HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-09-2010 Council Work Session Packet Council Work Session
Tuesday, February 9, 2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono Citv Council Chambers
AGENDA
1. Green Development—MCWD/Julie WesterlandlMelanie Curtis (60 minutes)
2. Comp Plan Update—Mike Gaffron (5 minutes)
3. Cominon Bond Follow-up—Mike Gaffron (15 minu�es)
4. Watershed District Rules D and F—Mike Gaffron (5 minutes)
5. Big Island Park Rules and Regulations Ordinance—Mike Gaffron (15 minutes)
6. Police Mediation—Ron Olson (5 minutes)
7. Police Service Contract—Ron Olson (20 minutes)
8. Cominents Regarding Infonnation Updates —Lin Vee (5 minutes)
Pi-evious Work Session Togics
Januarv 26, 2010—Minutes Attached
o Common Bond Discussion Regarding Property Behind Long Lake Fire Station
o Comp Plan Discussion
o Open Book vs. Local Board of Review
o Comments Regarding Infornlation Updates
January 12, 2010
o Comp Plan Discussion
o Website Redevelopment Update
o Upcoming Street Projects
o Employee Compensation/Step Increases
o Letter of Request for Trail Parking
o Utility Rate Study
o Comments Regarding Inforniation Updates
� ��l
` MEMORANDUM 2-9-10 Work Session
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Administrator
Date: February 8, 2010
Subject: CommonBond Affordable Housing Project
Attachments
A - CommonBond Proposed Schedule
B - Draft Letter of Intent
C - Draft Letter re: Zoning and Utilities
D - Pro forma
E - Ron Miller email 1-21-10
F - Site Plans presented on January 26
At the January 26 work session, CommonBond presented information about their proposed
affordable housing project adjacent to the Willow Drive fire station. See the minutes of that
meeting for more details (included in your work session packet).
Council indicated a general preference for the Option B site layout, but took no votes and made
no specific commitments.
Amanda Novak of CommonBond has provided a proposed schedule for this project to move
forward (Exhibit A) based on application deadlines for annual funding cycles. They have a
February 25`h deadline for Hennepin County HOME and CDBG funding applications. With
regard to those funding applications, Amanda has also drafted two letters to Hennepin County
for City signature - the first is a Letter of Intent indicating support of the project, the second is
with regards to Zoning and Utilities.
The Mayor had asked for a financial pro forma showing projected income, expenses, and funding
sources, which is attached as Exhibit D.
There are a number of questions asked by Ron Miller in late January that I'd like to be able to
respond to after the February 9 work session if possible. Amanda has suggested the responses in
red, some of which reflect actions not yet taken place or decisions Council has not confirmed for
staf£ Council may wish to consider the suggested responses and the additional questions offered
by staff(below) as a guideline for discussion in how we move forward with the CommonBond
proj ect.
Miller's questions:
1. Orono's overall and financial commitment to the project. The City of Orono is working
closely with CommonBond to determine what their financial commitment to the CBC project
will be. We have executed a letter of intent and plan to have a land value determined by Mid-
March.
2. What if anything Orono gains from the project. The CommonBond development will
provide the City of Orono with housing that is affordable to many of the employees that work in
and for Orono (such as teachers, nurses, retail workers, etc). In addition to providing an
affordable community, the CommonBond development will help the Orono move toward
meeting the Metropolitan Council's density goals.
' CommonBond Project
February 8, 2010
Page 2
3. If all of the property, ours included, would be rezoned and to what density. The City of
Orono would rezone the property to RPUD. This zoning designation would allow up to 15 units
per acre. The City is currently working with CommonBond to detertnine a rezoning timeline.
4. Does Orono intend to get an appraisal on their land? At this point in time the City of
Orono is not intending to obtain an appraisal for the land.
5. We understand that there are some time constraints on the project, what are they? The
time constraints related to the project are associated with the funding applications CommonBond
is submitting in February and June. The City will not have a problem providing the appropriate
material needed for the applications.
Additional questions for consideration:
- Use of the site for affordable housing or housing in general?
- If so, at what density?
- Is Council ready to make initial commitments such as the letter of intent?
- Future use/guiding/density of immediately adjacent properties?
- Conceptually, a single larger building versus multiple smaller buildings? Consensus on the
general layout of Option B?
- Level of City participation in any project that may be proposed? Financial or otherwise?
- What process do you want to use in establishing a value or selling price for the property? Or in
the alternative, is there a consensus as to whether the property should be provided to Common
Bond at no cost?
- Development Fees Consideration? (Park, Stormwater, Utility Connection)
- Other considerations? Concerns? Issues?
� A
Our timeline is derived from the Minnesota Housing and Hennepin County funding cycles that
occur once a year. CommonBond is very willing to work with City Council and staff to ensure
that you feel comfortable with the pending approvals and timeline.
Timeline for CommonBond Apnlications
Obtain Concept Approval from the City Council February 9tn
City Review of Application Letters (Letter of Intent/Zoning Letter) February 9tn
City Approval of Application Letters February 23ra
City Approval of CDBG Application(the City acts as applicant) February 23�a
Application to Hennepin County for HOME Funds February 25tn
Application to Hennepin County for CDBG Funds February 25th
Review of Purchase Agreement with City Council March gth
Approval of Purchase Agreement with City Council April i3th
Discussion of non-financial help from the City April-May
(fast track zoning approvals, waiving of park dedication fees, etc)
Begin Rezoning process with Planning Commission April-May
Rezoning to City Council for Approval (Optional) June i5tn
Minnesota Housing Super RFP application due June i�th
� .
���
Hennepin County
Housing, Community Worl:s and Transit
4i�N 5th St., Ste 320
l��Tinneapolis, MN �54oi-3208
February ioth, 2oio
RE: Site Acquisition
To 4Vhom It May Concern:
The Orono City Council and staff have reviewed CommonBond's concept plan for affordable
housing on their Willow Drive parcel and approve of the conceptual design. City Council and
Staff are working in earnest to determine a land transfer mechanism (purchase agreement or
long term lease) to convey the land parcel to CommonBond. The City supports CommonBond's
efforts to provide affordable housing for Orono residents.
Sincerely,
Mayor Jim White
C
�
Hennepin County
Housing, Community Works and Transit
4i�N 5th St., Ste 320
Minneapolis, MN 5�4oi-3208
February ioth, 2oio
RE: Zoning and Utilities
To Whom It May Concern,
The Willow Drive parcel, identified by the City for affordable housing development, is currently
zoned RRi-B. The City's comprehensive plan anticipates the rezoning of the parcel to RPUD
density which would allow approximately io to i5 units per acre.
CommonBond's proposed development would meet the density requirements associated with
the rezone. The City does not foresee any issues in rezoning the parcel.
The site currently has access to all utilities. The sewer and water utility will be provided by the
City of Long Lake. Gas and energy will be provided by Excel Energy. There are no pending
utility availability issues.
Sincerely,
Mike Gaffron
Asst. City Administrator
y -
� - - . . � . . t c -
� . •
.LL.�� _ ..
�� ��
.
1 BR- 30%AMI 3 $ 1,053
2 BR-30%AMI 2 $ 411
2 BR- 50%AMI 23 $ 750
2 BR-60%AMI 5 $ 919
3 BR- 50%AMI 7 $ 856
3 BR-60%AMI 2 $ 464
Total 42 $ 392,952
��-� �� �� ,���
1 � � ' � � � �" �u��r'
. �� - `i'���.�,.s�f���kf''�.'.
� $ �6 1:� a�4 @Kn�.�:�..,� °S
RentalIncome $ 392,952 $ 9,356
Other Income $ 4,500 $ 107
Vacanc $ 27,507) $ 655)
Total Revenue $ 369,945 $ 8,808
Administration/Mana eme $ 68,724 $ 1,636
Maintenance/Operatin $ 64,500 $ 1,536
Utilities $ 54,000 $ 1,286
Insurance $ 15,000 $ 357
Proper Taxes $ 45,000 $ 1,071
Reserves $ 20,493 $ 488
Services $ 10,000 $ 238
Total Expenses $ 277,717 $ 6,612
� � �� ����
, .,, ..
�� � w , ... ...� ...� :
B • b •�,C.,.��_ �:�" ,-��
sr
,� BP �,.tt�� ' d
*�-'."f+ ec-� �:�. _ i .'`�..>: :,� p x
, - - o • ' • e � E
e . .
�-�
o � � � �.���
� ;w� �� •� ,�fi-�'��
�' � � H,,' �r;.s''
First Mortgage $ 941,209 .� 22,410
Tax Credit Syndication $ 6,310,161 $ 150,242 �ta] Credits: $ 980.600
Hennepin County AHIF/HOP $ 500,000 $ 11,905 ;redit Price: $ 0.64
MHFA Super RFP $ 1,036,825 $ 24,686
f',���� ^a rm �• � y x � 3 � ' ;,�r p�
5 Fi'tti F� .,F+�,-� ? 1 S ` ,D 221�7�3
�#��-���,^�'�• � r 'ys "Y 'x b��a �: f�$ (.' t< � '
..a�.,.�"',t � _ �... ..... ... .. . ... ....,..�, ._ .
City Land $ 1
Miller Land $ 215,000 $ 5,119
Construction $ 6,615,000 $ 157,500
Soft Costs $ 731,000 $ 17,405
Financing Costs $ 547,200 $ 13,029
Developer Fee $ 1,000,000 $ 23,810
Reserves $ 204,994 $ 4,881
1 � 1 ' ' $ 221,743
�
Mike Gaffron .
From: Mike Gaffron
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 10:44 AM
To: 'nanron270@aol.com'
Subject: RE: From Orono Website:
Ron—
Got your email. I would hope to be able to provide you some answers after the Council discussion on the 26`h. If you
don't hear from me by the end of next week, call or email again.
Mike
Michael P.Gaffron
Assistant City Administrator/Long Term Strategy
City of Orono
(Street Address)2750 Kelley Parkway
(Mailing Address) P.O.Box 66,Crystal Bay,MN 55323
Phone: (952) 249-4600
Fax: (952)249-4616
From: nanron270@aol.com [mailto:nanron270@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:59 PM
To: Mike Gaffron
Subject: From Orono Website:
Mike, we are going to be out of town on Tues. the 26th. You know where I stand.
If you could e-mail me or call me with any information regarding:
1. Orono's overail and financial commitment to the project.
2.What if anything Orono gains from the project.
3.If all of the property, ours included, would be rezoned and to what density.
4. Does Orono intend to get an appraisal on their land? If so, I would like to be supplied with a copy. This
would be mainly to see if we would get an appraisal to take advantage of the differential between the sale value and the
land value for tax purposes.
5. We understand that there are some time constraints on the project, what are they?
Thanks,
Ron Miller
Phone 952-473-1265
Cell 612-328-0196
e-mail Nanron270Cc�aoi.com
1
,��,..,.�� .....s�+�i�.:�ef ii. ...`� � ����,. y� � .Y� � . ` 1 � �.�y tc.xi:� � ��
+�� . � �r•.� `�N +�a ���s.ii' ...,.tit� : � .■
�,
r �# r� ■
: . . ��-" �- c �.,+��' �' ;,�,�..... �,�=�, r* C:cim`ii�inR���ul ■
� �.,,�,�;,,,P,•�� �s e�^t,x� , ,lr :�,, �ir;,G�-� . . .- ' -� ��� '��y�' � � „ i , �
� �� `�hF�,�
� . . � � � �"t'��"� ' �_"� �' � ,y� � ' - . =. �� .
�er� �=.a. � ��,.��� ' ; � � �^� �'�#��� �~ -�.•.,,F _ ^ � «_
��„ - "� ,� �^ � i�,�„ ��.., ,
_ �s.�.,��_ ����'pF'�y,7t`� � . } _
� l�.au ��.• �I1Y� �.��a � M' . ��
* .. � � �
� y
� +"�'�41�1F "�t ���' � J.� +!` � tA .��'^ .. +}�
m h,"qy,� � :� r> �yT*� �� 4_. .� .��
" ��K Ti$�"i�.. � t � � �i, �t P� �' �F +�� ��+1 7r
. s .,, ' •- w e x 3 �h
� �;, � � �� � ♦
•y+'c.. � � � . . �k � Ac. ., }'� T
,~w,,,�,,,��. . , , r� , � � F�"t�i��A ,t�, `- _ y,r� "t';�`"� , Y.r.
A
� .+•ra "°�''.-�!
. s _
� w,..,�„ �. � - - -- _ -t..,. ,b, . ' � . h� . . �.
..., a .i•
. . . ,M.._'a. .y.�.,,,., .. . . � _ _
Mr 1 --+'. +� .
, �� '���� '�a W �.7�� � �* ������
, a .,
_ T Ah9w- .�.�� . . � ,"�+ Y��`,1/V�.�,
i . � . . �� r.�� �
� � � � . ..F_
. �. . °�-y, '
a�:�, %t
'��. . . , ' J , r�, . . . �71
�"'yy I � ' 4 _
W"":.':^-.ti
� �_
F
;. . xq�� ' . _���_'�
. *.� ' .
. . . ' • s„. , .� . � .. . , LL - ,
, -.
$ �
. �
��. . . .. . , ,.. . � .
� ,
��._ . .. . ..: � _ -' � ., , -
•m� .�
.w:
; i :a � � r � �z ,_ � � r�ir� ..
,�*"' ' ��� ' is � f _ �' �:�._�.
, r;�
,. �,. s
. �i - �.«, , y�, , . .
.�r`I'�CR'a t ' . �, - .. .. � m;,�;,,.., . .. . ,
�w,.� "��.' .:��a r i+Y`±-i41+" ,.:� .� 3,� .. ,�`. .s�:���,,..W �'�
_x '
,,
� _ . ..
„�
..�� � ..� .,.. ,.
i
.
: � a r , � �. ,►,�.
.x'�'� . . - - �"" ' „r'
. . „ .
r� . � . 5 a � � s<�a � : � �;1; } � �.�,
� '. �� �,3 � .t�.r .r, �• �":.,.''�'�- �r � ti,�'��.
t �r�,
�� . . �� , . � � 4 .' . -� � .�'� �:t �"v. _ , g x �,�.y �
. r
� r, F.
,a :�,,v�. t .^`. �,.�,�� . �� . y��'��-
� ,�-.,
. � � . . � . . . . . . ... . , }�.a� ., .t n
. . ,� 4 _ . .. � � ..
��r � u . . ,. �.
- � • r -•. . ,_ , , � ������ ,`..-,.,y�s
, ...
:
,'.if �„ �`."'"u� �. . �z y ,�„ `� ..y.��� � ' �'
, , �
�.y*� „ -
y,. � �c a H��., - � � ,;�,.., ,'x` ,k W; �'�
�'�``:�e" au u�, � f �"g` ,r.�%�q�����t" ��� �` .. G .ri� �` . x �... A.
.���� Y � � } � � .
' ..
r
ti�� ,� :w �s._ � �'��.�?" e�"-��� '� �°� '���`'� �'� �.'. �
,
, .
_ °'R.: � �V ta "n�',�,�
� 'W t- . �',�,`"A�,�'`,�' " "'",� .- "' S�r� r� . -r1i�" � . _.
� . . -�..� _�,� 'Rf` � � . .� :�- � �� � . � � � �. _.. . .. .
�� , �� � �'' '-�� �A� ',-�' -l�''t�y �' a
'� �.tt' ,�"`� '"�t�'J�� `�a.�,a �`M`� '�-, '��� �r�'° ��. .'l •�',' �;� `i= �
� x. [' °�.`s`.`"a�' `"��. "__3��,_� �"`� .`x, ._ . .. ., ' ' _ �+',"
. ,
,
. , , .
,
-
�� � '�''.. "� � �+�'+ � . .���tlX'����.�`����,¢��e�. I y." ' ' �: �"� 'r, g r�.
,�a.- -� .. `� 4� . s � y�� � � �.� i�._ �kc.. + k�'L� y'.� .�,Iv.�..':� � R.
;r , t `�. ` aU� �, `' M1 . �._�'/.� g, �.-�, W"� _ .. �° , +�n yj��yeJp� :� ..
YF, `� �� �� V� '9!"�� � y�� `.V�..;'d� i `repA �, � aC
�
. .
G B (u -�: -�. .
�� �� , ���.. x _.� r,�` ��. . ^" `� ,�, �z�*- f'�+� t �r-`� t . 6. �
�� ' je i � �k�k�y�',� _ _ � .a .,.�' f� ��, �`-
� � ; , :. . � • .,
;�5 �� ,� ,� m _ a;��
:_
� - . . �� �-�- , •,�,�#. ��i����-: ��'�� �.��_ � -- `��.
x$�._
..�, ...:� � ',9 s - 1�
- �:.. .� .
, .��+� , , � � r, ,, ,. ���
. ,
� �
�,d . � , ..- � - ';wa
_
, �., , _
��' � . > ��;'_ '� -_
� �: y, � ..�. }•�' x 3'� .. � � ,'L
y«,�' t i .'.'b!".ro•'+���
� '3�.�'� ��#' � �t ���' ,�� ' F ' . � � �y� +�
' . . u. �.� ' . � � .a.. ��p �,'�.
:
.. �1 . . _ � , .. � �16' 'g`Y. ..,.�_ �'
ro-
A9� � � . .
.
