to if the city is going to spray the parks for dandelions. This was taken out off the budget about ten years ago due to the cost. I am looking into the cost at this time to see if it is feasible for 1998. We had Mound Bay Park ready for Memorial Day, extra sand was brought in to replace the beach sand lost to run off. The beach takes quit a rush of water due to rain storms because there is no curb in the parking area near the depot to direct the water to the gutter. CEMETERY; The cemetery was also groomed for the holiday week end. The park staff has to assist the caretaker to do this because of the winter burials do allot of damage to the grounds. It looked very nice for the ceremony the VFW and the American Legion does. TREE REMOVAL; There were five hazardous trees removed and one tree trimmed of hazardous branches from city property. (~ printed on recycled paper DOCKS; The docks continue to be in great demand, allot of calls are received with residents looking to gain a site. We had to turn away about forty applicants that applied over the winter. The dock inspector has been busy locating sites for those who did get a site and helping with requests from current site holders. CITY OF MOUND 5341 MAYWOOD ROAD MOUND, MINNESOTA 55364-1687 (612) 472-0600 FAX (612) 472-0620 MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 6, 1997 City Manager, Members of the City Council and Staff Jon Sutherland, Building Official ~,, MAY 1997 MONTHLY REPORT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY There were 51 building permits issued in May for a construction value of $459,322. This included two new dwellings, We issued 31 plumbing, mechanical, and miscellanous permits for a total of 82 this month, and 280 permits year-to-date. Total valuation now stands at $2,240,818. PLANNING & ZONING The Planning Commission reviewed and sent on six zoning cases to the City Council in May including four variances, one minor subdivision/variance, and two PDA's (Maple Manors and Seton Bluff). COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER (CSO) ACTIVITY Both of our CSO's hired last June have now moved on and the Police Chief has promoted one of our police reserves, Officer Dan Monsrude to fill the vacated positions. We look forward to seeing Dan in the new CSO van! The new van should give our Community Service Officers a slightly higher profile throughout the community. We are grateful for the support from the manager and council for the community service officer positions, they have proven effective in responding to citizens concerns and the related city code enforcement. CSO James Packard has spent some time showing Dan the ropes, and we hope to have him up to speed as soon as possible. We welcome Dan to our city staff and look forward to working together. 1s printed on recycled paper BUILDING ACTWITY REPORT Month: HAX Yeari,, 1997 _, I rllU MONTH YEAR TO DATE n,SiUENT,AL NEW CONEI'hUCI[IU~I I PERMITS I UNITS VALUATION I UNIT8 VALUATION glNOLE FAMIKY DETACIIED ,2 2 289 TWO FAmILy I DUPLEX ' I~TOTA~ 22 9 .1~, 6.95?699 CC:~:~:~Cllt (HETAIL~ESTAU~AN P[flMITS VAkUATION AUDITIONS TO PmNCIPAL BUILDING [0 ' ... ~'::.: ... :.:. .... 55,301 16 196 p 565 VALUATION CO~ERCIAL IRETAILmESTAUnANTI , ~/::~:?;;:!':::== [ '100 DETACHED ACCEggO~Y BUILDING~ : ' ~' s .~.~: DEMWT~O~ I PEflMIT9 I UNITS VALUATION I PERMIT8 VALUATION NESIUENTIAL DWELLINO~ TOTAL ow~mONI ~ PERMITS I UNITS VALUATION I UNITS VALUATION ~ PERMI1~ 9 TOTAL ~1 2 459,322 ~ 2~700,1~0 PF31MIT COUNT THIS MONTH YEAR-TO-DATE ' BUILDING 51 14 9-- FENCES & RETAINING WALLS ~ ]. 1 PLUMBING 9 .5 2 MECHANICAL 12 /~ 7 ; ORADING 00 S&W, STREET EXCAV., FIRE, ETC. 5 12 TOTAL ' R ? 9 fl q -" 0Gt04f1997 10:18 G12--4724435 t0M REESE PAGE 01 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2f~0 ..~HADYWOOD ROAD, SuI'r~ lg. EXCELSIOR, MINNE-qOTA 5533! · TELEPHONE BlZ/475-SSan · FAX 6121471-0632 Qregory S, Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas G. Babcock Chair, Tonka 8ay Tom Raesa Vice Chair, Mound BM Foster Secretary, Deephaven Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kate! Dahlen Minnetonks Beach Tom Gilman Excelsior Gretchen Maglich Minnetonka Eugene Partyka Mlnnetriats Robert Ras¢op Shorewood Herb J. Sue~h Woocilan(I Sheldon wart Greenwoo(I Oreo Victoria TO: MOUND CITY COUNCIL DATE: JUNE 4,199q FROM: TOM REESE, LMCD REPRESENTATIVE SUBJECT: MAY REPORT- LMCD 1.0 General Items. 1.1 Sheldon Wen has been named to replace Joe Zwak as the Greenwood representative, Bob Ambrose is the new Wayzata representative. Victoria and Orono have no named representative at this time. 1.2 A significant upgrade on the material carried on the District Web site is in the process. This has largely been the work of the new executive director, working with the DNR. Web site address is: www.w i ntemet, com/-.,I mcd/ 1.3 The annual directors' tour of the lake is scheduled for June 7th. 2.0 Exotic Species Task Force. 2. I The 1997 harvesting season is slated to commence June 16. 2.2 The boat washing program is up and running. The operator from last year has returned. [mdal washing which was minimal, was done in connection with the Denny Green Bass Tournament. 3.0 Water Structures 3.1 No significant activity. 