�.-�,.M»r.��. . . ._''. :a'�:.s.,..t�. .e...,.. . , . x� _t�"i:�. '.'„`�-.--- i. . ., ... :' .�..�.._ ,. •,�
. _ . _.—_ _..__._. .__ ..____ .... ..__.__. _ _. ._ —__—_.__
CommonBond - Orono Multifamily Housing �� Site Location �
Orono, MN o1.'�6.��o�iu �""JO� URBANWORKS
.�.�.... �,.._..._ � ., _ _..,r--.,.�.v _ .,�.....,. /�
:� _. �.�-—�-- _ _.�.�-� ■
�-��� � CumnumR��ncl ■ '�
�; hT,... �.,
a �!AAqt' . . . . � n,��i i .� i i i , ■
� ryy� � ,. s ri �e�*''d�l... �."�p'":^�:.• ��
� v�-�t d #��a . ��+ y�s.� � x+ '*y ,+i. '�.' '-! ;
! ~:r ,�,`1'����`��.�,,�Y � �*; "� '��.r�'��'� ����� �r. fE • � �,
� �y}
> .�
, �A..��.".�*`i:� '� ��„'�:°i' •
,,
. , • � „
,. . :;.L._-�4_. .: ��r _' _.1-.��}G: . :.:�: ,..M�.tt_.�" .w ! ►*�.Y' �.��� .F .
♦ °� •
. �
� _� .�. a . +: � - ��a2�l�«f L
�' � . .. . . _ ' . ..�
y a .
Q �, �
"...!♦ . . . _ .. �. � .. �♦�
�____. —'_ +y� -'--- ._ _.._ \ ,�pr .< . ;. �. < �� _,� � ,� �
:. ��- �. n� .
,:�� � . � � : 1 . k i -��. -. � . ,� � � � [.
� - .� t �� ._/ l•_ _ ¢ 'C...a.��i�:.-� C- J `��� � _ �-> 4�] .. � X�. ��i'�. F4 ,y?F[
. . � ,
�
�, 1 .. �.'$ ,� qF�.
6i `_
. __ _
�'� . ti��� �� � �~ ��"�'��. � � ��.
,y� _._ ._..._..._ -
_
..r.� e _ .�.�. _ ... .
� ,
�,E � � �.
���� s� I
�'�/ . r �," � r� s �4�
� � �' � � ,,j � -- �; � .
. .: , .
� ��� �-�..- . . �� I
�
",� :
, � _ _ __:__ ___.._. - �
: - ` • ' �,�� '' ,� k �'� ���
.
,r ,
,� � _ .
° rr' .k ,
7�
t • • ,
r -
� •r ` ►
�' , �
t ��: a �d.'�. . ` �•_.i �I �'�'` �-' " , ,
;, . w �� ,. n+ . __ � .
� �
$'� �_ ..�.. . T__. .
�y'x ` � �;ti 'f ? i ` � �b
� ,
a�, y
i , _
. .,`.
� J` —,
,
;, - , _ _ . .
�w,....�.�_�,_ � �;.... � , -.� ����
� ,:
� � � i �c- � �... `� � ��'t '� .g� .,- . .
� � ' �y
` I
„ � r ;� �
�� � �i �'' � �� 4 � �� ' ��r a� �� �� �� � �� �,M.�.-. ,
, ,
,.
,r
,�t �' �J i. t r s '�,
�s J���� � " A ,3�,'� � � ..... . , � «; '� ",� �"`���� �� :44 s
w_ . h�
�� « +�
� {� S � � y,:: � �1 _.� �.+. I , Z �w� g 'a5.
�i.+r y�, y • ` / g�� :f �' � p. � ..
.
�
` � '� "� �F< l 'L T4. �,�"
y � y
�;.. ., — * ....� � �'yY�,+'� , . '. � ,��` ,. �' '�Y�F1'. ';�"
�� '"o' �.,-.. . � ' k�; ro.... � y �i:
}, . (� ,1 YY` . ������♦. . ��� � .. 1 � •.�i k�'.�kg�: �.R��+�_ Y'..y�,- �
P, ia .'� }�t' � ��°i . �+� � '- ! � �. :� :-� La.-
� y��, • ` �-.• � +� � � g � •, � '}�� � � � � 4"�"...��:�.
y^`� ��- � '- ��� �� �"� �� *� �,�+t�¢����' ,���'" �¢_,..,, �s��� ��' �
�`�y � ��,. , �u". .�..,_ ..._. :.� � �'"
y� ,
w '
:
��` � -' � '�� � "E� ��� �` ��� � 3�p��� ���
�y" � i�w
' � �� � Hw'v 9 p � q
_
: •
.
_
.
t � �t �� c�
�� �� f � . _ P � .�� s� . � S {R �'' _ � � t � p�;�• ���,
,�r .
� �
. +�
,, � ..: ��".�,�
. �- � �s � ��� �
�
r �: ' .
Y : t �
.-.
��r � .:�.._ ..__ . a f.. :'�'�ta.l,.s}�. : - h� .. � 3y� ... `.. .�.r :�,,..
�.a ,..::: ..._ . . . � . �` }°'�• �.. :
���.�'J� ...��., Ic�y�M 'a� "
,�`i� ���,�4",�' ��: "�� �� -r
v�� �� .;:! �'�.� �.���� ,��' _ • , , . .. . ,.. :�- _�
__ __ _ _ _ ��
CommonBond - Orono Multifamily Housing ' � ; Option A -Townhouses
Orono, MN ��1.26.2070 � ���"� URBANWORKS
�.,... v..�...- . ., . ...�:�,.»..� .,,�, /�
, r
� , .s,,:�:�cz� , •-z:�.�.�x�� CummunR�incl ��
� :�- . ,..,,.., � „,�.�� .� � �� ,
t �e �,.,.. x �s x�l
� � s � �;:�`
� F y � ^� ���Z�,.� t�"�'��?,������•�� � �� _. . ._ � r
,n. �� � . `� � '� �.�, n 1 .`�Y�!' � � � �� • 9,
�
... <:. ���4. ;,�
.
:; '�I'
��� � 1�� ��_� � �r �i ,i .�'_,�t: . _ �,..,�._.. ��. �� ,��,�.
.
: �,�
. __ � ' �� ,�r � ' { . , 1�
�r. �� � 3 '� 3�, _ , --- -- - --�C, � '�'•,
� � � , .K
}� ' � , , i �; . � � ,:�
�,a� � �._] � � �_ � �, �� ��.
- . ,'1 i , � ti-- '-
,
� �� � ;, '� }� „� ' �� ��� `�ri� �vS' i
� ._� .�- .._ Y�...,, r". f."� t�
�"�,� ' , t �� � - � �..71� „`� „�__ F i i ri : _r ' ,i ��� �,4 ,k�, .
,
� ' ����� �; i �
j ��, 's. .�. ' ` w`, _' _ � ," �.� ::�
� �
��
.� -� ' - --7"L-�"'Tr'-"
� t p�-_ �� 1.� .� � ��
� �� ; � �r�
, w
_.,. ._.'"�.
�} � �� s ��- �f� � '� 'p„ ... 3,� '� -
i _ , w�
,� � � ay� , � .o, ► y'�bf
'e�� � •"� ' - - ' �� 1..- �'�` ,��.�4 � �,:
�,�� , " r:��� ,� �.- � . ,��
. � `�_.� �._ ;� f ,�
.�_ ,�,
��_� _ , � � �i ��. � �� t � 1 .�.:�.�Y , -' �_ p
i
�
-0 '
� �{ `
' �. .�; jt i /� \ �� 1 4. 't'., M j, w � ,
- e�, ,l, ; . . �i . .
. x ,
y, .- • t ' '� ` ��
,
�;� `'� � � � t +e �` ." � 'i�' i �s .�.�., �
" ;� ' 9 i _I "� �,.0's� �' �. �t # ,� `'p,+
� 1� .y� �. �w „a;�� a°y' w I
� _
� ..
f ,e,t.r __, � .- . �e , . . .._ . . . �"
x � ' . �_ . +� ' �� � . �� r,.�' �h, -, ..rk'� �,.
s �
�� "�C.�.�, yy �•� °� . f '�5 t. * m. , . �s�.
.
4 �
� s ,'` "� '�', � �
�
�' "'� ' '
, . ,
� ' �a � � . � 0.�� M�
.ti
.. — � � u � � ,' �j. + '��Y
'. . �...., 'F" 'b.
q �i r
� � " 1 i
` Y �
. I ♦ � ' �M tii �i' �q. �°Q.
7N., �'� . . " }t' �i`'1.' '�� ..� _ � ^�`'S�.�' �vF�s� ��.y
ti �
.
�. .
y , � �� y .�.. . 4 , �,'r S,�}, � ;;' » `.�. � � '� ,.,, e '�
; ,.�' ,. �; '��� .
x ,
• . ;
,.� �� _ .-. �� �� �s • ` ;,� �:.� r+ � ,'�, +�
��� �� �7 '�,.t, � � , �..��. �r #���,� �,;, scs.�,e.u»�k*-a�� j � �� i
. !Y .. ,y y► � wY Ya�� Q�.( ',n .4
_ �,� � �ia(t � '�. �r� ti _ ;��5 7d�` � �,��t '{,"T
. _
, � k
` � pp �¢
' .i � �4� �� �t..? < <;}� � '� �` - ^��'k .}c ,: �,� �7.
� , o :. �, � ,� . 4. � � �� �i .,.y f�y .;,�.-
� • y;�., � u � -� ' �}r �"�°�,;�' s�«,�`�
±.r. . . . �� - _ .... .. �. a...�-.�.`�, . .-' .. .,p�, '+-� r�'�,'A�.' ' �' �i��..� t , i��.
R �
,.�_..,., ..�_ ueq � a
� t �� �p- ✓.n. � ;.
�m�� ������' �',��. ` ��� �$ � „B , � �$
�=�:.a,.. .a " . .
__ _ _ _ _ _-- ---_ -—
�:OtY11710t"1BOCld - 01'OI"10 MUItlfStl'llly HOUS111g � � j Option B -Townhouses
��
�
Orono, MN ia�. �, .u7o ����- URBANWORKS
-_.,... _._. ._ ,,,.,..,, /�
�_ .
�.> . .. .»�-� 'sme'-�:'x:."=�a.�s�.�-��_ ....::,�'.sg�- - . . �.OI11111UT1�Ot1(� :■
q a��►d'qal�it711��i1+i�'�I " -`' �
� ?,'.j�;.� � .. �..P • �.`,p r _ .s�,��"\r .t'�',�1�"'"a'3 -`G�i� „�i��i �i i �� ,
. ��"
o �� . �� �n �-,w��t+'�' .b"�;"
�
. .t' , ' 1 • p , r�a , '� , e x�' j —. • •
y . �.
� �
£ w > �, " ;,t _ _ _
� � ,A� � ' ^�y ��y. � • � �
� I � � l t ♦ I ►*J� 1 . dcJG.�...li...,�reu...:._..z. � — -
z ._._ . .�
�. .. � > � �
�
�� �� �� � � ,�� �
�• ' � �` � . + �.�
.. �� �� �' � � �. ; �� - � � �~i a1
n ;�t, , ,� ,� '� ��,�-� �� � t , :�.r�, I
.�
� .y� f� � s �. � �� --- j ''�� +sa a�°i��-�� ���'°,� I
�° � � . �������- � �� ..� F�ti _ ' ''..
...... �, q�
,' � �
�' � ��. .. ..�.,�^+.,a ..� � P, �. - � �� � . �
sy
�i '�? �.�,� •• ;
� �e-++ }� --'8 � ,�'�•�y,,�� ,�� �` a . �y� '+'S � ,k
7z�` ��' �� .� '� .-� �ntt ,s.;p, �j, � _ 'Y . ,
�y � �F�, . ! � :.�' /�....� � ' 1� , . � _�-<tsl�
. R
, , .. , . ,n • �.-.;._.I . �ec '
��
''�z' �'.E , ��_ ,� j � �- `
�,�� � � `� ���'� � �� ....,��� _ �� ' �'.
�
� .
y. �,, ��i � ,� y ,� � �'�9�,�
���t� a�':� �~� ] ,� "t,- � ::'�,y, `�"_-. - .�� � � ..�,��
u *
�,,
, � • �� '•� ' a� +� "^'
, ' � , , ., "yo „" �•
. ��
r
,
, . m � , '��r „h�^
�
. , ,
s ;F � �� :. ::• , . ' � `�., k�" � �.
µ .� ,�,� �` �5 �F
� �t '. "+r�"'� ` ' � a � �.
.* h,� i�k �`; .
' ..., � . � .. �j yh�l 4', .� '�� '�,1',�. "'�y�.
^„ [�. �. �yFa, - .. � - yd� 74 '��I ry.
.y '� ... .., `. . � � ��V . '��
,s � � �', " � � t � �z` .'��o
, ,
• . . .
� ��i�1 .i�+; y „�t: ,�� ,
� .�. �h� �i #r y 1 � > J $ � i� a �Y ..4.' y � y��y 6
l �:.� ag. � •�� � .t R ..e"^ a� � �q �'4� *,
• d �y � �. .,.w�
,S� � _� ' ~ e 4 �f. pd ,...�1 1 ., yA h 'y.
� .i� Z � '°.` �k� ' . a�6 �A. r .
y �k �Y .. ' � �h ``t7 ��y� .� � �* yy�,� l+r�.� 'F� ,.�1
* �� � '�'. . . <. ��' � ' `V r� . ,"A" . � '�. ��� . # �. x �
. . �,. �. � � }' ¢ ,` ".�� ' " �a � `�b� 'i� �:
� . , . , '4' � P ty; �, ��,� �
,.•. R � , s� � �•�c�
� . � � , . ' � x�
�,.� �� < < . � ' "`�
:� "� $ ��
'... .. , - �». , _ .. .. _ . �1 , . <,o-.,,# �},. ; . ''Q.�.�' �
r, Y�=� �'�.` `� k.
�
.y..�nw :: �c..��.., ,. ... ... °m"*��«n� � ... �b.���s "Q ���,
. . . ,:.,. - ,.
, H
s
,*,- � ' Z' °+
.r '� ` f,1�ttM1y.� xt^}- '��iu," :3..
� t a� �Saa.. "�ar-. . '"��. 1 �.�. ._. .. . ..
CommonBond - Orono Multifamily Housing � Option C -Townhouses ��►�
,_i
Orono, MN ��i.:�r:..�i,7o "i-oO°�" URBANWORKS
t t
�;�
�/;
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor& City Council
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Admin. - Long Term Strategy
Date: February 8, 2010
Subject: MCWD Rules D & F
Attachments:
A - 2/3/10 email from James Wisker re: MCWD Board Discussions Set for 2/11 and 2/18
B - Copies of Letters to MCWD from Various Agencies, Parties, Etc.
On February 5 a group of Lake Minnetonka city administrators met to discuss the possibility and
advantages of a combined response to the MCWD rulemaking process. While we may have some
minor philosophical differences with some of our sister cities on specific details of the proposed rules,
there are a few key points that we all likely agree on. A small subcommittee of this group (including
me) will be meeting on Thursday February 11 in an attempt to boil down the various city responses into
a single unified position statement regarding these key points.
An additional point of discussion was whether we need to have a joint effort in monitoring the
rulemaking processes as we go forward, perhaps sharing the costs of an engineer or other professional
to act as a representative of the cities. I'm not too excited about that idea, as I think we benefit from the
input of our own engineers who know Orono's point of view.
The attached packet contains copies of responses to MCWD from other cities, agencies, businesses and
individuals, compiled by Mound city staf£ Note that you may find what appear to be duplicate copies
from the same party - these are likely separate letters on Rule D or Rule F.