4.0 Lake Use, 4.1 No significant items. $.0 Mound Specific Items 5.1 The issue of lighted bouys in the Lost Lake development was extensively discussed. This Watershed District request is very unusual. No such commercial bouys seem to exist, and none have ever been requested of the LMCD. The District authorized the placement of sufficient standard /~/anger bouxs to protect the wetland area and directed staff to write a letter ~/' Mound Representative- LMCD lc. Greg Nybeck, Doug Babcock Web Page Address: http://www.wtnternetcom/-tmcd/ E-mall Address: Irncd@winternetcom MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: John Dean, City Attorney Floyd B. Olson, Of Counsel May 27, 1997 Council Procedure, Cit7 of Mound You l~ve asked that I review certain procedures and actions token by the Mound City Council at its recent meeting in connection with its public dock program. You have informed me that after considerable debate over a resolution to purchase an additional dock for inclusion into the program, one of the council members moved the previous question. I understand that the motion preys.lied on a 3-2 vote and that no point of order was raised. A vote was then taken on the resolution, which prevailed on a 3-2 vote. Some time the following date, the issue was raised as to whether Roberts Rules were complied with. On these facts you raise two questions. First, is the requiremem in Robert's Rules a two- thirds vote on a motion calling the previous question applicable to this circumstance? Second, if it is applicable, what are the consequences of a breach in the procedure? 1. By way of background, it is clear that under Robert's Rules of Ord., Newly Revised (gth Ed.) a motion calling for the previous quest/on requ/res a second, is not debatable or amendable, requires a two-thirds vote, and can be reconsidered only before any vote was taken under it. See Robert's Rules of Order, p.23 (Table of Rules Relating to Motions). The i~ue raised is whether the two-thirds voting requirement or some other voting requirement applies. You should note that Section 155:10, Sub& 2 provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute or _~ these rules, the proceedings of the Council shall be conducted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Or&r, Revised." Thus, the Mound City Code provides for smunory or rule provisions to override inconsistent rules of order in Robert's Rules, of Order. Section 155:20, Subd. 3 specifically addresses voting requirements at Council meetings. Subdivision 3 calls for a majority vote on all ordinances unless statutory, requirements are greater (e.g., comprehensive plan amendments, zoning). Subdivision 3 further provides that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by statute, a rn~jority vote of a quorum shall prevail in all other cases." Reading these sections, together it seems to be the clear intent of the Mound City Code that extraordinary vote~, unless established by statute, are not applicable to voting procedures of the City Council. Thus, in the present circumstances a majority vote of the quorum was all that was required. 2. ~ing a contrary, conclusion -- that the two-thirds voting requirement of Robert's Rules of Order applies - the question raised is what effect a breach in procedure would have on r. he validit7 of the resolution. The ap..swers under R. obcrt's Rules of Order is none. Under Robert's Rules of Order, "[i]f a question of order is to bc raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs." Icl., at page 250. If not, it is too late. The only exception to this rule involves breaches of a continuing nature; a~ in the ca.se of statutory ordinance violations or some "fundamental principles of parliamentary law, so that the action proposed ... would be null and void even if [it] were adopted." Icl. at page 251. Here, even assuming a breach of Robert's Rules of Order occurred, only a majority vote v-as required on the resolution which would not have otherwise been invalid. The clear intent of the City Code, however, is that the procedure established by ordinance should prevail over inconsistent requirements of Robert's Rules of Order. FB0123319 MU200-1 2 LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT 2500 SHADYWOOD ROAD, SUITE 19 · EXCELSIOR, MINNESOTA 55331 · TELEPHONE 612/471-9588 · FAX 612/471-0632 Gregory S. Nybeck, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR BOARD MEMBERS Douglas E. Babcock Chair, Tonka Bay Tom Reese Vice Chair, Mound Bert Foster Secretary, Deephaven Craig Nelson Treasurer, Spring Park Bob Ambrose Wayzata Kent Dahlen Minnetonka Beach Tom Gilman Excelsior Gretchen Maglich Minnetonka Eugene Partyka Minnetrista Robert Rascop Shorewood Herb J. Suerth Woodland Sheldon Wert Greenwood Orono Victoria May 29, 1997 , RECEIVED TO: FROM: LMCD Member Cities ~~ LMCD Board Members Greg Nybeck, Executive Director SUBJECT: 1998 Draft LMCD Budget Enclosed is a copy of the 1998 Draft LMCD Budget for your review. A meeting has been scheduled at 12 p.m. on Thursday, 6/5/97 in the LMCD conference room to review and allow your input on it. Under its enabling act, the LMCD is required to adopt a budget before July' 1 of each year for the upcoming calendar year. If any member city objects to the budget, the LMCD is required under its enabling' legislation to hold a hearing to consider these objections. ' ~ Your input is a key element in our budget process. I highly encourage any parties who have interest to attend the meeting scheduled for 6/5/97. If you plan on attending, please R.S.V.P. by Tuesday, 6/3/97. A box lunch will be provided courtesy of the L.M.C.D. I look forward to your attendance at this meeting! 60% Recycled Content 30% Post Consume~ Waste Web Page Address: http://www.winternet.com/~lmcd/ E-mail Address: Imcd@winternet.com DRAFT 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1. Administration a) LMCD Communities Admn Levy 111,800 109,564 80,.524 38,162 109,640 b) Reserve Fund Contribution 0 0 48,000 0 c) Court Fines 40,000 40,238 40,000 7,105 40,000 d) Licenses 86,000 119,182 86,000 92.084 100,000 e) Interest, Public Funds 8,000 8,265 8,000 1,082 8,000 0 Other Income 0 9,557 1,000 8,203 2,000 SUB-TOTALADMINISTRATION 245,800 286,806 263,524 144,636 259,640 2. Exotics Management a) LMCD Communities Exotics Mgmt Levy 29,500 28,910 67,500 32,162 64,500 b) Other Public Agencies 24,500 24,500 24,500 0 24,000 c) Pdvate Solicitation 1,000 0 1,000 0 1,000 d) Reserve Fund Allocation 50,000 0 12,000 0 5,500 e) Interest 10,000 10,092 12,000 1,262 12,000 SUB-TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT 115,000 63,502 117,000 33,423 107,000 ADMINISTRATION 1. Personnel Services: a) Salaries b) Employer Benefil Contributions SUB-TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES 2. Contractual Services: a) Office Lease & Storage b) Professional Services SUB-TOTAL CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 106,000 106,424 111,418 25,194 95,480 18,000 19,640 18,646 4,697 16,618 124,000 126,024 130,064 29,891 112,098 12,200 15,031 17,160 4,155 17,952 10,000 11,076 10,000 2,317 10,000 22,200 26,107 27,160 6,472 27,952 3. Office & Administration: a) Office, General Supplies 4,500 4,755 4,500 1,768 5,000 b) Telephone 2,000 3,253 2,000 970 4,140 c) Postage 4,800 3,750 5,000 1,266 4,500 d) Printing, Publications, Advertising 2,000 2,192 2,500 1,126 2,500 e) Maintenance, Office Equipment 2,000 1,643 2,000 293 2,000 0 Subscriptions, Memberships 300 65 300 129 450 g) Insurance, Bonds 7,500 6,382 7,000 0 6,000 h) Public Information, Legal Notices 2,000 2,151 2,000 -235 2,000 i) Mileage, Expenses, Training 1,500 1,313 1,500 218 1,500 SUB-TOTAL OFFICE & ADMINISTRATION 26,600 25,504 26,800 5,535 28,090 4. Capital Outlay: a) Furniture, Equipment 1,000 0 1,000 0 1,000 b) Computer software & hardware; 2,500 7,475 10,000 0 2,500 training SUB-TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY 3,500 7,475 11,000 0 3,500 5. Legal: a) Legal Services 22,000 19,717 20,000 8,149 20,000 b) Prosecution Services 27,000 28,246 28,000 12,795 30,000 c) Henn. County Room & Board 6,000 1,695 3,000 0 3,000 d) Recodification/Zoning 7,500 SUB-TOTAL LEGAL .55,000 49,658 51,000 20,944 60,500 6. Contract Services/Studies: a) Mgmt Plan Implementation 14,500 26,833 (1) 5,000 b) Boater Ed. Pilot Program 0 0 5,000 c) Record Archival 0 0 7,500 SUB-TOTAL CONTRACT SERVICES/STUDIES 14,500 26,833 17,500 7. WebPage/Intemet a) Wintemet b) Maintenance/Service SUB-TOTAL WEBPAGE/INTERNET 5,632 10,200 0 0 0 10,000 5,632 20,200 3OO 1,000 1,300 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 Budget Actual Budget YTD (3/31) Budget 8. Contingency 6,000 TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES 245,800 261,601 263,524 68,474 259,640 EXOTICS MANAGEMENT 1. Weed Harvesting Operational Exp.: a) Salaries & Employer Taxes/insurance 35,000 30,533 35,000 120 32,000 b) Trucking Contract 26,000 10,913 21,000 0 15,000 c) Administrative 4,000 1,091 1,000 364 1,000 d) Operational Supplies 20,000 17,589 22,000 0 20,000 e) Contract Services 15,000 15,396 16,000 0 19,000 f) Heavy Growth Season Extension 15,000 8,447 7,000 0 8,000 SUB-TOTAL WEED HARVESTING OP. EXP. 115,000 83,969 102,000 484 95,000 2. Zebra Mussel Operational Exp.: 0 0 15,000 0 12,000 TOTAL EXOTICS MANAGEMENT EXPENSES 115,000 83,969 117,000 484 107,000 Save the Lake Program Income: a) Private Donations 27,000 25,015 27,000 1,235 27,000 b) Other Income 2,000 698 1,000 0 1,000 c) Interest 4,500 2,425 4,000 110 4,000 SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE INCOME 33,500 28,138 32,000 1,345 32,000 Save the Lake Program Expenses: a) Administrative 2,500 10,937 3,700 285 4,000 b) Program 31,000 7,738 28,300 0 28,000 SUB-TOTAL SAVE THE LAKE EXPENSES 33,500 18,675 32,000 285 32,000 INFORMATIONAL: EWM Equipment Depreciation 35,000 35,000 35,000 0 12,000 (2) (1) $15,000 collected from DNR for 1996 Lake Mtka Boat Density Survey (2) Note: EWM Equipment Depreciation has been reduced from $35,000 to $12,500 * No funds will be available for future movement from EWM to depreciation. * In 1999, EWM is anticipated to fall below the 1 year reserve policy by about $3,000 The following assumptions were made in the draft 1998 LMCD Budget: SALARIES (la) Executive Director Administrative Technician Administrative Secretary Administrative Clerk ADMINISTRATION CURRENT 1998 $38,100 $38,100 $26,500 $26,500 $22,880 $22,880 $10.40 per hour $ 8,000 EMPLOYER BENEFIT CONTRIBUTIONS (lb) P.E.R.A. (4.23%) P.E.R.A. Life Insurance Commercial Life Insurance F.I.C.A. (7.65%) Medical Insurance $ 4,038.80 $ 432.00 $ 43.20 $ 7,3O4.22 $ 4,800.00 $16,618.22 OFFICE LEASE & STORAGE (2a) Office & Storage ($1,471/mo.) Off-site Storage $17,652.00 $ 300.00 $17,952.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (2b) Bookkeeping Recorder Other Service $ 7,000.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 800.00 $10,000.00 TELEPHONE (3b) U.S.West AT&T 3,840. O0 300.00 4,140.00 INSURANCE/BONDS (3.q) Property Inland Marine Municipality Liability Excess Liability w/Waiver Bond $ 100.00 $ 1,023.00 $ 3,510.00 $ 1,230.00 $ 137.00 $ 6ooo.0o MGMT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION (6a) 1998 Boat Density Survey $ 7,500.00 1998 Shoreline Boat Count $ 2,000.00 Crappie Fishing Tournament $ 700.00 $10,200.00 CONTINGENCY (8) Salaries, Professional Services, etc. $ 6,000.00 I=XOTIC~ MANAGEMENT WEED HARVESTING PROGRAM SALARIES & EMPLOYER TAXES/INSURANCE (la) Salaries F.I.C.A. Insurance (Auto & Workers Comp.) $29,994.43 $ 2,294.57 $ 2,711.00 $35,000.00 ZEBRA MUSSEL PROGRAM (2) Salaries (300 Hours) F.I.C.A. Insurance Operation Supplies Education Contingency $ 5,200.00 $ 397.8O $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $1,402.20 $12,000.00 1997 12/31/96 Bal. Budgeted Reserve Fund Allocation 12/31/97 Projected RESERVE FUND ANALYSIS ADMIN. $166,645 $ 48,000 $118,645 1998 12/31/97 $118,645 Reserve Fund $ 0 Allocation Depreciation 12/31/97 Projected $118,645 EWM $140,061 12,000 $128,061 $128,061 $ 5,500 $ 12,500 $110,061 Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future May 30, 1997 RECEiVE 0 Mr. Edward Shukle Jr Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mr. Shukle Jr: The Metropolitan Council staff has prepared a preliminary population and household estimate (April 1, 1996) for your community. Enclosed for your review is a 1996 worksheet which includes 1990 Census background data. The estimates are used by the Council to monitor population and household change in the region. We strive to provide accurate estimates, and to treat each municipality consistently. Questions concerning how the estimates are determined should be directed to Kathy Johnson at 602-1332 or by e-mail to kathy.johnson@metc, state.mn.us. No reply is necessary. If you have comments regarding the estimates, please submit them to Ms. Johnson in writing. This will ensure that issues are addressed in a timely manner. The Department of Revenue requests finalized estimates by late June for use in their local aid and other formulas. To comply, we need to hear from you by June 13, 1997. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Sincerely, James Solem Regional Administrator JS/kj Enclosure Metro Info Line 229-3780 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 {612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TrY 291-0904 An Ea.al O~ortunim Emvlouer Metropolitan Council Provisional Population Estimate April 1, 1996 MOUND Housing Units Single-family 3,067 3,171 3,047 Multifamily (incl. town homes) 884 896 750 Mobile Home 14 19 17 3,965* 4,o86 i 3,814 Total I 1990 Census Total Population 9,634 1990 Group Quarters Population 0 1990 Population in Households 9,634 1996 Population Estimate 9,695 1996 Group Quarters Population 0 1996 Population in Households 9,695 1990 Census Persons per Household 2.60 1996 Persons per Household I 2.54 All numbers are as of April 1 of each year. total includes 11 unit(s) listed in "other" housing in the 1990 Census data. The Census defines these units as those fitting the defined housing categories, such as houseboats, railroad cars, campers and vans. Since no information on 'other" units is available between censuses, for purposes of 1996 population and household estimation, these units have been allocated to the single and multiple family categories. This was done based on persons per "other" household and the ratio of single-family to multifamily housing in the jurisdiction. Metropolitan Council Working for the Region, Planning for the Future June 4, 1997 Edward Shukle Jr Manager City of Mound 5341 Maywood Rd. Mound, MN 55364-1687 Dear Mr. Shukle: As you are aware, crime continues to be the number one concern of residents throughout the Twin Cities. Over the past two weeks, local newspapers have described awbi!!ous .new programs initiated by the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to improve safety. The Governor asked the Metropolitan Council to help in anyway possible in a regional effort to restore the civility and safety of our neighborhoods. Real help is emerging from all sectors of our community. Here's what is happening: In February, a group of corporate and civic leaders initiated a series of meetings to lay the groundwork for a major law enforcement and community-building initiative. The goal of the group is to ensure a safer summer in 1997, along with long-term strategies to decrease crime and improve our quality of life. Attached for your benefit is a brief summary of the broad action plan being pursued. Many business, community and law enforcement leaders have contributed to this effort, however, we realize that not everyone has been fully informed about the scope of these activities. This letter is the first of many communications you will receive about the initiative, as well as briefings that will begin within the next two weeks. If you have any questions regarding the initiative, please contact my office. Sincerely, Curt Johnson Chair CJ/kp Enclosure 230 East Fifth Street St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1634 (612) 291-6359 Fax 291-6550 TDD/TTY 291-0904 Metro Info Line 229-3780 AnEqualOpportunity Employer Minnesota HEALS (Hope, g_dueation, And Law & Safety) VISION Through the active involvement of a committed group of business, government and community leaders, we will develop both short-term strategies to insure a more peaceful summer in 1997, and long-term strategies to decrease crime and improve the quality of life in the Twin Cities metropolitan area and Minnesota generally. ACTION PLAN To fulfill this vision, a variety of partnership actions are being undertaken in two broad categories--law enforcement and community building. Law Enforcement · Crime Analysis - experienced crime analysis experts will conduct a concentrated effort to analyze crime patterns, particularly major violent crimes, such as homicides and shootings. · Strategic Initiatives - a group of local, state and federal law enforcement authorities will review crime data and devise specific strategies. · State-Local Law Enforcement Communications Links - improve/enhance exchange of criminal justice information between state and local agencies. · Focus Federal Law Enforcement Role - strategically target federal resources, particularly against gangs and firearms trafficking. · Probation and Truancy - enhance and refine cooperative efforts between law enforcement and probation to reduce recidivism. Communi~ Building · Expand Summer Jobs - collaborative effort between corporate, foundation and public sectors to expand summer job offerings. · Expanded Park Programs - selected parks will have more programming and additional hours of service, along with enhanced supervision. · Community Initiatives - analyze needs; publish "youth yellow pages" directory of services. · Corporate and Community Mentors - expand existing programs with additional commitment from business community. · African American Community Summit - establish goals for productive, healthy, moral, intergenerational culture. · Focus on Youth - develop, expand after-school programs to fill 2:00-6:00 p.m. timeframe; support extended school day. V:\librar~kcommundv\cr052197.doc CEIVED JL] g 100]. LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA 6:30 PM, Wednesday, June 11, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall 6:30 EXECUTIVE SESSION- (Hawks v. LMCD pending litigation) (Note: Board may vote to discuss pending litigation in closed session) CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Babcock READING OF MINUTES- 5/28/97 Regular Board Meeting PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on agenda (5 min.) CONSENT AGENDA- Consent Agenda items identified by "*" will be approved in one motion unless a Board member requests a discussion of any item, in which case the item will be removed from the consent agenda. 