� 1
Mike Gaffron
From: James Wisker[JWisker@minnehahacreek.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 2010 4:15 PM
To: ("beth.neuendorf'@dot.state.mn.us); ("nick.tiedeken"@dot.state.mn.us); AI Lundstrom
(alundstrom@ci.golden-valley.mn.us); Amanda Schwabe (aschwabe@ci.minnetrista.mn.us);
Andrea Moffatt(AMoffatt@wsbeng.com); Becky Balk (Becky.balk@state.mn.us); Beverly
Anderson (banderson@mapleplain.com); Bob Obermeyer (bobermeyer@barr.com); Brad
Nielsen (bnielsen@ci.shorewood.mn.us); Brad Wozney (Brad.Wozney@state.mn.us);
Breanne Rothstein (brothstein@ci.minnetrista.mn.us); Brenda Fisk (stboni@visi.com);
Brent.D.Lindgren@co.hennepin.mn.us; Cara Geheren (cara.geheren@tkda.com); Carlton
Moore (carltonmoore@cityofmound.com); Charlotte Cohn (charlotte.cohn@dnr.state.mn.us);
Cheri Johnson (cheri@ci.excelsior.mn.us); Chris Zadak; Dave Poggi (Davidpo@bolton-
menk.com); David Johnson (david.l.johnson@pca.state.mn.us); Deb Vinderline
(LaketownTownship@broadband-mn.com); Debra Pilger(dpilger@minneapolisparks.org);
Derek Ashe (DAsche@ci.plymouth.mn.us); Dick Krier(mtkabch@qwest.net); Dick Osgood
(dickosgood@usinternet.com); Doug Snyder(dsnyder@mwmo.org); Dusty Finke
(Dusty.Finke@ci.medina.mn.us); Evelyn M. Turner; Greg Nybeck (gnybeck@Imcd.org); Gus
Karpas (gusk@cityofdeephaven.org); Holly Kreft(hkreft@ci.victoria.mn.us); Jack Frost
(jack.frost@metc.state.mn.us); James Landini Qlandini@ci.shorewood.mn.us); James Vagle
Qames@batc.org); Jesse Carlson; Jesse Struve (jstruve@ci.edina.mn.us); Jessica Loftus
(jloftus@cityoftonkabay.net); Jill Crafton (JWCrafton@rkmc.com); Joel Settles
(joel.settles@co.hennepin.mn.us); John Barten (jbarten@threeriversparkdistrict.org); John
Bradford (jbradford@HOPKINSmn.com); John Gleason (John.Gleason@dnr.state.mn.us);
John O'Toole Qohn.otoole@genmills.com); Joseph Yanta
(joseph.j.yanta@mvp02.usace.army.mil); Judie Anderson (judie@jass.biz); Kate Drewry
(Kate.Drewry@dnr.state.mn.us); Kristin Asher(kasher@cityofrichfield.org); Larry Brown
(Ibrown@shorewoodpw.com); Laura Adler(ladler@stlouispark.org); Leah Peterson
(leahp@minnesotawaters.org); Lee Gustafson (Igustafson@eminnetonka.com); Liz Stout
(Istout@eminnetonka.com); Lois Eberhart (Lois.Eberhart@ci.minneapolis.mn.us); Michael
Schmidt(mschmidt@minneapolisparks.org); Mike Eastling (meastling@ci.richfield.mn.us);
Mike Gaffron; Mike Kelly (mike@wayzata.org); Mike Wanous
(mike.wanous@mn.nacdnet.net); Nature Conservancy (minnesota@tnc.org); PatArnst
(pfarnst@aol.com); Pat Byrne; Paul Moline (pmoline@co.carver.mn.us); Rachael Crabb
(rcrabb@minneapolisparks.org); Remi Stone (remistone@comcast.net); Ron Fuchs
(rfuchs@ci.excelsior.mn.us); Sarah Friesen (sfriesen@mchsi.com); Scott Zerby
(scott@gamersdigital.com); Sierra Club (north.star.chapter@sierraciub.org); Steve Stadler
(sstadler@hopkinsmn.com); Terry Bovee (terry.bovee@state.mn.us); Terry Jeffery
(tjeffery@ci.chanhassen.mn.us); Terry Post (tpost@ci.long-lake.mn.us); Terry Schwalbe
(info@watersheddistrict.org); Tim Brown (tbrown@minneapolisparks.org); Toni Hirsch
(thirsch@ci.independence.mn.us); Tony Brough (Anthony.Brough@co.hennepin.mn.us);
Wayne Whoule (whoule@ci.edina.mn.us); Wyatt, Michael MVP; (kasher@cityofrichfield.org);
Carole Toohey (Carole.Toohey@lennar.com); Dan Salmon (DSalmon@KrollOntrack.com);
David Newman (dave@bancorgroup.com); Donna Woodruff(dwoodruf@ix.netcom.com);
Duncan Steinman (maridunc@aol.com); Ethel Smith (etheljs@earthlink.net); Ginny Black
(black.ginny@att.net); Harold Ulvestad (hsulvestad@yahoo.com); Jacob Westman
(JDWest34@aoi.com); James Vagle Qames@batc.org); Jill Crafton (JWCrafton@rkmc.com);
Jim Johnston (jim_Johnston@lymanlumber.com); Larry Blackstad
(larry.blackstad@gmail.com); Mark Kjolhaug (mkjol@Kjolhaugenv.com); Nate Duoss
(nduoss@gmail.com); Stephen Jenkins (sjenks.stephen@gmail.com); Steve Mohn
(SRMohn@comcast.net); Tim Smith (smitbagr@yahoo.com); Tom Aasen
(taasen@scicom.com); Tom Batkriges (tom@batc.org); Tom Casey (tcasey@frontiernet.net);
Tom Cesare (Tcesare@bkbm.com); Tony Goldstein (tony_golden@hotmail.com); William
Bushnell (wcbushnell@frontiernet.net);jhsmith3102@frontiernet.net; info@dockandlift.com;
mpdredging@qwestoffice.net; Lili McMillan (lilim@mac.com); Mike Molitor;
tom@theskramstads.com
Cc: Louis Smith; emmathegirldog@aol.com; Jeff Casale; Eric Evenson; David Mandt; Steve
Christopher; Becky Houdek; Mike A. Panzer
Subject: Board Discussion of Comments for Rule D and Rule F
Advisory Committee Members,
1
T 1
Thank you all again for taking time to participate in MCWD's public comment period for Rule D: Wetland Protection and
Rule F: Shoreline Stabilization. I look forward to working with each of your through the remainder of the process.
Staff is in the process of compiling all of the comments for the Board to review and discuss at upcoming meetings. The
results of these discussions may require additional language revisions before a public hearing can be scheduled. Staff
will continue to provide notifications of ineetings through this distribution list and our website.
Please note again, formal public hearings for these rules have not been scheduled.
The Board will discuss and review comments on Rule D: Wetland Protection on Februarv 11th. 2010 at 7:OOPM at
MCWD Offices.
The Board will discuss and review comments on Rule F: Shoreline Stabilization on Februarv 18th,2010 at 7:OOPM at
MCWD Offices.
Agendas and meeting materials are typically available the Friday before the meeting. I will email out the documentation
including all comments received that will be included in the Board packet for your review prior to the meeting.
As always, please call or email with questions.
Thank you.
James Wisker
MCWD Planner
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN, 55391
Phone: 952-471-0590 x 206
Fax: 952-471-0682
www.minnehahacreek.or�
�
`-�.``...�+'
MINNEHAHA CREEK
WATERSr+ED O�ST�ttCT
2
t �
James Wisker
Planner/Program Coordinator
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
M r. W isker,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the MCWO Rule D draft. We offer the
following comments for your consideratfon:
Section 3. (a) (2), Mitigatfon -The definition of"subwatershed"in the rules
needs to be better defined. The rules are not clear as to the subwatershed
levei where mftigation needs to occur, In any event, Three Rivers Park
Distrlct believes that the rules need to have some flexibility to allow
appilcants to locate mitigation sites where the opportunity to create
sustainable and functional wetlands is optimized. Forcing mitigatlan onto
margfnal locations in the impacted subwatershed may limit the ability of the
replacement wetlands to function as an integrated cornponent of the larger
hydrologic system.
Section 3. (b) (2) Mitigation - Three Rivers Park �istrict supports the cancept
of requiring mitfgation in the area where Impact occurs. Nevertheless, there
may be instances where the overal) hydralogic system could be improved
more by constructing a high quality wetland outside of the MCWD boundaries,
than by forcing mitigation onto a poor site wlthin the watershed. The rules
should allow the opportunity to pursue such an optfon without the penalty of
signlficantly increasing the size, and therefore the cost, of the mitigation.
Including a variance or waiver procedure in the rules may provlde this
flexlbl l ity.
Section 3. {c) Mltigation - Three Rivers Park District recommends that this
section speciflcally include a statement that excavation performed by a public
entity for the purpose of controlling invasive species (such as reed canary
grass, hybrid cattails, or phragmites) in wetlands be deemed self-replacing,
It is difficult ta determine if replacernent of these species with a nat'rve
species mix wil� change the MNRAM score enough to comply wfth the rule as
currently drafted. The Park Distrlct Is considering wetland excavation as an
option to attempt wetland restoratlon in Carver Park Reserve.
Section b. (a) Wetland Buffer Vegetation - Three Rivers Park District supports
the concept of establishing native vegetatlon in buffer areas. The Park
District landscape policy requires forest, wetland and grassland planting to
utilize native species. When buffers are established over disturbed area, and
new vegetation must be planted, we agree that native species should be
used. However, when existing, undisturbed natural areas are subsequently
designated and recorded as buffers, Three Rivers Park Distrlct believes that
the existing vegetation should be allowed to remafn even if It consist of
predominantfy non-native species.
Many areas around existing wetlands in Carver Park Reserve, Lake
Minnetanka Regional Park, and Baker Park Reserve have invasive species
1 �
such as reed canary grass, as the primary plant cover type, As written, the
rule would require the Park District to remove this estabiist�ed vegetation on
1lterally hundreds of acres of parkland when projects such as trall renovatfons
occur. This would result in significant disturbance to the park natural
environment and have very limited success.
At the mornent, control of species Ilke reed canary grass, garlic mustard and
buckthorn on a large scale Is an unrealistic objective. The recent trail
renovation project in Carver Park Reserve resulted in the deslgnation of over
100-acres of the park as buffer areas. Controi of non-native species over this
large of an area would be virtually impo5sible. Although the Park District is
activefy investigating strategies to control these invasive species, and is
encouraging efforts by the University af Minnesota, the MN DNR and others to
develop controf practices, the Park Dlstrict rec�gnizes that the tools far
control do nat currently exist. The Park Distrlct therefore recommends that
the draft rule be revised to allow maintenance of un-mowed, establlshed
vegetation on areas designated as buffers, even if the existing vegetation
contalns more than 75% non-natfve species,
Section 7, (b) (3) Required exhibits This proposed rule change appears to
require Three Rivers Park District ta camplete wetland delineations on all
wetlands in a park when a project is proposed. Large parks such as Baker
and Carver, contain hundreds of wetlands, spread over thousands oF acres,
and this requfrement would be a significant and unnecessary burden to the
Park District. Three Rivers Rark District recommends revising the draft
language to require delineation of affected wetlands only for proposed
projects, rather than all wetlands on the property.
Section 8, Wetland Buffer Monitoring - The Park Distrid believes that the
draft rules need to be revised to lirnit buffer monitorfng to areas re-vegetated
following disturbance during project constructian, As the attached map
shows, the Park District provided over 100-acres of wetland buffer for the
recently completed hike/bike trail project in Carver Park Reserve. All of these
areas were covered wfth established un-mowed vegetatlon, that was not
disturbed by the praject. Complyfng wfth the monito�ing provlsions over thls
extensive area as required by the draft rules would constitute an onerous
burden to the District. Simply providing photographs of representative buffer
areas throughout the park reserve would take at least an entire day.
Accurately samplfng the percent vegetative cover and dominant species could
take many weeks. Llmiting the bufFer monitoring requirements to areas
newly planted after projed completion would meet the MCWD objective of
ensuring adequate buffer establishment without the excessive burden. Areas
with existing natural vegetation should not need to be monitored as long as
they rernain undisturbed.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments,
Sincerely,
John M. Barten
Director of Naturai Resources Management '
CC: Randy Lehr, Senior Manager of Water Resaurces
Margle Walz, Associate Superintendent, Parks and Natural Resources
i �
The Bancor Gconp, Inc.
�.'
�
October 14,2W9 t.l. � �v �1 '
Minnehaha Cret�k Watershed District ��
i8�02 Minnetonka Blvd. ��` 4 'j�
Deephaven:,1VIN, b5391
R.e� Rules D
Dear Menagers: -
I am wr.iting as a memher.of the R.ulemeidng Citizen Task For.ce. The following are my
camments for your consideration on the�rogosed changes to Rule D.
I have nutueraas concern�about the propo�ed rule. T wi.11.txy tc�addr.ess i;hem in the order
i;hey are addressed in:the Statement of Need and Rea�onableness.
2�ggulatorv Scaue{page 5)
Z cone,ur in tha comment�p.rcrvided by Mr.T�exek Asche. For.numerous and obviouH reasans
thore should be a de minimis exception.
�ation—SiLine and Size of RQ�laceYuaut Wetlands �nage 5)
'S'here was little or no discuasion about this by Che Ruiemaking Citizen Task Farce. In facl:it
is my understanding that f;his was addedby the Board otManagers efter the Citizan Task
Force complet;�d its discussion. Consequently, to the best of.my knowiedge we.had no
di»cus�ion about Che replacement ratios cantained in Lha proposed rule. My concerns are�
. I am at a loss to understand the xepl�cement ratios contained in section 3 Q>). Yov
already have ths language in sectiun 3(a)that provides the�rder of where
replacement musC occur. I am�ssuming that for the$�ard to approve re�)acement
t�f£site, Lhe applicant would need to shnw why replacement credits from laeataons
with higher prioritiaa i�not gracticaL �or example if an applicant hae satis�ed the
Board that it is impracticai Lo utiiize rep3acement credits from within the sub-
wal;erahed, then what is�ccompliahed by reyuiring that a greater number af credi�,s
neecl to be purchased than i£the replacement cradit�were lce�zted in the sub-
water.yhed? nn its face thi�appears ta�e purely pun'z.tive. Quit,c frankly a cynic
mighi;think the only reAson for this is to give applicantA greeter incenl;ive to
purcl�ase erndits fram the Watershed's w.etland credit bank.
• ,Aiong a�imilar line I do not believ�our cornmitUee ever diecussed whether the
replacement ratio should be doubled for Pr�erve or'I�pee 1 or 2 wetlands. Again
this xppears to be pu�ely puni�ive. I am not aware of any evidenco th�t tttis type of
increase.is dir.ec�ly related to the loss of Lhat particulax type af wetland. Again I
assume tlial;to get the initisl.permit t;o fill the wet}and the sequencing prcx:ess need�
to be followed so the applicant has demonetratid.that the impbct is urtavoidable. I
am at a loss to undersi;and whq if a Type 1 wetland is impaci;ed,the replacement
ratio i.4 250%as oppt�sed t0 125%for cred.its located in the watershed andt upward of
80U'�if out;ride of the metropolitan areA_ 1 would like to see some scientific evidencQ
to�upport this requirement
].=i2 i 94rh L,1nc N.!?,. �uf�ers—t0}�,P 6)
T believe that the et;uilie�prcavided 1:o the committee were anything but confusing. The
Mtnnc:.�p���i�, M��z�,�s�,z;, �r.imary report relied upc�n by the committee was a literature review conduct;ed b,y EOR.
������ F'ew if anp of us ori th�committee hAve the pro�essional ex�ertise to review these�tudies
oursel�es so consequently wo n�r,ded tc�rely upan the summ�.ry pravidnd by FOR. In
reviewing�tieir stud,y, the re�cornmend.at;ions for buffer width seemed to r�ng�,all nver. I
ph��,�7C3 792397f
fax 763 7r12-897t�
, r
have been toad by expertt�familiar r�rith tho�e st.uclies Lhat thc�se instances where buli'ers of
more Chan 30 feet are rec�mmended it was in sii;uatic>ns wh�ce,yau have:
• Steep sltrpes,
. Tight soils and
• Receiving high concenl;rations of channelized flows from agricultural feeciiote.
I t;alked to a numbor o�experts ana I think in l:he end even MCWD staff agreed that any
buf£er vf more than 3�feet result;ed in de minimis return�on the issue of.water quality.
F{'urther why EOR wtta suggesting wider buffers it vrias for the pwcpase of wildlife habitat nat
water quality.
I.et's l;ake as an example Preserve wetlands. The progosed rule providos fux a 75 foot buffer.
Iiowevex all of the reports pzovided ta us support that whcn evakxating watc�r yut�lity, '
an,ything more than 30 feet:�rovidos diminishing rci:urns. We were t:�ld Lhat was to �iso
addresH habitat,but from my research I have becn t.old that generall,y you need 30{?feet fc�r
habitat..This propa.9ed rule results in the worRe of both warlds. You have groatl,y increased
tho amount of the buffer. without significantly increasing t;he quality of wat;e.r quaiity and
yet you have nnt creaCed nearl,y enough buffer ta provide for meaningful habitat;.
As far as buffer.s f.or downgr.adient wetlantls, i echa the comments of ot;her�.
�3uffer Wiclths(nase 8)
1:agree u�ith t;he approach of looking at wetland function inst;ead of si�e.
I�m concernetl however. about the methcxi of assessment. For example it is my
under�f:anding i:hat a wetland which is ar�jacent to a lake or stream,even if oC lower. quality
in most oEthe functions evr�luated, will still lx�Created as�.preserve merel,y�,y virtuc of
being adjacent I;o a lake or stream...On�t's face that may sc�c�m�ne,but I ask you t�r lo�k se
the implicativns. Under the pmpos�d rulF, the buffer fox this wetland is a mir�imum of 7Ci
f�et. The impl.icAtion zs that under this r.uie you would b�creating increased buffc�rs fllong
lakes and creeks in Lhe District i;hat grenll}�exceed th�current 7�ft buffer from the OFiWL.
I Suspect no one has discussed the implicai:ions of a chang�as signifc;ani,as this.
While generall,y 1 support the apprc�ch of adjusting buffer widths to address t;he features of
a particular wei;land,I question how it is imposed in this rule. My�roblem is that�his rule
mixes"apples and ar.anges". If you �vere using the 30€oot buffer which is recorr�mended for
maximum benefii;per cost for water c�uality, �hen it would m;ake aense I;o consider increasin�
il;for ti�ht soils or slopc�s�r to lessen it unc�er ot;h�r conditions, but as noted�bove, the rule
alresd,v doubles the bul�et for. Pr.ererve Wetlanda to 7G fceC. This i.ncrease i�far. habif;al;and
nther anaenities. 'I'his addition�I�IS feet shouid be more than adequat;e to addr.ess site issues
such as slope. By increasing the buffor beyond 75 fest;��ou�re getting virtually no incraase
in water qualii:g.