1. EWMIEXOTICS TASK FORCE A. Update on 1997 EWM harvesting program; B. Update on 1997 zebra mussel spraying program; C. Additional Business; 2. LAKE USE & RECREATION A. Sunboat I and II, staff recommending approval of 1997 renewal beer and wine licenses; B. Pelican Point HOA, request for LMCD to place two slow-wake buoys at the approaches to the channel which separates Pelican Point from Pelican Point Island at the south end of Spring Park Bay, continuation of 5/14/97 discussion; C. Suburban Hennepin Regional Park District, request for LMCD to place slow-wake buoys 300' from the shoreline at the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park, continuation of 5/14/97 discussion;; D, Additional Business; 3. WATER STRUCTURES A. City of Wayzata, consideration of new public launch ramp license application for improvements of the Wayzata Bay public launch ramp; *B. 1997 Multiple Dock Licenses, approval of 1997 multiple dock license applications as outlined in 6/5/97 memo; C. Additional Business; 4. SAVE THE LAKE 5. ADMINISTRATION 6. FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment; - 6/1/97 - 6/15/97 B. Update of 1998 draft LMCD Budget (previously handed out); C. Additional Business; 7.EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT 8.OLD BUSINESS 9.NEW BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT DRAFT LAKE M1NNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGULAR I~ARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING 7:00 P.M., Wednesday, May 28, 1997 Tonka Bay City Hall CALL TO ORDER Chair Babcock called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. ROLL CALL Members present: Bert Foster, Deephaven; Craig Nelson, Spring Park; Kent Dahlen, Mtka Beach; Bob Rascop, Shorewood; Herb Suerth, Woodland; Doug Babcock, Tonka Bay; Tom Gilman, Excelsior; Gene Partyka, Minnetrista; Bob Ambrose, Wayzata; Sheldon Weft, Greenwood. Staff present: Executive Director Greg Nybeck; Administrative Technician Nancy Randall and LMCD Counsel Charles LeFevere Members absent: Gretchen Maglich, Minnetonka; Tom Reese, Mound. Orono and Victoria have no appointed members. CHAIR ANNOUNCEM~S There were no chair announcements. READING OF MINUTES - May 14, 1997 Regular Board Meeting Wen moved, Suerth seconded to approve the minutes of the May 14, 1997 regular Board meeting as submitted. Ayes (9), Abstained (1, Partyka); Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments from persons in attendance on subjects not on the agenda. CONSENT AGENDA MOTION: Nelson moved, Suerth seconded to approve the Consent Agenda identified by an "*" on the agenda. Items so approved include the following: Item 2A, Hennepin County Sheriff' s Water Patrol Significant Activity Report. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. WATER STRUCTURES A. City of Mound - Lost Lake Channel, Discussion on request for lighted buoys for natural vegetation at north end of proposed project. Nybeck reviewed the request from the City of Mound. He stated he believed the MCWD has made the lighted buoys a condition for approval of the City's dredging permit. He added this condition has been added to the MCWD permit to prevent boats from driving across the restored vegetation in the cul-de-sac area on the north side. He noted he believed the LMCD has not approved lighted buoys for any project in the past. Bruce Chamberlain, representing the City of Mound, stated they have been unable to find lighted buoys, and that it would probably have to be a custom made item. He stated the center area is a restored wetland area and must be protected from boat traffic. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting May 28, 1997 Page 2 Foster asked what color the lighted buoys would be? Chamberlain replied they would be white. Babcock asked if this will be a one way channel? Chamberlain replied it will be two way channel that is seventy feet wide. He noted he had discussed the idea of lighted versus reflective buoys with staff. He added if the buoys were lighted, they would not be intense. Foster stated he believed it did not appear lighted buoys would be feasible. He suggested putting in danger buoys consistent with other buoys on Lake Minnetonka, or drive in 8" diameter poles with lights on top as alternatives. Babcock wanted to assure there was a consistent buoy system throughout the lake. LeFevere stated the DNR has guidelines for what the buoys should look like. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded to authorize the placement of standard buoy mechanisms to demark the restored vegetation area, to not approve lighted buoys as recommended by the MCWD, and to direct staff to write a letter to the MCWD explaining the concerns with lighted buoys. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Be City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Discussion on Public Hearing for dock length from LMCD Code. Weft asked what policies the LMCD Board has relative to dock length variances. LeFevere reviewed LMCD Code Section 1.07. Babcock stated typically in the past, the Board has been lenient in granting variances when the dock is 100' in length or less. Foster stated if there is 4' of water depth at the end of the dock, you can anticipate 3' of water depth in the Fall. Wert explained he is not in favor of approving this request because, he does not like to see fire lanes used for dock usage. LeFevere explained the question before the Board is whether it is appropriate to grant a second variance on this fire lane to add two boats to a variance that has already been granted. Babcock stated it is only where there are narrow frontages that dock lengths are less than 100 feet. Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting May 28, 1997 Paae 3 Foster stated he does not see a problem with the dock length variance. He stated six boats have always been approved at this site. Mayor Bruce Palmer stated six boats have been licensed at this location since 1977. He added the site will be monitored more closely this Summer, and some boats may be moved in the future if it appears to be too dense. He stated he believed the dock length variance had nothing to do with the additional boats since density has been established. Rascop stated he is opposed to the motion and believed it would crowd the area more. MOTION: Gilman moved, Foster seconded to approve the dock length variance for dock sites 2 and 2A on the Lake Road fire lane. LeFevere noted generally the proper motion for this approval would be to direct attorney to prepare an order for the dock length variance. Since an Order has already been drawn up for the dock length variance approved this past Winter for four boats on the same fn-e lane, he suggested amending that order to include six boats rather than four. Gilman and Foster agreed to this amendment and included it in the original motion. VOTE: Ayes (7), Nays ~ (3; Wert, Rascop, and Partyka); Motion carried. Ce Lord Fietcher's of the Lake, staff recommending the Board declare a negative declaration regarding an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) on the proposed project, consideration of new multiple dock and special density lice~tse applications. Babcock stated the EAW was published, and comments have been received. He noted staff is recommending a negative declaration on the EAW with regards to conducting an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the proposed project. Gihnan asked what kind of material would be used to construct the docks? Alan Bell, representing the applicant, stated treated lumber would be used. Babcock noted the MPCA has suggested treated lumber not be used for docks, although they have no regulations prohibiting treated lumber. Rascop suggested a search be done to find information on dock construction. Suerth suggested the DNR be contacted. Ambrose suggested the MPCA solve the problem. Lake Minneto~fl~a Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting May 28, 1997 Page 4 MOTION: Foster moved, Gilman seconded to declare a negative declaratio,~ on the EAW with regards to conducting an EIS on the Lord Fletcher's of the Lake proposed project. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. MOTION: Gilman moved, Weft seconded to approve the order for approval of a new multiple dock and special density licenses to increase BSU's from 58 to 71 for 1997. Foster stated he would reluctantly approve this motion but discussed his concerns about the congestion at this location. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Staff was directed to check into optional construction materials for docks. 1997 Multiple Dock Licenses, approval of 1997 multiple dock license applications as outlined in 5/21/97 staff memo. Randall stated a request for a multiple dock license without change for Victoria Estates Home Owners Association has been submitted. She added the proposed site shows 6 BSU's. Staff recommends approval. MOTION: Rascop moved, Ambrose seconded to approve the 1997 renewal without change application for Victoria Estates HOA. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Additional Business There was no additional business. e LAKE B. USE AND RECREATIONS Ordinance Amendment, Ist reading of an ordinance relating to quiet waters; repealing LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subdivision 13. MOTION: Rascop moved, Foster seconded to pass the first reading, to waive second and third readings, and adopt of an ordinance relating to quiet waters; repealing LMCD Code Section 3.02, Subdivision 13. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Additional Business 0 There was no additional business. SAVE THE LAKE Nybeck reported a solicitation letter has gone out recently and that about $10,000 has been Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting lVlay 28, 1997 collected. Page 5 EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE Nybeck provided information on the boat washdown program development. Nybeck stated there is a need to amend a previous approval for chemical treatment of public accesses. He noted the previous approval was to contract with Lake Management for 10.5 acres for the cost of $3,316.25. He recommended the Board amend this previous approval to include two acres of chemical treatment for the new public access in Orono on Maxwell Bay. He stated this would increase the contracted price to $3,946.25. MOTION: Foster moved, Suerth seconded to authorize the contracting of Lake Management, Inc. for 12.5 acres at a cost of $3,946.25 as recommended by staff. VOTE: Motion carded unanimously. ADMINISTRATION A. Discussion on LMCD vacation buy-back policy Board members discussed current LMCD personnel policy regarding buy back for accrued sick and vacation time. Various options were discussed with no consensus. The consensus of the Board was to have the Officers meet in the near future and report back. Be Update on lake inspection tour Babcock reported a charter boat has been arranged for the lake inspection tour on Saturday, June 7. He added it will leave the Aahhhz of Excelsior at 7:30 am and arrive back at around NOON. He noted an itinerary of scheduled stops will be provided that day. Ce Additional Business There was no additional business. e FINANCIAL A. Audit of vouchers for payment 5/16/97 - 5/31/97 Nelson reviewed the audit of vouchers for payment. MOTION: Rascop moved, Gilman seconded to approve the audit of vouchers for payment for the period of 5/16/97 through 5/31/97. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. B. April Financial Summary and Balance Sheet Lake Minnetolflm Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting May 28, 1997 Nelson reviewed the April financial summary and balance sheet. Page 6 MOTION: Gilman moved, Wen seconded to accept the April financial summary and balance sheet. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. C. Review of Draft 1998 Budget Babcock reviewed the draft 1998 Budget. He noted an amended draft budget has been included for handout because initial budget exceeded what the LMCD could levy based on the enabling legislation. Wen left at 9:00 P.M. LeFevere reviewed recodification costs and noted they may be reduced depending on what goal the board is looking to obtain with the recodificaion. Babcock stated a personal watercraft study was suggested. He stated it was removed from the budget because of the lack of funds. He reviewed other items which have been removed from the budget which include a reduction in recodification/zoning and lobbyist for mandatory boat licensing and insurance. Babcock reviewed the total levy amount each City would contribute. He also discussed reserve transfers recommended in 1998. Rascop suggested looking at the marina licensing fees in relation to the CPI. Babcock stated it could be looked at for 1999. MOTION: Rascop moved, Gilman seconded to accept the 1998 draft budget and forward to the member cities for comment. VOTE: Motion carried unanimously. Nybeck stated the draft budget will go out to the cities right away, and a meeting with city officials will be held on the 5th or 6th of June. D. Additional Business There was no additional business. 7. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT · Nybeck stated Nancy Randall is in her 3~ week and progressing well. · He noted the Lake Minnetonka Regional park will open on June 14. 8. OLD BUSINESS Lake Minnetonka Conservation District Regular Board of Directors Meeting May 28, 1997 None 9. NEW BUSINESS None 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Babcock adjourned the meeting at 9:08 p.m. Douglas Babcock, Chair Bert Foster, Secretary Page 7 I CEIVE "g LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE AGENDA 8:30 A.M., Friday, June 13, 1997 Gray's Freshwater Center, Suite 19 I. Introductions and Welcome; 2. Review Minutes from the 5/9/97 meeting; 3. Update on zebra mussel spray-down program for special events on Lake Minnetonka during 1997 boating season; 4. Discussion on algae growth in Lake Harriet; 5. Agency reports; 6. Area wide lake association reports; 7. Old business; 8. New business; 9. Adjournment; LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE MINUTES D AFT 8:30 a.m., Friday, May 9, 1997 Gray's Freshwater Center, Suite 19, Navarre, MN Present: Herb Suerth, Chair; Tom Reese, LMCD Board; Gene Partyka, LMCD Board; Mike Brandt, Hennepin County; John Banen, Hennepin Parks; Chip Welling, MN DNR; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director. Minutes Minutes from the 3/14/97 meeting were accepted as submitted. Uodate on zebra mussel sorav-down 0rogram for 1997 Nybeck reviewed progress to date for this program in 1997. He noted: * Copies of special event permit applications received from the Water Patrol have been received and are being reviewed with regards to wash-down plans. * Jeremy Arthur, high-pressure sprayer operator in 1996, has agreed to be the main operator in 1997. He added backup operators will be advertised for in local papers in the upcoming weeks. * The high-pressure sprayer will bc picked up out of winter storage on 5/15/97. * He recommended that the use of quat not be used in 1997 unless the chemical is properly labeled or the DNR supports the use of it. Reese expressed concern in that quat may not be used in 1997 strictly because of DNR concerns. He noted telephone feedback he had with experts on this believed the use of quat was appropriate for this program. Nybeck stated he was anticipating a letter from Jay Rendall, MN DNR, regarding why they believe the use of quat is not appropriate. Partyka suggested since the DNR believes the use of quat is not appropriate, they should provide an optional chemical to substitute for the use of quat. Welling stated he would check into this. Update on 1997 Lake Minnetonka EWM harvestimz preparations Gene Strommen, Project Manager for the 1997 EWM Program, thanked the LMCD for this opportunity and stated he was looking forward to the upcoming season. He reported on the following preparations for 1997: * He noted that DNR permits for mechanical harvesting and chemical treatment have been secured by staff. * He noted that truc -king bids and RFP's for chemical treatment of public accesses have recently closed. He added staff is recommending approving the bid of Il ,J i 1, .It ii Minnetonka Portable Dredging, Inc. for the hauling of lake weeds and approving the RFP from Lake Management, Inc. for the chemical treatment of public accesses. * He had talked to Todd Grams, 1997 EWM crew supervisor, and reported that the entire crew from 1996 is returning. He noted Grams requested that an additional crew member be hired for substitute situations. * He had talked to Marsh Gabriel, contract mechanic, and that the harvesters and other equipment is in good condition and will be ready to go. * Letters will be sent out to the returning crew members confirming their appointments and hiring arrangements. * First day of the season is scheduled for 6/16/97 with overview of procedures and policies. Field training is scheduled for 6/17/97 and should be limited since the entire crew is returning. Agency Reports Welling reported that: * The DNR has received application from the LMCD for reimbursement from the DNR in 1997. He noted this application has been forwarded for approval. He reported that some other associations that qualify for reimbursement from the DNR have delinquent applications from past years. * The DNR will be operating on 80 bodies of water this summer regarding milfoil infestations. Brandt stated the Spring Park Bay access is open to the public; however, the parking lot is not completed. He noted that curb, gutter, and paving of the parking lot should be completed in the near future. Barren reported that the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park in Minnetrista has recently opened. He noted the public access provides for a maximum of 48 car/trailer parking spaces in it. Nybeck brought it to Banen's attention that slow-wake buoys by the park have been placed in the immediate vicinity and are approximately 300' from shore. He added that Karen Bowen, Director of Operations, has filed a petition with the LMCD to authorized the placement of these buoys and it will be heard at the 5/14/97 LMCD Board meeting. Area wide lake association reports No reports were provided. Old business There was no old business. New business There was no new business. EWM/EXOTICS TASK FORCE, 519197, Page 3 There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 A.M. Respectfully submitted, s Executive Director MINUTES - MOUND CITY COUNCIL - JUNE 10, 1997 The City Council of the City of Mound, Hennepin County, Minnesota, met in regular session on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, at 7:30 PM, in the Council Chambers at 5341 Maywood Road, in said City. Those present were: Mayor Bob Polston, Councilmembers Mark Hanus, Liz Jensen and Leah Weycker. Councilmember Andrea Ahrens was absent and excused. Also in attendance were: City Manager Edward J. Shulde, Jr., City Attorney John Dean, City Planner Bruce Chamberlain, City Engineer John Cameron and City Clerk Fran Clark; and the following interested citizens. The Mayor opened the meeting and welcomed the people in attendance. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. *Consent Agenda: All items listed under the Consent Agenda are considered to be routine by the Council and will be enacted by a roll call vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or Citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in normal sequence. OPEN MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANC,E ~ , P APPROVE AGENDA. At this trine items can oe addea o g · are not listed and/or items can be removed from the Consent Agenda and voted upon after the Consent Agenda has been approved. o *CONSENT AGENDA'.. *A. APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MAY 27, 1997 REGULAR MEETING · 2070-2079 RESOLUTION #97- RESOLUTION APPROVING A ONE DAY OFF-SITE LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT APPLICATION FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #398 ............................................. 2080 TREE REMOVAL LICENSE AND 2081 VEGETABLE STAND APPROVALS ............................. 2082-2097 PAYMENT OF BILLS .................................. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: CASE 97-08: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS (ISD #277) AT SHIRLEY HILLS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO A DATE CERTAIN DUE TO CURRENT STUDY OF THE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING WESTONKA COMMUNITY CENTERI ,,,'r"'. ,~..~~'Jt-'t~'' .. A ~ .. ~ o PUBLIC HEARING: S.P. 145-080-01 AND S.P. 145-090-01, THE LOST LAKE CANAL REHABILITATION PROJECT AND THE LOST LAKE GREENWAY PROJECT, FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ........................................... 2098-2239 · ~ ..... II J L I, ,IL I~, ,I t, COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FROM CITIZENS PRESENT. UPDATE ON SUMP PUMP DISCONNECTION PROJECT ................ 2240-2243 8. APPOINTMENT TO MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT (MCWD) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE ............... 2244-2246 I 9. SELECTION OF ARCHITECTURAL FIRM TO PERFORM COST ESTIMATE RENOVATION OF EXISTING WESTONKA COMMUNITY 10. RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY REGARDING ELECTRONIC GEOGRAPHICAL DIGITIZED DATA BASE AND AUTHORING THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE AGREEMENT. 11. 12. RESOLUTION TO REGULAT~AND LIMIT LAWN SPRINKLING. iNFORMATION/MISCELLANEOUS,:- A. DEPARTMENT HEAD MONTHLY REPORTS FOR MAY 1997 ........ Bo 2247-2270 LMCD REPRESENTATIVE'S MONTHLY REPORT FOR MAY 1997 ............................................. 2271 MEMORANDUM FROM FLOYD OLSON, KENNEDY AND GRAVEN REGARDING A QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEETING WHERE DISCUSSION WAS HELD ON MULTIPLE DOCKS AND THEIR LOCATIONS ....... 2272-2273 1998 DRAFT LMCD BUDGET ............................. 2274-2279 PRELIMINARY POPULATION AND HOUSEHOLD ESTIMATE (APRIL 1, 1996) FOR THE CITY OF MOUND AS PREPARED BY METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ............................. 2280-2281 REMINDER: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING, TUESDAY, JUNE 17, 1997, 7:30 P.M. REMINDER: ANNUAL FISH FRY AT MOUND FIRE DEPARTMENT, SATURDAY, JUNE 7, 1997. REMINDER: MOUND CITY DAYS, JUNE 13-15, 1997. REMINDER: HRA MEETING 6/10/97, 7:00 P.M., City Hall. JOINT COMMITTEE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITIES OF MINNETRISTA AND MOUND WILL BE MEETING AT 7:00 P.M., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1997, MINNETRISTA CITY HALL. LETTER FROM CURT JOHNSON, METRO COUNCIL CHAIR REGARDING INITIATIVES TAKEN BY THE METRO COUNCIL IN THE AREAS OF PUBLIC SAFETY ..................................... 2282-2283 MOTION made by , seconded by to adjourn at P.M. The vote was unanimously in favor. Motion carried.