Just as an aside, our of�ice looked at a situation in which there mi.ght be 3 feet of
encroachment in a Preserve VVetland. Unde�a lif:er.al intex�rctation the r.esu)t could be the
need to have a l07 foot buf�'er. I am unawar.e of xny evidenca to 5uppor.t that this width o£
buffer has a demonstzable benefit in relation to th�impact,
Main _.nanee �page 10)
This is r�n admirAble goa]. However. .in many cases it is nol:practical. In part:icular I am
referri�g to the languags in section f(a)which reyuires 75%of the s�eciefi to be naLive. If
you aze neflr or adjAcent to areas that have non native species i1;could be ver�expensive
and virl;uHlly impossSble to m�inl:ain.
, Other Items.
Sectian 5 (U) (i). Iiow is slope ca]culai;ed? Over wha1;disGanco? Whal;if the 91ope
undulatc�s?
1 �
Section �(c�, "May" should be chnn�ed to''Shail".
Sec:tian 5{c�. [�6eve limiting the range used in�veraging af between 50�Yo tincl 20Q%is too
limiting. Cuzrentip you allow a minimum of xk�ou� ls feet. I believe yau shvuld continue to
. maintt�in maximum flesibility. Ih pa'cular it encouxages the lgnd owner to consider
alternata.ve methods o£tzeating storm water.
Section 6�h) seemR to suggest th�t you need staff approval.every time to do maintenance
work on the buffer. no you really wanti this bvr.den?
Section 7�� �3). Often th�;seAd supplier and arigi.n is not known unLil after the germit hns
boan.iasued and the cont�aci�rr has been selectc�d. This inforn►stion should instead be
p'rwi'ded giior to sl�art of work.
Section$tb) (� (i�. Dc�es this onlv refer to the area of the ariginal vegetated buffer or the
area each year? The.reason tlais ifi impartant is i;hat'sn an ideal�ituAtion the area will
incre�e and i1;w.iil be quiLe costly to have to dc>i;�i�locataon each year.
'!'henk you for allowing me nn oqpartunity to�harr with you some o£my conc�rns.
5incerel ,
f � .
T avid P. man
President
cc� Ezic Evon�on
JameA'4Visker .
Jim Johneton
Bu;��R� January 14'h,2010
ASSOCil�T1dN �
�rN�Tunn�ciT�Fs
IAfPtl3lWkS�B1Et-��t{q�k{{�fW�i[[L' goard af Managers �
Minnehaha Creek Weterst�c� Di,trici
I820Z A�Einnetonka�oulevard
De�phaven,MN 55391
Re: Pubiic CorrEm�nt on Mir�nehaha Cr�ek Watersh�d D�strict Water
ReSau►'ces kule t�
Oear Board of Managers:
These public comments are submitted on behalf af the Buiiders Associati�n af
th�Twin Cities(eATC) regarding the pub#ished vers+an of the Minnehaha �reek
Watershed District`s(MCWD)Comprehensive Water Resources Rule D.
BATC,through its staff and members,have been active contrbutors to the �
ruiem�king prncess and appretiate the oppartunitiss fvr pviicy discussiflns that
have been fa�ilitat�d by th�MCWD.These discussions illus�'r�te the impnrtant
balance that ali parties seek irt protecting our natural resaurces while delivering
housing units to meet the market's demand.
One af BATC's faremost priarities in the rule update is tfie MCWD's
deterrrsin�tion of buffer widths. BATC has consistentfy favored a site-specific
formula that captures actual ground cond'stions utflizing sound scientific
analysis,versus an arbitrary,one-size�fits-ali bianket b�ffer for the enkire
district.
Rule D doesn't fu{iy capture BATC's pr�ferred method af esCablishing widths on
a site bas+s.No4vever,th� proposed hybrid appraach ta establish 6uffers is an
improvement over the exisEing system.The rni�imum widtihs,caupled with
patentisl increases pr decreases in the width based on analysis oi the site
characteristics captures importani elements in buffer widths.Additionally, the
provisic�n allowing an app}icant to request fiexlbility for a reduced wetfand
buffer width with apprapriate demonstration of function and value is a
positive provlsion far the applieant and MCWD.
We raise an item of concern regarding Ianguage that appears in Section 4 (a}
Buffer. (n the riraft, (anguage states: "....must provide for a buffer adjatent tQ
each wetland and public waters wetland that w�ll be disturbed or is down
gradient from ihe land disturbance:`This appears to create a requirement for a
buffer around the entire dawn gradient wetland, not just its upgrade buffer
edge that may rec�ive some ru�aFf, This is a departure from the current rufe
language and received minimai attention in the stak�halder process. BATC is
c�ncern�d that this iangua�e enables MCWD to require buffers on non-
�����M 23�ti Ce�icre Pnf�t�Cl�iae���se��ill�,Mim�so�a 551 7 3-1 3 6� w❑"5�•8�7•�195A*Fsx 65 i-65l-7599�Parade Faz 6�1•�9i•7575
r wmlymc�d�+?Jhmnes.nr„
i �
impacted upland, regardiess of impact and without any demonstrated need fmm increase� flaw
or volume.
BATC urges the Bo�rd and s[af�to reconsidar and amend this portion af th� rule draft. �3P�TC
suggests the rem4va[ af the propos�c! language to focus of� buffer area� impacted by greater
flaws or valun+�s as a result af ather p�rrr�l�ted acti�ities on Che property.
We appreriate the MCWD's canxid�ration of tF�ese comments and la�ic farward ta c�ntinued
caflabaration is�the future.
espectfuily,
3 h Fowler
Exe e�/ice Presi t
w_.
I
5Ui�
rces
�rrr�.
DATE: January 1�4, 201�
TO: James I�sk�r, D�stric#Pianner
�ROM: 6ret11+V�zney, Bnard Cansenratlonist �
RE: MCWD RULE `D'AQVISQRY CQMME.M'S
i
Thank you for the apportunity to comment on proposed changes to Di�trict Rules Q and F. In generai B1NSR b�qeves �
th�t the Di�trict's rule d�velopmerrt process was exemplary by involving an extremely diverse group af stakehalders In i
two di�tinct a�mmittees. We believe tners i�firm justificati�an in the MCVN'D Watershed ManagrHment Flan fo�the i
propo�+ed chanpes. Hawever, please considerthe faliawing comments: I
I
tt is BWSR's interpretat�an that the repfacement sitinfl and ratio regui�ments in Rule Q apply only to areas wtiere the
Dfstriat is the delsgated WCA authority. The secpnd aentenca fn the first paragraph of the SONAR's"Regulatory
3�ope" section is sotnewhat vagus In this regard. !n August ZaD9, i fawarded an email indicating that wetland
standa�ds can apply to all VttGA l.QUs within the District by one af two ways; 1) �Preferr�d approaah) Follow the '
Comprehensive Wetiand Protection and hllanagemertt Plan pracess es outlined i�8420,0830 and subaequently �
sub►nit tF�at Plan for BWSR apprawal.as a general pian amendment or 2)just follow�e general plan amendmettt ;
process. Please darify Dis�icf Infiant. ;
It ia nobeworttry thak 1�JCA Lt3Us dc nat hawe the a�thorfty to�na�c� a t#e�isi�for trar�sportatian proj�cts #�at qual'ifyr#or ;
the 6WSR Road Replacernent Banking Prcgram. Therefvre�re recommend that Rul� D expliutly stata it as euch to !
clea�iy distinguish quslr�ying#ranepartation projecis to avaid contusion. We understand the Dis#rict's ba�ic desir�to �
have�plecement as ctose to the impact as passil�e. As mentioned in a previous comment letter, BWSR has had a �
diffkult time develap�ng wratland bank ccedita vaithin Ehe s�ven county rnetro at�ea, let�lo�e Hennepin Ceunty. It is
possible fhat the District could partner w�h 9WSR in developing w�tlend bartking cred�ts within the Dist�ict and we ;
would be receptive to disc.txss this€urther, ;
in Sectian 3'Mftigatiott", there ar�e a number of reference�to subwatersheds. We recommend including a user-
friendly map af the autwvatersheds gnd/ar a link to an ir�teraative map on yr�ur website.
In Section 4, �ia clear thaf a buffer is requi�ed around th�en�irety of a aWedand downgradient of an upland ;
disturbancc, CouEd th�District create a�opGon to aHow for an adaquate buffer that mi�ht be less than the �rttire
w+et{and periphe�r for small upland disturbances that have(ittie chance of causir�degradatiar�to a larc�e wetland
downgradi�nt? �r pravide a ma�umum distance between the�isturbanc�and the w�etland? W�thou#this flexibifity
there coccld he instancas where an owner of a targe parc�l would be dbing a small dtsturbancs but wauld have to
defineate and �uffer extensive�we�land areas#hat are not within a reas�nable dist$nce.
For Section 6,w�are supporkive of the minimum 75% native s�+cies requirement far buff�rs: The Disfrici may a[sa '
want to conaide�adding a maintenance requirem+�nt when apeafrc i�vasive, non-natNe speaies such as raed
Ganarygrass, purple �oases#rlfe, and smooth and g{ossy b�ucktham, exceed a maximum 109�6 areal cover thre�hald.
i4rraniJ'fi �Srrr�ia�a1 t}rf/ralrrr ?�'mzrrrs Frr//s r1:l�ctr.tltt�/ :beta t��rr 77p01l:'sh'r Srrlrrf n•rtr(
)i}1 3sli!tiY:w'il;i:���c;iN1S t6{i1\iiuyecr�ta flrir� .19c S.I.ute Avenx 1f1Qd E�t�nntierTruil I.�CI�JE..L}vn Strcet ;47 l�ighKtiy 1i$, 23!Il}SilrcrC;tt�:lc �3it Uita�c�tu Roa:l h. :'
tiuik?2� Diairlcrtl.Mf^;Str341. R�,�pU�Ii3 Fccgres l'�tu,ht�:565�7 11Six?f+'� Mrw�L't�u,L1N 3�ib'i3 14itd H.}r ',san Pout.afi�'SS��c
fit57nv]])i.hi:Y Sfi(y,ll pfmnc�2ix1�'.h-2.i$3 ihxiurti.h[:!55iAlZ p};uur(IIAJ 796.5<N9 �+1:ttS1ztll,.Mk 5f:56 �il�idto CSq77 354•[i177�1 Rii.ltrilri'.klti 551�5#� plturx(bi11'�9y.:!'?til
phr�t�f11:S.t?55..,'r:t5 iaz L'IS)52!{-tit7:� ptu���u i�t7C}7.�,3..17_•^_ iaz{21R�756.7'!IK �d1ntK�.i5i17)53;•fihC� 1Na(YfF)Z4H�d?f$ �diorr.<:SU71;�iSJ�'77J7 k�,y{h,�11.',47�.iG1'
I"te x il i u i 735-�:t)J t�ak(�!1 ri1 TZ7-tY.1+ [aiX C3�YFy'.t'�7-{iD6tS f.YX[S(l711�S.?(�i�F
i
!;'�c.�li:1ti�Y.l'.INSK[,I:IftIL',trut.scc 'CI`Y:(li[X7)G27-5S29 !tn LqUNk UJ$rnituuity e�t��.�toyce t�'jPrintccf cui rcc:�laf pnptr
� r
+
I
i
Far Sactian 7, we aff'er the fotlowing recnrnmenda�tions; ��
1y Th�fiCs�tsentenCB re#et�to the"Combfned Joir�t Nati�icafi�an(GJN) fnrm"which w�essume is the �
standard WCA appiicatf+an f�rm. This fprm has been r�n�meci, We r�commend replscing it wlth
iangua��e such as"�pplicable 1NCA s�ppiicatian#arm"ta account for future fvrm n�me changes. '
2) Furthermore, a WCA applic�tion Form 1s#echnically nat required for no-loas determinatiQns and ,
wstla�d exemp�ons,which n$�ates the submiktal of exhibits in Se�tian 7. The new WCA Ru{e �'
�f�erentiat+as ap�ication requirem�rrts fa�-exgmption�,no-Eos�, boundary determinatians, `
a�quencin�detenninations, a�d wetland roplacemer�plans. Vtife recomm�nd that the Diatrict adopt '
thQ appllcatian requir�em�nts in MR 6420.03Q5, RIfR 8�420.4310, MR 842�.Q31 S, MR 8420.Q320, MR
8�4,70.0325, and MR 8420.039Q, Ad��ionaily to simplify Rule D,we recommend that Sectian 7 anly �
Eisi dif€erencesJ�dditions af required e��b�ts from WCpt app�fcatian requirements. Nevertheless. we
eaution agairrst requiring info�rtnaNflrt that may be unneceasary upfran� MR 84Z0,0305 B(7)
requires severaf pieoes of infarmation far�sach wetl�d t�elevant to the type af d�cision," rather fhan '
�utornatically requuing aii information#or al{wetlands or� thea proparty. Clarify whether, or whfch of,
the.exhibits are required {and reievant�for no-toss de#erminations and wetfand exemptions. The
LGU alwayas has the autharity to reque�t additional information as necessar�or else cansider the
eppficstfan inco�cnplete. �
3) In Sec�tion 7{a�,the third sentence sta#es kh�t delineat#ons p�erform$d outside af the growing seasan
"mayar may nat be permitted,dependirEg on petentiat wetland impact in rel�tion to the entira ;
develapment or praject," tNe iait to uncfiers4and how a patenfial Irnpa�t would affect a delineatian � ;
r�view. We recommend that tf� Distri�t's (an�uag�e regardtng revrew of wetland deline�atio�s
ouk�ide of the�rowfng seas�n confarrn to U.S.Army Carps of En�ineers aui�nce docament from �
199fi (acr.epfed by @'VVSR}loceted atthe wel�p�e t�Eow. In essenc�this jotrt guidance dacume�t
far submitling delinsa#ions in I�[N states that depn�atlans can be review�d autside o#the official
growtn$season if avnditions aliaw f�r�mple revievw af the dets relevarrt to the wetland '
determina�ianldelinestion. 7he LGU�Iways has th�e optian of determit�irlg the deiineation report �
°in�ampl�ta" if they be�eve that there are insufficit�n#�It!cvnditians to verify it. �
http:I/www.bwsr.state.mn.uslwefland�lwcatsubmittinn-de(ineations fldf
BWSR recommends t�e Dlst�fct undergo a roview af the n,les, particularfy the mare conirove�sial ones,
with the same group of stakehalders after the firat ysar of implemerrtatian.
BWSR ap�ecia#es the opportunity#o raview and camment on the propased rufes. Feel free ta cvnta�t me �
at 631��96-6068 if I m�y be af furfher assis#ance.
3incerely,
. �
8rad( , ozrc , �
Bcsard Ganearfationist �
I
�
,
January 14, 201Q
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
Re: Rule D: Wetland Protection
Dear Managers:
This policy places a high value on the functions of wetlands and their benefits.
Despite passage of the Wetland Canservation Act and its impfementation rules, wetlands
continue to be degraded and mitigated away every year. More periods of draught followed
by flooding put additional stress on Minnesota's waters and the quality of those waters.
Wetlands are critical to water quality, water conservatian and storage as well as carbon
sequestrafion.
Rule D promotes competent administration of the Wetland Conservation Act and
strengthens the DistricYs ability ta protect wetlands through language articulating specific
mitigation priorities and provisions addressing replacement site selections, size, and in-kind
definitions. Buffers are another critical feature ta protect wetlands. The language spelling
out permitting requirements, documentation, placement, width, vegetation, maintenance,
and monitoring of buffers provides a transparent mechanism for protecting wetlands.
The process analysis for Rule D has been inclusive and comprehensive. As written, it
prornotes sustainable practices on the landscape that will advance the reduction of loss
and degradation of the precious remaining wetlands within this watershed.
Ultimately, the commitment to stewardship of our waters and lands is pararnount in
ensuring safe and adequate drinking water, flaod mitigation, and surface and graundwater
quality and quantity for the generations to come. Implementation of Rule D will be a too!for
that commitment.
I thank you for your leadership and vision, your commitment to stewardship and the
opportunity to comment.
Jill Crafton
Treasurer, MN Division - Izaak Walton League of America
J��y z s, 2010
James Wisker
MC WD Planner
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, NiN, 55391
Dear James:
Please consider the following comrnents regarding proposed changes to the MCWD Rule
D.
The proposed revisions allow for wetland management class to be deternuned by the
current version of the Minnesota Routine Assessment Method as an alternative to the use
of the management class currently assigned to the wetland by the District's previous
assessment. While the option to allow reevaluation of wetland functions utilizing the
current version of MnRAM{Version 3.1)is a good idea, it will not automatically
generate a management classification. Output from MnRAM provides ratings for each
individual function{ie: high,medium, or low) but does not provide a recommended
managernent classification.
BWSR has developed a"Recommended Wetland Management Classification System"to
use in conjunction with MnRAM,Version 3.0 currently in draft form and posted on their
website(httn:l/www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/mnramlWetMgmtClass lvInRAM 3-
3.doc . If it is the intention of MCWD that the BWSR classification system would be
utilized as an alternative to the currently assigned classification,it should be clearly
specified. In addition,if the BWSR system is to be utilized,it should be in a final rather
than draft form. If it is not the intention of MCWD to urilize the BWSR classification
system, the proposed alternative classification system should be incorporated into the
rules.
While I support the proposed approach of a graduated buffer width based on wetland
management classification, I believe the proposed buffer widths are generally wider than
what is necessary to adequately protect wetlands from post-development degradation.
Documentation provided by MCWD to justify proposed widths is inconsistent with
recommended buffers, with the BATC study indicating effective nutrient and sediment
remove by much narrower buffers, even with steep slopes. The EOR review and
synthesis of buffer research indicated that quality 30-foot wide buffers consistently
provided more than an 80 percent removal af TSS. Little or no increase of TSS removal
was documented in buffers wider than 50 feet in the studies considered. Wiziie narrower
buffers ca.n be overwhelmed by excessive sediment loads associated with the agricultural
systems studied, such sediment loads would not occur in a fully revegetated, post-
development landscape.
As an alternative to the proposed buffer widths, I recommend that the base buffers be
kept the same as proposed,with the exception af reducing the Preserve buffer width to 50
feet. Reductions in width should then be allowed in flatter buffers(less than 15 percent)
and hydrologic soil groups of grades less than C. Such buffer widths will be adequate to
protect water quaIity in all cases, assuming that buffer vegetation management is
implemented consistent with proposed Section 6. Whiie the wider buffers currently
proposed provide increased funcrions for such things as open space and wildlife,I believe
it is beyond the authority of MCWD to require that upland is set aside for such purposes.
The proposed rules also fail to address how buffers will be implemented on currently
developed sites. Small renovations or additions to existing properties may trigger buffers
due to excavation volume or erosion control requirements. Requiring a 20—75 foot
buffer on a residential property that is adding a swimming pool, sport court,or a family
room is a real issue that should be considered. Undoubtedly there are many other aspects
of the rules that are problematic in already developed areas. The rules need to be flexible
enough to allow for reasonable requirements in such areas.
Another real and significant issue not addressed in the praposed rules is the interpretation
and application of buffer requirements for wetland fringes of Lake Minnetonka and other
lakes in the District. Except in cases of steeply sloped, eroded,or rip-rapped shoreline,
nearly all shoreline will have some amount of wetland fringe or lacu.strine submergent or
floating-leaf wetland. Is it the intention of the MCWD to require buffers adjacent to lake
shore? If not,the District should consider some language to exempt such lalce fringe
wetland azeas &om t�uf�'er requirements,possible by defaulting to shoreland zoning
requirements within a specified distance from the OHWL of a lake.
The District should also look into more effective ways to reduce the adverse effects of
agricultural land use on water quality within MCWD. I am disappointed to see the
MCWD rules specifically exempting agricuitiiral uses from their regulations,basically
iguoring the tons af sediment,nutrients, and animal manure that run aff crapfields and
pastures into the west end�f Lake Minnetonka. It is obvious why that portion of the lake
consistently has the lowest water quality ratings of all bays, even worse than water
quality in the lake near most developed areas. The District should aggressively evaluate
its legai options to acquire regulatory authority over agricultural uses. Given that a
majority of the District is already developed,that is not unreasonable to consider. If that
is not possible, effective incentives should be developed to promote more
environmentally-friendly farming practices such as organic, no-till,and reduced till
cultivation;promorion of hay crops over row crops; fencing livestock out of wetlands and
creeks; and establishment of buffers, even before development. There is no doubt that
improvements in these areas would result in significant benefits to water quality in Lake
Mumetonka and Minnehaha Creek.
I am appreciative of the efforts that MCWD is making to protect water quality within its
jurisdiction. As a resident of Shorewood,I regularly use area lakes for swimming,
fishing, and boating and I have seen first hand the benefits of those efforts. That said, I
believe that the proposed rules place an unfair burden on developers and small project
� ,
proposers to continue these improvements. Buffers and additional storm water
management requirements come at significant costs. The District must seriously consider
the costs of these changes and weigh them against the water quality benefits that will be
gained, In any economic setting, a thorough consideration of the costs and benefits of
regulatory programs is necessary and fair. The current economic situation places even
greater responsibility on the District to consider those implications before ma,king
changes that significantly increase the financial burden of their regulatory requirements.
Thanlc you for considering these comments. I appreciate your effort to provide for an
open dialog during this process.
Sincerely,
�
Professional Wetland Scientist, MCVt�D Resident
To the MCWD Board of Managers:
Thank you for allowing me to comment on Rule D.
I have the following two concerns relating to Section 2 and 3 of the Rule.
Regarding Section 2, I am concerned that this change will eliminate the wildlife habitat
exemption allowed under the Wetland Conservadon Act.
From the Minnesota Interagency Wetlands Group{attachment provided):
'The purpose of the wildlife habitat exemption is to allow some wetland impact(filling for
all weUand types and excavation for the permanent and semi-permanently flooded
portions of Types 3,4,and 5 wetlands)to occur without replacement as long as the net
effect of the project is to improve wildiffe habitat. if the intent of a project is something
other tha�wildllfe habitat improvement,such as improved aesthetics,or to gain access
through the wetland,then the project does not qual'rfy for the habitat exemption."
In the Watershed District, many wetiands are degraded due to land use practices and invasive
species. One such invasive species, reed canary grass, is creating large dead zones for wetland
wildlife. Given that reality, I think it is important to have the wfldlife habitat exemption available as a
tool for land owners to use to restore and improve habitat. The exemption is well written with
detafled guidelines that spell out what is permissible and ailow the Watershed to prope�fy permit and
regulate such projects.
Although the Metro Area wili not attract large amounts of migrating wildlife on its wetlands, with
wildlife habitat improvement there 1s opportunity for intreasing arnphibian life, improving local nesting
duck success and attracting ather species that depend on the vitality of a wetland. Lastly a successful
habitat improvement wfll be an amenity and an ongoing wildlife educatfonal study for the Watershed
citizens.
Regarding Sectfon 3 {c): E have a concern that only allowing excavation by public agencies to be self-
replacing is an unfair applicatlon of control over prlvate property and an unfair advantage of
government permission. This limits the abillty of the land owner to conduct posslble Improvements to
one's land unless he Is willing to concede the work and possible ownership characteristics to a publlc
agency. This also gives public agencies an adva�tage to conduct an activity on private land with an
inherent advantage (no mitigation) that is unavailable to the land owner.
As a past member of the Gitizens Advisory Committee of the MCWD, I am appreciative of the time
spent in formulating these rule changes for the Watershed. These are complex fssues and I thank you
for giving me the opportunity to weigh in on some of the changes.
L(li McMfllan
LYMAN PR�P�RZ`IES, I.f.L.C� 300 MORSEAVENL7E
EXCELSIOR,Mld 55331
OFFICE(952)470-3634
�ax(952�a�a36�a
December 17, 2009
The Board of Managers
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Blvd ����p
Deephaven, MN 55391
�G � 1 �
Re: Proposed Rule D (Wetland Protection)
Dear Managers,
As a member of the Cifizens Advisory Committee for the last 30+ manths, { am writing io
comment on the praposed revisians to Rule R as recently pubiished. As you may recafl,
this rule received lang and considerable discussion at the committee level, muCh Of !t
focused on the methodofogy of proposals to widen and enhance buffer widths. I believe
thase discussions have borne fruit in this new ru{e text. However, there is language in
Section 4 (a1 Buffer, initially included in rough drafts late last summer, which k
overloaked and which were recently brought to MCWD sta�f attention by Mr. Poggi P.E.
af the Technical Advisary Committes. The inclusion is "....that will be disturbed or is
down gradient from the land disturbance." The clear cannotation here is to require a
buffer around the entire dawn gradient wetfand, not just its upgrade buffer edge that may
receive some runoff (as is how tha cuRent rule is phrased). Under this new language,
fhe MCWD has the ability to literatly take undisturbed and non-impacted upland from an
owner and convert it into protected buffer by a defacto conderr�nation withauf due
process. This is without any demonstrated need resulti�g from increased flow ar volume,
if any. This new language is, I believe, a taking and cauld raise serious use restrictions
on smaller parcets triggered into the permit process by the lower threshofds in Rules N
and B.
I strongly urge a Board and staf#revisit to this portion of the rule draft with an eye to the
remaval of any demand for additional buffer width on wetlands within a permitee's
property except those immediate buffer areas impacted by greater flows or valumes as
a result�f other perr�itted activEties an the property.
Thank you for your consideratian.
Sincerely, �r
.._--• i`y
.... ;.r`,.ye,�,�,���:�......... .... .. . .
f��f � . .,'}F .
s�� Jarries VC�.,lotinston
�„f-��ce.R�esident �
cC: James Wisker �
, �r,��,� _.a,� ,:
� � �
��.x�� - ' ,�� .. ;�
�,�' . ,
November 30,2009
Minnehaha Creek Watershed Disirict
Dear Mr. Wisker and the MCWD Board of Managers;
Thank you for the opporiunity to comment on the proposed changes to Rule D: Wetland
Protection.We applaud the District's efforts to update the rule, and we believe a crirical
companent of ensuring the effectiveness of the rule is to consider input from alI
stakeholders including cities,developers,citizens,and other governmental agencies.
Below.you will find bullet paints of staffcomments regarding the revisions. Please
consider our comments when formulating your final revisions.
• You do not define what you wiil be considering a wetland under your jurisdiction.
Due to the proposal to include all wetlands,regazdless if they are subj ect to WCA
rules, it is necessary to determine how you will be defining a wetland(ie.
incidental or stormwater ponds, etc).
• There should be an opportunity for applicants to do further study{beyond the
original functional values assessment conducted by the watershed)to determine
the relative value level of a wetland(Preserve,Manage,I,II,III). Over time,
wetland characteristics may change, or the entire wetland may not have been field
verified.Applicants should have the option of providing the district information to
re-classify a wetland, if needed.
• Section 3 (b} (1)requires a 2 to 1 replacement,but says"ratio of 2 acres
replacement...for each acre of impacted..."Is the implication that at least one
acre would need to be impacted before this would apply? If not, the language
could be revised to indicate a replacement rati�of 2 to 1,regardless of the size,
• Section 3 (b) (2) (c) will come into play in a significant way for road projects.
Oftentimes, large road projects cannot fmd wedand replacement in tlie metro. A 4
to 1 replacement requirement will significantly add higher costs to already
expensive road projects.
• Section 3 (c) refers to"excavation performed by a public entity for public
benefit..."The definition of public benefit needs to be specif cally defined, Also
in the same secrion"degraded wetland"should be defined as well.
• Section 4 (a) is problematic. Is this to suggest any land requiring any of the listed
pernuts is subject to wetland buffer requirements on all down gradient wetlands
on the properiy?To require all wetlands on a praperty to be buffered according to
the proposed rules for any stormwater management or waterbody crossing permit
seems aver(y restricrive.A remedy would be to mare narrowly define which
wetlands would be subject to buffering(for example,those for which the permit is
being requested).
• Secrion 7 (h) requires a five year rnonitoring and maintenance plan for every
wetland required to be buffered(which according to Section 4(a) is alt
downgradient wetlands on a subject property).This will require significant
appiicant investment and staff follow up. Section 7 (h) 2 requires the applicant to
inspect, identify,monitor, and eradicate invasive species germination and
establishment,which is a difficult measure that has not been achieved even
though the significant research effort put forth by the University of Minnesota.
Furthermore, Section 8 {b) a requires significant expertise to conduct and will
inevitably create a hardship for the applicants trying to meet the rule. Section 7
(g) and(h} and Section 8 regarding buffer monitori.ng and maintenance should be
reserved for only the most pristine wetlands in the most important circumstances.
January 15,2010
Mr. James Wisker
MCWD
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven,MN 55391
RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rule F and D Comments
Dear James:
Mn/DOT has the following comments on the draft Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distr�ct
Rules F and D. Some of our same comments were also made in rega.rd to the Minnehalia
Creek Watershed District draft Management Plan back in November 20, 2006;I have
attached a copy of that transmittal for your reference.
Rule D Wetland Protection:
l. Please add to this Rule that Mn/DOT is the WCA LGU on land that it owns.
2. "Impact"is not defined. Do temporary impacts require full mirigation?
3. Mitigation(Rule 3 b 2)is problematic. The replacement ratios in the rule provide
a disincentive to using BWSR's local road bank. Mn/DOT is not a part of the
local road projects that would be able to.access the BWSR road bank without the
penalties listed in the rule(ratios, location etc.} and it is not clear in the rule that
this option is available.
4. Banking(Rule 3 b 4}is very problematic. Page 6 of the SONAR references use of
BWSR bank. Mn/DOT transfers funds to BWSR to create wetlands and a bank of
wetland credits from which Mn/DOT can draw for future Mn/DOT projects with
wetland impacts has been established. This is separate from and different than the
Local Government Roads Wetland Replacement Program(Mn/DOT is not a part
of the Local Roads Frogram). It should be clarified that Mn/DOT needs to have
the same privilege as athers. Mn/DOT has an existing agreement with$WSR and
has paid BWSR far wetland replacement Mn/DOT should be able to continue to
use the bank without the WD's increased ratios and penalties and this should be
made clear in the Rule.
5. Buf�'ers Section 4(a): Buffer requirements for wetlands downgradient of our
projects that we are not disturbing is a big problem. Why is this in the new
Rules? What happens when the wetland is not on our property? How far is
"downgradient"? What happens when our stormwater is not even discharging to
the wetland area and is piped in a different direction? The buffer requirements
should only apply when the wetland is actually being excavated or filled in some
manner.
b: Buffers Section 4{b}: What does"A buffer on public land or right-of-way may be
documented in a written agreement executed with the District in place of a
recorded instrumenY'mean? Mn/DOT roadway tumbacks are only made ta other
public entities such as cities and counties, so why is this agreement necessary
when the plan set should suffice?
"7. Section 4(c): Monuments/signing requirements are impractical for linear projects.
Mn/DOT will nat be able to place buffer monuments at the edge of the wetlands
. due to safety reasons. Ftush mounted monuments are not visible. In most
instances,Mn/DOT praperty has access control and is fenced, so it is unclear why
they would be needed on Mn/DOT facilities in the first place. Permits are also
required for any excavation activities on Mn/DOT right-of-way.
8. Section 5- Buffer width requirements are impractical for linear projects, Due to
limited right-of-way, in many instances,Mn/DOT will have a hard time meeting
the buffer width requirements. Given the size of the buffer width requirements,
this will impact being able to replace the wetland on-site. I have attached an
email I sent to you on this subject back in September 2008, James,when
Hennepin County and Mn/DOT met with you back in May 2009, we talked about
the problematic nature of the buffers with you. {I have attached the notes form
that meeting to this letter.) Flease add an exemption to the Rules for linear
entities.
9. Section 6- Mn/DOT has spec�c maintenance requirements for our right-of-way
in our IRVM(Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management)Plan that requires
mowing for both safety and aesthetics. In many instances, due to limited right-of-
way,this area will include the wetland buffers.
10. Section 7(a}—Required E�chibits: The timeframe for delineatians has aiways
been April 15�'to October 15�',not May 1.
11. Section 7(h) and Section $Wetland Buffer Monitoring: The maintenance plan
that Mn/DOT will use on its' right-of-way is the IRVM plan mentioned above in
comment 9. This will need to suffce to meet the requirements of section 7(h)and
section$.
Rule F—Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization'
1. Section 3(c): Where is the erosion calculation worksheet and what is it based on?
Seems like the WD is making this cookbook and taking the design IIexibility
away from the designers which is dangerous.
2. Sectian 3(d}; Why is stream velocity not entered into the design? Seems again
like the WD is making this cookbook and taking the design flexibility away from
the designers which is dangerous. �
3. Section 4—Can this be always handled at the staff Ievel and not the Board level?
4. Rule 5(a){2) seems impractical for Mn/DOT.
5. Definitions—Access Corridor- What happens when the access corridor is greater
than 50 feet?
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District Rules. If you have any questions,please contact me at b51-234-7520.
Sincerely,
Beth D.Neuendorf,PE
Metro District Water Resources Engineer
Enclosures: November 20,2006 comments; May 13,20(19 and Sept 15, 2008 emails
cc Nick Tiedeken,Mn/DOT�ES
Wesley Saunders-Pearce, Mn/DOT OES
File
'�.i��,_ _�\
��,o,���
�
/o �w� o��
�� ���� , � �i�� o�aNa
i� � + ���'rl'+ 'f`' � I� .
'� ;�� ;' ���'S�yr ,��r ZVLtte�lC��m1 Utttces
,�. #
�� ' �,i �����' '$,G��� Street Addret� M��in�Addnss: ,
��"�,�Q�%� 2750 Keliey Patkway P.O. Bar 66 i
``�=�:.�=-=-'� Orono, MN 55356 Crysta! Bey, MN 55323-006b
��,�y ia, 2oto
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Ma.nagers
C/o Eric�veasvn,District Admueistrator i
1btxOz 1V�in,n��ton��koulevard
Ueep�uven,MN,5539I
Re: Cit,y of Qrono Cam�nents on Proposed Rales D and:F
Deaz Eric$nd Managers: �
(
?hank you for ihe appc�rtunity to comment on your propased rule changes. We appreciate and
�alue[he cvntnbutions of:the Rulemaking Task Force members and Technical Advisory
Committee m�mbers. After carefully reviewing the proposed language it appears the City is in
general agz�ement with a ma}arity of the pzoposed re�ulations.Hr�wever,we do have a number
of serious concerns regarding the impact of these ntle changes.
We have the following camments regarding Rute D-Wetland PratectiQn:
�
Pratection of wetlands has long been a priority for the City. For the iast faur years our sta�£has
been a�ministering comparable weetand regulations that have a tri�,ager similar to the proposed 50
cubic yards of excavation or S,OQO square feet of land disturbance. Based.on this experiencc we
ask for the following changes to the proposed regulations: ;
(
1. Propvsed Rule:Proposed larrguags woufd escablish required bu,fj"er widths based on the
type t�f wetland as w�ll as on tfte slope and soils within the buf,j�er.
j
Comment: The benefits of the adciitiona!few feet of buf�er gained hy using soils and I
siope as determinant factors would be limited and would not offset the burden impased
on the property owner in determinin�the width of the buf'fer. We woutd prefer these
factors be eliminated,hut if they are retained,additionai guidance should be added as to
where sails and slopes would be measrxred since they can vary throughout the bufF�r. �
2. Proposed Ruie:If a bufJ'er is nv1 triggered, buildin.gs and other r'mpravements may be
corrstructed within t`he 8u,�"'er.
Cnmm�ent: There should he a prohibition af any new encroachment into a potential future '
buffer area ar seTback, even if buffer establis�tment is not triggered as part of the
;
Teiephone(952)3A9-4bUQ • Fax(952)2+19•4b16
www.ci.orono.nui.ns
MCWD Board of Managers
January 14, 2010
Page 2
immediate graject. 7'his is curren�ly part of the Ciiy's reguiations. It ensures there will
be room for the buffer in the fizture.
3. Proposed Rule: Buildings can be constructed up�o the edge of the h�er.
Gamment: There should be a setback fram the baffer for buildings. 4r�ano's weiland
regu3atians require a 24 foot building setback from the buffer. This provision was based
on the City's experience with properties where houses were construct�d up to the edge of
the huffer. The praperty owners complained about the lack of a usable yard or nat being
able to walk acound their house because of Che unmQwed buffer. The setback is intended
to reduce the propensity of yards to gradually eneraach an the huffer and ta provide for
acc:ess lo all sides�f buildings. (T'}�e requirement fvr niarkers at the edge of tl�e�uffer is
one t}wt we intend to add to our regulations.)
4. Proposed RuXc:A project that dislurbs more than S,Q00 squure feet of land'ar incli�des
the excavation of more than SO cubic yards wautd trigger the bu,�J'er requirement.
Comment: To be reasonable there shouid be some connection between the buffer '
improvement requirement and the Uriggering event. Simply excavating ar disturbing land
may not have a permanent impact on a wetland. The following ctiteria(fram the City's
regulations)stsould be added: t-'Ihe portion of fhe property being disturUed must drain
to the wetland.2-There must be a net increase in the square foata�e af impervious
surface that drains to the wetiand or results ir►the relacation af impervious surfaees closer
to the wedAnd,or results in cha,uges to drainage patterns that the District's Engineer
determines witl increase the ve(ocity ar rate of runoffto ttte wetland. :
5. Propnsed Rule:Prapnsed bu,,/�'er widths are x�ider than required by 1he City b�tt bu,f,�'er
averaging is altoriJed
Comment; The addition of erosion co.ntrol permits as a trigger far buffer improvement
will result in the regulations being applied ta develaped pmperties. Implement't�g a
wetland bu�'er requiremenc on a developed property where the location of existing
structures,impmvernents,and property lines must be taken into consid�ratian is much
mace difficult than for a new development. City regulations allow btt.t�er averaging as �
well as redirecting drainage to an area where a buffer is feasibie, use of rain gardeus,at�d ;
ather methods to achieve results et�uivalent to a standard buffer. Other options besides
buffer averaging shau(d be atlawed to avoid creating severe hardshigs for property
owners.
6. Propased Rule: The rules prapose an en,forcement process simrlar to those required when
a w,etland is frtled and mitigatect
Comment:This pracess would seem to be excessive far individual Iots. We call�eet an
escrow to guarantee instaltation and establishment af buffers. Staffperforms campliance
checks. Rather than lostng a growing season while we nern.ind the pmpecty owner abaut
the inspection report,our staff can make the inspection and quick[y issue any necessary
�,
MCWD Baard af Managers
Janusry 14,2010
Page 3 I
notices. As a Iast resort the City is able to have the work dane and assess any costs
beyond the escrow to the property. If such a pracess is beyond the capacity of the
District,cities should have the option of assucning this r�sponsibility for individuat lots.
i
;
Regarding Rule F—Streamhank and Sharetand Stabitization:
Orono supports the goal of maintaining or restoring shoxelines and streambanks to their
natural appearance and functian as mvch as possible. We share your concerns about t�e
impact af rip-rap on trees and the averall appearance of the laleeshore. However we
slrangty acfvise that the provisian requiringflvodplrr�n mitigation for rip-rap not be rrdopted.
As we understand it,this provision would necessitate re-gr�ding of lakeshore areas. In areas
with high sboreline banks,retaining walls would be required at tke back edge af the ,
ex�avatinn. AEl this is counter to the gaal af maintaining the uatural appearance of ,
shorelines and streambanks. We seriously question the physical feasibility and prscticality of
such a requirement. Appliaatiob of the rule wouid trigger the rEqturement for canditional use ;
permit and variance approvals uxtder Orono ordinances this neccssitates the complet�on of a
detailed assessment of th.e physical and visuat impacts to the shoretine,and adds To the cost
burden af the property awner,Further, in many cases the City would likely deny applicants
the ability to take actions needed tQ meet MCWD pemut requirements.
The prapased rule changes are troubling and in some cases in conflict with Chono goals and
ordinances. In the spirit of the long-sfanding relationship of cooperation and partners�hip
hetween Qrono and the MCWD,we would appreciate the oppcsrtunity to meet with the Managers
regarding th�proposed changes to Rules D and F befare any actian to aciopt ar implement the
changes is taicen.lf you have any questions,glease contact Assistant C`ity Adrninistrator Mike �
Ga:E&an at 952-249-4622.
�
Respectfu�ly submiited, `
City of Orano '
j
�• fiv.��
;
James M.White,Mayor �
cc: Lakc Minnetonka Ar�a Mayars �
James Wisker '
�
�
- '
i
i'
f
, ,j
January 15, 2010
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTR{CT
Attn: Mr.�ames Wisker, Planner
18242 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
SUBJECT: DRAfT RULE F: SHORELINE AND STREAMBANK STABILIZATIDN
CITY OF PLYMOUTH STAFF CQMMENTS
Dear Mr, Wisker:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD} draft Rule F. Please accept the following comments for your consideration on the
proposed draft revisians ta the MCWD Rule F:
1. The draft, dated November 2009, cantains a substantial number of requirements that
can nat reasonabiy be expected to be provided by the average resident of the MCWD or
other applicant without significant financial investment and is certain to contribute to
increased public capital expenditures and/or administrative costs to stabilize shorelines
and streambanks.
2. The �nancial burden of such substantial requirements wil! prevent private property
owners and athers from repairing existing problems currently contributing to degraded
water quality.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to these comments.
SinCerely,
Derek Asche
Water Resources Manager
cc: Lee Keeley, MCWD Board Member
Bob Moberg, City Engineer
P:\permit\PERMIT pRIVE\DISTRICT TECHNICIAN\Rule Revision\D�aft Rules\Rule F\Rule F_Comments\Plymouth.dotx
Heilo Mr.Wisker
I have reviewed the draft of Rule F and have some comments.
1.I think your role in"controAing"and"protecting"and"managing" is fine.
2.I think tfi�at moving to"preventing"and"restoring" is going too far. I think"prevention"is often hard
to accomplish and "restoring"sounds like you plan to take away things that already exist. i don't fike
that idea.
3. In your dacument the Rulemaking Task Force cautions the MCWD against"overly prescriptive
regulatians..."That is what I am trying to say above.
4.Along these same lines I suggest you focus on land(shorelines}that are currently undevekoped.Here
is where you can truly"prevent" bad things from happening.
5.The documents speak of the need for education,which l agree witfi.There are lots of different cities
with their own planning commissions,parks commissions and city councils,all of whom need to be
aware.Even more challenging are the hundreds of contractors, builders, iandscapers,seawall builders,
etc.who need to be informed. eeyond that are the real estate people who need to know that someone
buying a waterfront property will have to abide by such regutations. How do you get to such a braad
audience7
6. I believe that different types of watercourses may need difFerent types of regulations.For exampte
the Mpls Chain of Lakes(part of the parks system, no motorboats,etc.)are completely different from
watercourses that are fully{or nearly fully)developed(Medicine lake, Bryant Lake, Christmas Lake, Lake
Minnetonka,Lake Minnewashta,etc.),where motorboats abound. Although I am not an expert an
creeks,I think managing a meandering creek like Minnehaha Creek may have unique challenges
associated with it,compared to a lake.
6.the documents include an "erosion intensity formu la."Wow! How is the common person supposed to
understand this?
7. How will enforcement be done if this passes?
Thank you forthe chance to comment on this,,l honestly hope that there has been a groundswell of
comrnents that will requi�e the MCWD to rethink this proposal.
Thank you.
Tom Skramstad
tom@theskra mstads,com
952-474-5374
, ,
. :>.:;_,, , ,, .,_ . . . .; ,. , ,. . ..
�_ �.. ---- .... �.
----......r------- � ---... . � . .. . . � .. . ... .. •--- ,---
� CirY oF VicTOR��
7'951.�,ose Str'eet • Bax36 I
� �.�` Nictarlcc, �55386 '
°rL�kes� I
952l443-421� • }'ax 952J443 2110 �
� www ci.victorta.mn.ua
7anuary I5,2410
Mr. James Wiskex
Minnehalia Creek Watershed Distcict
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven,Minnesota 55391 �
Re: Draft MCWD Rule F—Shoreline and Streambank StabilizatiQn
Rule D—ViTetland Protection
Deaz Mr. Wisker: :
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to Rule F
(Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization) and Rtile D (Wetland Protection},The City of
Victoria is committed to effective surface water management including wetland
protection and shoreline management. Our commitment is demonstrated by our
existing ordinances protecting shoreline and our requirements that wetlands and buffers
be placed in outlots deeded to the City of Victoria during develogment processes.
We appose fhe proposed rules as dra#ted as they present significant issues for both the
City and individual property owners without significant measurable benefits to water
quality.This letter serves to highlight our overriding concerns with tl�e regulations as
outlined,but is not intended to eddress each individual element of the draft rule.
Rule D: The rules outline additional regulations and requirements abo�e and beyond ;
what is required by the Wetland Conservation Ac� All wetland rules should be
consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act. %
The outlined buffer triggers are excessive.Buffer requiremezzts should only be triggered
in cases wheze there are wetland impacts.The proposed buf�'er widths are excessive.
Tlle triggers when combined with the new width requirements may result in a �
regulatory taking of usable property. �
�
. �
�^
_ .._. . _ .. �- ;__ �. .,. - - . ,. '
,.
._, : .._ - _., -�- - ...---------------, - .--... .. , . . .. �
Rule F: Rules and requirements such es swrvey and calculations by a professional
engineer for any improvenzent oz alteration of a shoreline of a water basin or the bank of
a wa#ercourse are excessive,particularly for private property owners of small parcels
and single fan�iIy Iots. Tb.e fa�nancial burden created by requirements such as these will
. prevent property owners from repairing existing problems thereby reducing the amaunt
of shareline protection.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter. ,
5incerely, �
. � I
Mary Hershherger Thun
Mayor,City of Victoria
cc: Mike Klingelhutz,Miruiehaha Creek Board of Managers
Don Uram,City Administrator
. r
F
C
Y
F
€
�.
�
G.
L':
�c
i
�
k•
I
. i
, • �,
�- Mayor:
Cj� Qf�$yZata Kea Willcox
6�V �1Ce �'�T�t Clty Coandl:
Jack Amdal
Wayzata, MN 55391-1734 M�a�a�
Andrew Mullin
Tam Taima
City Maaager:
Allan Orsen
January 19,2010
Mr. James Wisker
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven,MN 55391
Re: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD)Rulemaking
Rule F—Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization
Dear Mr. Wisker:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD) dra$
Rule F. Please accept the following comments for your consideration on the proposed draft revisions to
the MCWD Rule F:
1. The draft, dated November 30,2009, contains a substantial number of requirements that cannot
reasonably be expected to be provided by the average resident of the MCWD or other applicant
without significant financial investment and is certain to contribute to increased public capital
expenditures and/or administrarive costs to stabilize shorelines and streambanks.
2. The financial l�urden of such substantial requirements will prevent private properiy owners and
others from repairing existing problems currently cantributing to degraded water quality.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to these comments.
Sincerely,
�
�
- Michael H.Kelly,Jr:,P.E.
City Engineer
cc: Mayor and City Council,City of Wayzata �
Mr.Alian Orsen,Wayzata City Manager
Mr.Bryan Gadow,Wayzata City Planner
Phone:952-A04-5300 Fax:952-4045318 c-maiL-city@wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org
January 27, 2010
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers
Attn: James Wisker
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven,MN 55391
Re: City of Spring Park Comments on Proposed Rules D & F
Dear Mr.Wisker and Managers,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to rules D and
F. We realize that the official comment period deadline has passed and apologize for the
late submittal. In lieu of the delayed public hearing,we respectfully request that our
comments be considered.
The City of Spring Park appreciates the district's ambitious goals to protect the
water resources within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. The environmental
protection of Lake Minnetonka is a high priority for us. We too strive to protect this vast
natural resource in our area.
The City of Spring Park agrees with the spirit and intent of the proposed rule
changes. However,we question if the proposed rule changes will have the outcomes that
are expected and desired by the District. Each water body in the watershed is unique,
especially Lake Minnetonka and the surrounding cities. A "one size frts all"methodology is
not the best approach for regulations in this instance. We believe other water quality
practices will make a bigger impact toward achieving the goals of the District.
For example, a big offender and pollutant to Lake Minnetonka is the untreated run-
off from roads, parking lofs, public boat launches and upstream agricultural run-off that
flows directly into the lake. The amount of pollutant coming from these sources dwarfs in
comparison to the amount coming from private residences. We would encourage and
support partnerships with the MCWD on infrastructure projects that improve water quality
on a larger scale rather than increasing regulations that create undo hardships for riparian
property owners.
Spring Park recognizes that balancing the property rights of lakeshore owners and
the goals of the district are at best, difficult. While the environmental goals of the district
MCWD Board of Managers 2
January 26,2010
` are noble,we feel that putting undo restrictions and requirements on lakeshore residents
is not the best way to achieve those goals.
The city questions whether the increased permitting requirements and the cost of
implementing the new regulations will actually preclude riparian property owners from
even undertaking shoreline stabilization projects because the process is so daunting. (i.e.
completion of the erosion intensity worksheet, recordable maintenance agreements, etc.)
Spring Park agrees with the Technical Advisory Committee that increased education and
outreach efforts would appropriately and effectively advance the District's interest in
greater use of biological and bioengineered stabilization techni9ues without being overly
restrictive of shoreline work.
Lake Minnetonka is classified as an urban, recreational lake. The City of Spring Park
values this important natural resource and strives to be a good steward of the lake. We
agree with the comments from Mound and Orono, our neighboring cities, and urge the
district to carefully reconsider the restrictive nature of the proposed changes to rules D and
F. We appreciate the opportunity to comment and would welcome the opportunity to meet
with district staff or district managers before any formal action is taken by the board on
rules D and F. If you have any questions, please contact City Administrator Jim Brimeyer at
(952) 471-9051.
Respectfully Submitted,
City of Spring Park
Sarah Reinhardt, Mayor
January 15,2010 �
V"`` �
Mr. James Wisker
MCWD
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven,MN 55391
RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rule F and D Comments
Dear Jarnes:
Mn/DOT has the following comments on the draft Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Rules F and D. Some of our same comments were also made in regard to the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District draft Management Plan back in November 20,2006; I have
attached a copy of that transmittal for your reference.
Rule D Wetland Protection:
1. Please add to this Rule that Mn/DOT is the WCA LGU on land that it owns.
2. "Impact"is not defined.Do temporary impacts require full snitigation?
3. Mirigation(Rule 3 b 2) is problematic.The replacement ratios in the rule provide
a disincentive to using BWSR's local road bank. Mn/DOT is not a part of the
local raad projects that would be able to access the BWSR road bank without the
penalties listed in the rule(ratios, location etc,) and it is not clear in the rule that
this option is availabie.
4. Banking(Rule 3 b 4)is very problematic. Page 6 of the SONAR references use of
BWSR bank. Mn/D�T#ransfers funds to BWSR to create wetlands and a bank of
wetland credits from which Mn/D4T can draw for future Mn/DOT projects with
wetland impacts has been established. This is separate from and different than the
Local Government Roads Wetland Replacement Pragram (Mn/D�T is not a part
of the Local Roads Program). It shauld be clarified that Mn/DOT needs to have
the same privilege as others. Mn/DOT has an existing agreement with BWSR and
has paid BWSR for wetland replacement. Mn/DOT should be able to continue to
use the bank without the WD's increased ratios and penalties and this should be
made clear in the Rule.
-;, �����.
f�
5. Buffers Section 4(a): Buffer requirements for wetlands downgradient of our
projects that we are not disttu'bing is a big problem. Why is this in the new
Rules? What happens when the wetland is not on our property? How far is
"downgradient"? What happens when our stormwater is not even discharging ta
the wetland area and is piped in a different direction? The buffer requirements
should only apply when the wetland is actually being excavated or filled in some
manner. �
6. Buffers Section 4(b): What does "A buffer on public land or right-of-way may be
documented in a written agreement executed with the District in place of a
recorded instrument" mean? Mn/DOT madway turnbacks are only made to other
public entities such as cities and counties,so why is this agreement necessary
when the plan set should su�"ice?
7. Secrion 4(c}: MonumentsJsigning requirements are impractical for Iinear prajects.
Mn/DOT will not be able to place buffer monuments at the edge of the wetlands
due to safety reasans. Flush mounted monuments are not visible. In most
instances,Mn/DOT property has access control and is fenced, so it is unclear why
they would be needed on Mn/DOT facilities in the first place. Permits are also
required for any excavation activities on Mn/DOT right-of-way.
8. Section 5 -Buffer width requirements are impractical for linear projects. Due to
limited right-of-way, in many instances,Mn/DOT will have a hard time meeting
the buffer width requiremeats. Given the size of the bufFer width requirements,
this will impact being able to replace the wetland on-site. I have attached an
email I sent to you on this subject back in September 2008. James, when
Hennepin County and Mn/DOT met with you back in May 2009, we talked about
the problematic nature of the buffers with you. (I have attached the notes form
that meeting to this letter.) Please add an exemption to the Rules far linear
entities.
9. Section 6-Mn/DOT has specific maintenance requirements for our right-of-way
in our IRVM(Integrated Roadside Vegetation Management}Plan that requires
mowing for both safety and aesthetics. In many instances, due to limited right-of-
way, this area will include the wetland buffers.
14. Section 7(a)—Required Exhibits: The timeframe for delinearions has always
beea April 15�'to October 15�',not May 1.
11. Section 7(h) and Section 8 Wetland Buffer Monitoring: The maintenance plan
that Mn/DOT will use on its' right-of-way is the IRVM plan mentioned above in
comment 9. This will need to suffice to meet the requirements of section 7(h) and
section$.
i C���-� �---
Rule F— Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization•
1. Secrion 3(c); Where is the erosion calculation worksheet and what is it based on?
Seems like the WD is making this cookbook and taking the design flexibility
away from the designers which is dangerous. ,
2. Section 3(d): Why is stream velocity not entered into the design? Seems again
like the WD is making this cookbook and taking the design flexibility away from
fihe designers which is dangerous.
3. Section 4—Can this be always handled at the staff level and not the Board level?
4. Rule 5(a) (2) seems impractical for Mn/DOT.
5. Definitions—Access Corridor-What happens when the access corridor is greater
than 50 feet?
Thank you for the ogportunity to comment on the draft Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District Rules. If you have any questions,please contact me at b51-234-752�.
Sincerely,
Beth D.Neuendorf,PE
Metro District Water Resources Engineer
Enclosures: November 20,2006 comments; May 13,2Q04 and Sept 15,2008 emails
cc Nick Tiedeken,Mn/DOT OES
VtTesley Saunders-Pearce,MnIDOT OES
File
+ ;sS,�6L�F ti...
4 �. '��,
' _a� �� A°'r,'`; January l3,2010
Rti'-��'� � ':
h
' '�.�,��� o� r James Wisker
,'lV �p1°' MCWD Planner
� � , - 18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
......_. ..
- - ; Deephaven,MN, 55391
�di�ini.u�fr;�:r�,tjr��� lames:
�1'I�`1�+�:Si 12it��r'lioail
_
�i.i,r�a�,I��.+��v'S��a!i:sz29 ��you for tiie opportunity to comment on the proposed Rules F and
c��"`Y'f!""°�'a"'c" D. Generally we support the changes proposed as bringing clarity and
��$`�'��t�'''�"'�`��"�'�� greater effectiveness to tl�e MCWD Rules.
{WinneApofi9;:tvi�153+109-1�?(7
��"'"`'`��`�"�y� We do however have two important issues with the Rule D: Wetlands
�"`�"���4�'�6� outlined below. We do not support the adoption of Rule D without.
`��'"''""�`�"���""�`"�` resolution of these two issues,
1) Section 4(c} of the rule is repeated here:
" 4.BUFFER.
(c)A permanent wetland buffer monument shall be installed at each
lot line where it crosses a wctland bufPer,and where needed to indicate
thc contour of the buffer,with a maximum spacing of l Od feet.
Language shall indicate the purpose of the buffer,restrictions,and the
name and phone number of the Minnehaha Creek Watershcd District.
The installation of Qermanent markers on MPRB property every 100 feet
would create safety hazards to park users,maintenance obstacles,blots on
historic landscapes, and erode the viewing aesthetics of our parks. We
fell it is inappropriate to require these monurnents on public property and
rr�r.��t�,r, object strongly to this section of the rule.
:CohaiGnFin
N'���''��"`f""' It is unclear to us the justification of this blanket requirement. What
�'�'""�'���"�a problems have been encountered that would justify this intrusion on the
c�,x„ras��,�w�
���m park lands?
ut�a tx;i�
c���A.:�,��r 2) Section 6(a) of Rule D is repeated here.
ion+C�:Q1�crn
�1n3tu Ts�6b 6.WETLAND$UFFER VEGETATION.
�'ctuf'V�,�cland
Lar.�V'ic3in:�! (a)Upon final establishment and cessation of monitoring and
3'?+�.rr-inisr,t.'eRr maintenance,wetland buffers shall consist of 100%vegetative cover
x0����0i�"' with little or no bare soil.A minimum of 75°/a of the vegetative cover
�a�,�+mr�+iUi6e.�trwril: shall cansist of plant species native to Minnesota.
SJatt&igg�ilkcitv
sr���rinre���tmJis$mcriirer This requirement appears arbitrary and difficult to implement and
M���j����� enforce. How is this to be measured?
1},�ici;t-ssti�it
In this context, 100%is an abstraction that can never be impiemented if taken literally.
75%cover would also be difficult to demonstrate. Is this in terms of bio-rnass,plant
counts, canopy,or something else?
This paragraph seems arbitrary and does not take into account site conditions such as soil
types, shading, traffic and use, and potential climate change. We appreciate the valuation
of native plants and we use natives wherever it is feasible. However we feel this
paragraph is not workable. �
We believe#he marker requirement should be removed for public lands and that the
percentage requirement for narive planting should be a goal, not a requirement. Please
contact me if you have questions or comments on these issues. We are willing to help
work out language that is functional and practical toward meeting our mutual goals.
Thank you,
�
Tim P .Brown
Minneapolis Park&Recrea.tion Board
Environmental Operations Manager
C: Mike Schmidt,Generai Manger ,
Deb Pilger,D'uector of Operations
i1�1PR13 c.�onrncc�nls,lor R�Ct�ti Rtele D ce F Yage 2
_�_ ,, �� �
��'o� ��
� � �
���,��, . Q ,�. -
�r ��������...�. �i�, Ci�� aRONa
�i ������ � �� ��
,� ���... a
�` �: k ` �v ll Munklpal O�tlices ;
�� G �
��,1� ; � � ��� sere��r�: t��t��.�:
\�4�r� 2750 Kelley Park�ay P.Q. Box 66
`-'—-W�"•• Qronn, MN 55356 Crystal Bay� MN S5323�4Q66
�an� ta, aala
i
Minuehaha Creek Watershed Diatrict Board of Manager� '.
C/o Eric Evenson,District Atiministrator
1$2{12 M.innetan��3outevar+d
Ueephavcs,MN,55391 -
,
• Re: City of Orono Comments on Prapased Re�es D and F
Dear Eric and.l�tanagers:
Thank yov for the apportunity to comment an yow proposed rule changes. We appreciate and
value the cantribuiions of the Rulemaking Task Force members and Technical Advisory�
Gammittee members. After carefully reviewin�g the prvQosed language it appears the City is in
general a�reement witk�a majority of the pmposed regulations. However,we do have a number
of se�iaus concerns regarding the impact of these rule changes.
;
We have th�e following comment�regarding Rule D—Wetland Protection: i
Protection of wetlands has long been a priority for the City. Far the last four years our staff has
been administering eomparable wetland.regulations that have a triggcr si.milar to the graposed 5�
cubic yards of excavation or 5,40(}square feet of land disturbnnce. Based on this experienee we
ask for the fallowing changes to the proposed regulations:
1. Prcrpr�sed Rule: 1'roposed language wautd establish required buff'er widths based on the
type ojwetland as well as on thc slope u»d soils wrthin the bufj�'er.
Camment: 'Che benefits of the additionai few feet of buffer gained by using soils and
�
slope as determinant factors would be limited a►nd wouId not offset the burden imposed i
nn the property awner in determining Ehe width of the buf�er. We wau(d prefer t��se !
factnrs be etiminated,but if they are retained,additi4nal guidance should be added as#o '
�vhere soils and slopes would be measured since they can vary thmugiiout the baffer. ;
2. I'ropased Rule:!f a bu,�'er is not triggered buildings and other impr�vements may be I
constructed within fhe buf,}''er. �.
;.
Coznment: T'here shoutd be a prohibitian af any new encroachment into a potential future '
;
buffer area or setback,exen if buf�'er establishment is not tr'rggered as gart of the ;
i
�
Tdephane(952}249.460KJ • F'uc{gSZj 2�49-+1616
wwx.ci.ac^oiw.mn.us
_
MCWtD Board of Managers �,
.�anuaiy 14,241Q � :
Page 2 � .�- ��� ?
i
immediate project. This is currendy part of the City°s regulations. It ensures there will !
be room far the buffer in the firture.
'
3. Prapased Rule:Buildings can be carr.struetec�'up 10 the edge of the bu�'er.
Gomment: There should be a setback from the buf£er£or bui�dings. 4rono's wetland ;
regi.siations require a 2Q foot building setback from the buffer. This provision uvas based
oa the City's experience with properties whece hauses wer.e constructed up to ti�e edge of
the buffer. The praperty owners complained about the lack of a usabte y�rd or n�t being
able w walk aronnd their house because of the unmowed buffer. The setback is intended
to reduce the pmpensity of yards ta g.raduaily encroach on the bnffer and to pro�zde for
access ta ail sides of buildi,�s. (The re�uirement for markers at the edge af the�uffer is
flne that we intend to add to our regulations.)
A�. Pra�aased Rule:A project thrrt drsturhs mor�than S,(1D0 sg�uare feet of lanci or incturles
the ex�avation of mors thun 50 cubzc yarrls would trigger the bu,�`'er requirement.
Comment: To be reasonalile th$re should be some conne�tion betwcen the buffer
improvement requizernent at�d the tr�ggering event. Simply excavating ar dishubing land
may not have$petmanent impact on a wetland. The follawing criteria(fram the City's
regulations) shauld be added: 1-The partion of the pcoperty being disturbed must dtain
to the wetland. 2- There must be a net increase in the square foatago af imperviaus
surface that drains to the wetland or results in the relocation of impervious surfaces closer i
to the wetland,or resuits in changes to drainage patterns that the District's Engineer �
determines witl increase the velacity or rate af runoffto the wetland. �
S. Propvsed Rule•Froposed b�'er widt�rs are utider rhan requrred by the Ciry but bu�j"er �
crveraging i,s allowed. ;
;
Comment: The addition of erosion.aontrol per.mits as a trigger for bu�'fer improvement �
- will result in the regulations being applied ta develapeci properties. Implementing a
wetland buffer requirement on a developed property where the location of existing
structwes,improve.ments,ar�d progerty Iines must be taksn into consideratian is much
more difficult than fox a new development. Gity regulatians a11ow buffer avera�ing as
well as redirecting drainage to an area wheie a buffer is feasible,use of rain gardens,and
other methods ta achieve results equivalent to a standard buffer. Other options besides
buffer averaging should i�e aflowed to avaid creating severe hardships for ptoperty
owners.
6. Proposed Rude: The rules propose an enfarcement process similar to xhose required when !
a w�tland is f Iled and mitiguted ;
Commeni:This process wauld seerr�to be excessive for individual lots. We coll�ect an �
escrow to guarar►tec installation and establishment of buffers. Staff per#'orms compliance '
checks. R.ather than losing a growing seasan while we remind the pmperty owner about
the inspection report, our sta.f�can make the inspection and quickly issue any necessary
i
!
i
MCwD soard ofMaanagers
3anuaty 14,2010 i
Page 3 ���'��/' �
��
notices. As a lasi resort the City is able to have the work dvne and assess any casts
beyond the escrow to the property. If such a process is beyond the capacity of the
District,cities should.have the option of assuming this responsibil.ity far individua! tots.
Regazding Rule F—Streambxnk and Shoreland Stabilization:
Orano supports the goal of maintaining or restoring shorelines and s�banks to their
naxural appearance and function as much as possible. D�e share your concems about the
impact of tip-rap on trees and the overall appearance of the lakeshore, Nvwever we ;
str�ngly advise that the provisian requiring floodptain mitigaHon for rip-rap nat be�adopted.
As we understand it,this provision would necessitate re-grading of lakeshore areas. In areas i
;
�vith high shoreiine banks,retaining walls would be required at the back edge of the
excavatian. Ail this is cour�t$r w the$oal of maintaining the natural appearance of
shorelines and streambanks. We seriousty ques�ion the physical feasibility and practicality of
such a reqwrement. Application of fhe rule wauld trigger the reqaire�nent for conditional use
permit and variance approvals under Orono ordinances this necessitates the completion of a
detailed assessmenz of the physicat and visual impact�ta the shoreline,and adds to the cost
hurden af the pmperty owner,Furthert in many cases the City wQuid Iikely deny applicants
the ahility ta take actions needed to meet MCWD permit requirements. '
The proposed rt�le changes are troubling and in some cases zn conflict with 4rono goals and
ordinactces, in the spixit of the long•standing relati4nship ofcooperateon and partnership
betwcen Orono and th�MGWD,we woutd appreciate the oppartunity to meet with the Managers �
regarding ihe proposed changes to Rules D and F before ariy actian ta adopt or impiemert the
changes is taken.If yau have any questions,pleasc cantact Assistant Ciry Adminisfrator Mike ;
Oaf�'ron at 952-Z49-4622. '
�
,
Respectfu�ly submitted, i
Gity af Orono
�• �/�5.� i
lames M.White,Mayar
cc: Lak�I�Iinnetonka Area Mayors ;
James Wisker
;
�
;
i
i
r
'�'i
lanuary 13, 2U10
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
Att�: Mr.James Wisker, Planner
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
SUBIECT: DRAFT RULE D:WETLAND PROTECTION
CITY OF PLYMOUTH STAFF COMMENTS
Dear Mr. Wisker:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD) draft Rule D: Wetland Protection. Several staff members from the City's Comrnunity
Development and Pubfic Works Departments have had an opportunity to review the proposed
language. Please accept the following comments for your consideration on the proposed draft
revisions to the M9nnehaha Creek Watershed District Rule D:
The effort of the District to develop revisions to Rule D: Wetland Protectior�that are as resflurce
protective as passible without incurring excessive administrative costs or placing an undue
burden on those subject to them is appreciated, however, the proposed revisions are certain to
cantribute to increased public capital expenditures needed to co�rect flooding and water
quality problems in the City of Plymouth, The proposed additional regulation, requirements
and/or alternative approaches to the established regulatory requirements is the most
significant concern for the City of Plymouth and is illustrated by the following items proposed in
the Ruie 0 revisions:
1. �Requiring alE extavatian to be subject to replacement whether or not it is subject to
the State of Minnesota Wefland Conservation Act(WCA).
2. Requiring a different siting priarity than WCA.
3. Requiring different sizing ratios than WCA, including punitive damages for mitigation
outside of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed, outside of the seven-county
metropolitan area, or for Type 1 and Z wetlands.
4. Application of wetland buffer requirements inconsistent with WCA.
P:\permit\PERMIT ORIVE\DISTRICTTECHNIGAN\Rule Revlsfon\Draft Rules\Ru{e D\Comments\2009
Comments\Plymouth.docx
All of these requirements will translate to additionai administrative costs and public capital
expenditures for the City of Plymouth. City staff urges the MCWD to consider the economic
impact of the proposed revisions on local governments who have the responsibility to cvrrect
flooding and water quality problems.
Thank you for your consideration and attention to these comments.
Sincerely,
Derek Asche
Water Resources Manager
cc: Lee Keeley, Minnehaha Creek Board of Managers
Bob Moberg, City Engineer
P:\permlt\PERMIT DRIVE\DISTRIGTTEtHNICIAN\iiule Revisfon\D�aft Rules\Rule D\Comments\2009
Cam ments\P lymouth.d ocx
�
Public Works Deparfiment
www.cityof�ichff eld.org/pu blicworks
�
January 26, 2010
MAYOR
DEBBiE GQETTEL
crrv couNc�� goard of Managers
PAT ELLIOTf �yinnehaha Creek Watershed District
TOM FITZHENRY
SU2ANNE M.SANDAHL c/o: James Wisker
FRED L.WROGE,�R. 18202 Minnetonka Bou{evard
Deephaven, MN 55391 "
CfTY MANAGER
STEVEN L.DEVICH
Re: Requesf for Reasonable�and Effective Rules
(Rule D & Rule F Comments)
Dear Mr.Wisker: �
Richfield encourages the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Distnct to deve(op
reasonable and effective rules that can be supported by the pubfic agencies in
which they govern. Making the naies as resource protective as possible without
incurring excessive adminisfrative costs or placing an undue burden on those ,
subject to them is a great goal; however, the District is not thefe yet,
Rule p Comments
As proposed the City of Richfield does not have the resources to successfully
implement Rule D (Wetland Proieation). Please consider and incorporate the
following comments into the proposed rule:.
• (SS 2.a) Remove language "wifh the fallowing exceptions:"and
subsequently the replacernent, mitigation, and replacement ra6o that are
not required by the Wetland Conservation Act
• {SS 4.a.) Rernove language "N (Stormwater Management)"—it is nat
reasonable to have Ru{e N trigger buffer requirements. This trigger would
discourage site improvements on smaller sites that would not otherwise
impact the wetfand. This inclusion is also very disturbing knawing that the
board is current(y considering oversight on lots smailer than 1 acre.
• An exemption from buffer requirements should be added for single-family
residentia( lots, Isss than one acre in size, which are adjacent to wetkands.
As Ruie D is currenfly written it is more likefy to discourage residents and
businesses from making even minor improvements to their property
(something a tully developed city like Richfe(d encourages) than it is to
establish any measurable water quality benefit using mandated buffers.
The Urban Hometown
67flQ PORTLANp AVENUE-RICHFIELD-MIPRdESaTA-b5423•612.SBi.979Q-FAX 612.861.9795
Yvww.ckynlrfcldddd.o� AN EQUAL OPPOHTUNITY EMPLAYER
i
MCWD Board of Managers
January 28, 2090
Page 2 ,
. In addition, ttte proposed buffers are actuaily a property taking and
, shou{dn't-be tiisguised as anything iess. In many cases the proposed .
. . buffers would require a taking of half a resident's current baak yard depth.
• (5S 4.c) Remov��this`�paragraph or rephrase so that monuments are
supplied by the District and encouraged rather than required.
Rule F Comments
Piease consider and incorporate the tollowing comments into the proposed Rule F
(Shore(ine& Streambank Stabilization):
• (SS 2.f.)All maintenance activities should be exempt from the perrnit
� requirements.
• {SS 5.c.2) Remove this paragraph.
Thank you for the opportunity to corriment on the proposed rules. Feel free ta
contact me at 612-861-9795 to discuss Richfield's camments.
Sincerel
,
. �
. Kristin Asher
City Engineer
Copy: Richfield City Council
, I
� CITY OF
� SHC�REW4 �D '
' S755 CdUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 • (952)474•3236 i
' FAX(952)474-0128• www.ci.shorewood.mn.us•cityhaii�ci.shorewood.mn.us I
� i
� I
I I
�
I. �� January 14, 2010
' 1
' MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT °;
j Attn: Mr.James Wisker, Planner
' 18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
� Deephaven, MN 55391
;
� SUBIEC7: DRAFT RUIE D:WETLANQ PROTECTIQN
�
' i
j Rule B;Er�sion Control Trigger ?
� Thank you fa� the opportunity to comment on the Minnehaha Creek Watershed bistrict �
; (MCWD) draft Rule D: Wetland Protection. Several staff inembers have had an oppo�tunity to �
'� review the proposed language. Piease accept the following comments for your consideration �
' on the prQposed draft revisions to the Minnehaha Creek Wetershed District Rule D: i
i �
The City of Shorewood is predominately single family residentiaL Due to a desire to build new, �
Shorewood residents often demolish the existing building and start new construction.The
proposed Rule 8:Erosion Contro!rule trigger will result in multiple variance requests to the
� preserve classification buffer. If the variance requests are not granted,the result will be
i �
litigation. On average,there is one demolition/rebuild each year. Usingthe MCWD pravided
I GIS layer for wetlands,Shorewood stafF analyzed the 75' preserve buffer and found that the !
; Rule B: Erosion Control rule trigger wilE potentially cause the regulatory taking of 176 lots {of i
i which 34 currentfy have buildings within the proposed 75 faat buffer). i
� �
There is als�the paint of minimal resource protection from obtaining buffers from a single
� family residential lot.The buffer gained from a sing{e family home adjacent to a preserve
�
quafity wetland averages 7500 sq ft ar 7S' deep by 100'wide and wil( not be continuous around '
the wetland, These patches will not provide a cantinuous habitat for animals or provide for I
;
consistent water quality improvements. +
!
(example: 23895, 23950 ElderTurn Shorewood, MN scrapes and rebuild5, triggers erosian i
i controf permit, now the 4ot is unbuildable due to preserve buffer of 75' ) �
�� PRiNTHD ON RECYCLED PAPER �
l �
I �
, ,
r
All of that being said, it is suggested that a dist'tnction be made between newly created lots and
, existing lots of record. In the case of new lats,the buffer requirement can be adcfressed in the
; subdivision process. In this regard, we concur with the comments from the City of Wayzata and
' others, that some sort of setback from the buffer should be considered in order to create at
ieast minimal usable yard space.
' Consideratian should be given to "grandfathering in" existing lots of record in order to avoid
the issue of regulatory taking. Failure to do so could often preclude the homeowner from
rebuilding a potentially substandard home, choosing instead to add on or remodel, which
would often result in loss of opportunity to make any environmental improvement whatsoever.
�
Rule D revisions:
� Requiring all excavation to be subject to repiacement whether or not it is subject to the State of
� Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA). This revision will make retrofitting the existing
; storm system for water quality improvements financially unfeasible. New retrofit devices wilf
likely be placed at the pipe outlets and require the use of de minimus wetland impacts to remain
� feasible.
;
! Thank you for your consideration and attention to these comments.
Sincerely,
;
� �- �--�' ����'�' �7-�.,�
� �
James Landini Brad Nielsen
City Engineer City Planner ,
�
,
�
,
�
�
, I
;
�
' i
i a
I i
!
' I
: ,
; �
'
I
i
. �
i �
i ' I
, . .
.�_ �..:. _._.::. .. ,::. „ . , . , �
� CirY oF Vic-roR�a
r951?Z,ase StreEt • Box36 �
�"�u�,��� `U�c,�or� �IC 55386 < ; � �
952✓443-4210 • .�'ax;•95,2/443 2110 �
www.cl.victorta.mn.us
Januaiy 15, 2010
Mr.James Wisker
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, Minnesota 55391
Re: Draft MCWD Rule F—Shoreli.ne and Streambaz�lc Stabili�tion -
Rule D�Wetland Protection
Dear Mr, Wisker:
Thank you for the opp�rhmity to comment on fihe proposed changes to Rule F
(Shoreliae and Streambank Stabilization}and Rule D (Wetland Protection),The City of
Victoria is committed to effective surface water management including wetland
protection and shoreIine management. Our commitment is demonstrated by our ;
. existing ordinances protecting shoreli.ne and aur requarements that watlands and buffers
be placed in outlots deeded to the City of Victoria during development processes.
We ogpose the proposed rules as drafted as they present significant issues for both the
City and individuat praperty owners without signif cant measurable benefits to water
quality.Tbis letter seroes to highlight our overriding concerns with the regulations ss
ontlined,but is not intended to address each individual element of the draf�ivle.
Rule D: The rules outline additional regulations and requirements above and beyond j
what is required by the Wetland Conservafiion Act Atl wetland i�zles should be j
consistent with the Wetland Conservation Act.
The outlined buffer triggers are excessive.Buffer requirements should only be triggered
in cases where there are wetland impacts. The praposed buffer widths are excessive.
Tile triggers when combined with the new width requiremenis may result in a �
regulato�y taking of usable property.
,
F
� �:;
�
.. .::•: �. .. . . .� ._. .,� . � 1
.._ .���� --�__..._. . ��...__._r��..�___ ' ' ''r. .. i. ..... . . .. '
..._._ .._. . . .. . :. ..:�.:-:. � , �-�
. .......�.... . '. �._�.-.:�_�_. � ._. .. ., .
. . ���
/
Rule F: Rules and requirements such as survey and calculations by a professional
engineer for any impzovement or alteration of a shoreline of a water basin or the bank of
a watercourse are excessive,particularly for private property ovv�iers of small pazcets
and single famiIy lots. The financial burden created by requirements such as these will
. prevent property owners from rcpairing existiug problems thereby reducing the amount
of shareline protection.
Thank you for your considera#ia�on this matter.
i
SincereIy, �
Mary Hershberger Thun �
Mayor,City of Victoria
cc: Mike Klingeil�utz,Minnehaha C�eek Boazd of Managers
Don Uram,City Administratoz
�
r
. �
E
Jt
�
�,
�
�:
�
�.
{
� �
Maye�:
City of Wayzata ,c�,,,�w;,l�X
600 Rice Street c�n co���;�:
Wayzata, MN 55391-1734 M1cAnida1
�B�
Andrew Mullin
Tom 7'anner
City MAeager:
Allan O�sen
January 20, 2010
Mr.James Wisker
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Blvd.
Deephaven, MN 55391
Re: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District(MCWD) Rulemaking
Rule D—Wetland Protecrion
Rule F—Shoreline Stabilization
Dear Mr.Wisker:
Thank you for the opportunity to camment on the Minnebaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD)
draf� Rule D (Wetland Protection) and Rule F (Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization}. I am
writing to express my alarm at what you are proposing. The new rules would impose u.nacceptable
costs and administrative headaches on our city and would impinge on our citizens' praperty rights.
�ur City Engineer, Mike Kelly, provided comments to you on these two rules under previous
cover. His comments respectfully voiced the concerns of the City. However, I do not believe his
comments adequately captured the extent of our displeasure,thus,this clarifying letter.
�ur objections are based on the following:
1) As I indicated above, these proposed rules effectively limit the rights of our property owners
and could be considered a"taking" of property.
2) They create unnecessary and burdensome requirements for monitoring, maintenance, and
reporting. This load will be placed on applicants, City staff, and MCWD staff: Moreover, the
rules also establish excessive financial costs in the form of additional s�u-vey requirements,
engineering fees, legal fees,recording fees, and more.
The City of Wayzata is in no position to absorb these costs,nor are its citizens.
Atthough I am quite sure you floated out these recomrnendations with the best of intentions, they
strike me as government overreaching and an unacceptable intnzsion on individual rights.
Phone:952-404-5300 Fax:952-404•5318 o-maiL cityQa wayzata.org home page: www.wayzata.org
Msyor:
City of Wayzata x��w;u�x
600 Rice Street c��•co�n�n:
Wayzata, MN 55391-1734 M�,Bea'
A„anW Mwi�,
m
Tom Tanner
Clty Manager:
A1Ian Orsen
Vt�e appreciate your dedication to the preservation of our resources; however, there are limits to
what that mission can justify. You must take into consideration the negative unintended
cansequences of your actions. I have tried to point those out in this letter.
Wayzata is firmly opposed to your proposals.
If you have any questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me a#
kenwinminn(a?,aol.com,
Sincerely,
Kenneth Willcox
Mayor, City of Wayzata
cc: City Council,City of Wayza.ta
MCWD Board of Managers
Mr. Allan Orsen, Wayzata City Manager
Mr. Michael Kelly,Wayzata City Engineer
Mr. Bryan Gadow,Wayzata City Planner
Phone;9521iO4-5300 Fax:952-404-5318 e-mail:ciry@wayzata,org home page: www.wayzata.org
� •
James Wisker
Planner/Program Coordinator
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
Mr. Wisker,
Thank you for the opportunity to revfew the MCWD Rule F draft. We offer the
following comments for your consideratian;
Section 2. a). Regulations - The last sentence of this sectfon is confusing. It �
includes a doubie negative, and the intent is unclear. The language should be
clarified to state what types of aquatfc piantings are regulated under this rule.
In addition, the DNR regulatfons regarding movement of plants into waters-
of-the-state may need to be referenced.
Sectlon Z, f} Regulations - Mafntenance af existing shoreline or streambank
stabilization practices should not require a new permlt if only minor amounts
of new material wfll be added to the structure. We recommend that the rule
be revised to allow malntenance of existing structures, but limit the amount
of new material that could be added before a permit. Something fn the range
of 25 to 50 cubic yards seems reasonable. Conversely, the rule could be
revised to include a maintenance provision In the initial permit to allow minor
additions of new material nver time.
Section 3, b) Shoreline/Streambank Erosfon Intensity Calculation -The rule
should allow stream velocity to be determined with the use of monitoring data
collected by standard protocol, as well as by engineering calculations.
Section 5. (a) (1) Crlterfa for Stabilization Techniques - Three Rivers Park
District supports the cancept of aflowing structural stabflization techniques
only where there is a demanstrated need. However, this section needs to
provide some guidance regarding the criterla that will be used to determine if
a need is demonstrated. As wrftten, an applicant could expend significant
time and money designing a practice believing that the need has been met,
only to have the permit denied because of a different interpretation by
MCWD.
Section 5. (c) (2) Criteria for structural stabilization - This section need to
c4arify where hard armoring such as rlprap will be considered floodplain flll.
As currently written, the sectian indicates that all material installed below the
100 year flood elevation fs considered floodplain fill. The rule should state
that fill placed between the normal water elevation and the 100-year Ffood
elevation is considered floodplain fill. As written, the rule implies that
excavation of material below the normal water e{evation could be considered
floodplain mitigation since it is considered floodptafn fill.
Section 8. (c) Three Rivers Park District recommends that the number of
allowable sand blanket applications for permitted public swimming beaches be
increased to a maximum of four without the need for a new permit. Areas
designated as public swfmming beaches are typically maintained for that
purpose for many years, and periodlc applications of sand are necessary to
provide a quality experience for the pubiic. Increasing the number of
allowabte sand blanket applications would minimize paperwork and time spent
with permit applications. A notification requirement that an apptication wiil
take pface would streamline both management activltfes and MCWD
regu{atory review,
Section 8. (d) (1) Criteria For Laying Sandblankets - The draft rule includes
exemptions for the wic4th of sandbfankets for public swimming facflities, but
not for distance it extends into the lake. Three Rivers Park District
�ecommends that the rule language be modifled to include exerrtption from
the provisfon that the sand not extend more than 10-feet waterward of the
OHW. Public swimming beaches need to accommodate large numbers of
users, requiring the beach to extend farther from shore than private beaches.
We suggest that language al4ow sand to be placed to a water depth of 4-feet
or 50-feet from the OHW, whlchever is less,
The rule also needs to address existing structures, both non-compliant and non-
conforming. The Park District recommends that r+fln-conforming structures be
grandfathered in under the new rules. This would save significant public
expenditures when maintenance actfvities are necessary. We agree that non-
campllant structures would need to be reconstructed to meet rule requirements
when any modification or maintenance actfvfties take place.
Thank you for your consideration of these cornments.
Si ncerely,
John M. Barten
Director of Natural Resources Management
CC: Randy Lehr, Senior Manager of Water Resources
Margle Walz, Associata Superintendent, Parks and Natural Resources
� .
The Bancor Group, Inc. �,� �,
'�"'�lVi
�Ianuary 14,2010 ��
Minnehaha Croek Waterehecl Di�trict � � � ���
1$202 Nfinnetonka Blvd.
T��;phaven,MN, 5539i ��a
Re� Rules F ��
Dear Man.agers�
I am writing as a mem6�tr of hhe Rulemaking Citiaen Task]�'orce, '.I'he falluwing ar�my
cc�mmonf;�for your a}naidert�tion on the groposed changes to Rule�.
I h�ve three cancerns:
First is in secteon 2(s.� which states iu� part�
"No person shall inetall an uriprovement or alterafiaan af the ehareiine of a wa#:er
basin or. the bank o£a water.cour.se,including but nat limited to...°
Tn talking to staf�'I,oday I learned for�he first time that this is intended to.includ�an�
vegeta�ion removal within 20 f�ot Qf the shar�lino,�ven if someone is not altering,
improving or atabzli�ing the shoxK;line itself, In c►theX worda,if I:he only activ.ity snmeone
was going ta do was.to remwe a tree l,ocated].5 feot from the shore, they would need a
permit. If in fact this is the intsnt then I suggest you revise sectaion 2(a) tc�make it cie�.r
that this ie your intent. I don't think the�nguage i�cleat.
Secan�dly,I dori t be.lieve this was the undez�tanding of the Citizen'Task_Fame. My
recc>llecition is thaC all of our discussions abc�utvegetation r.em�val along the shoreline w�re .
in.canjunction with ehoreline stabiliLation or maintenance, In other words I believe your
SONA13 is i�n error and misleading in Chat I dan't beliove'the Citizen Task F�rce ever
cliscussed the issue of whetl�er vege�tion removal within 2t�feet of t'ho �areline ahould be
regulatecl w�en it is not paxt af a shorelinc z�trabilization or mainteuance pr.ojec�.
My third ccrncorn xeltxtes to Che comments T made at your Bcfard meating on January?,201U
regarciing Rule G. As you wili recall T eug�estod that steeP rayines which are the resalt of
runoff anc�onl.y hold water during heavy r�ins should be excluded from the de$nition af a
°Watercnurse". Agsin if you look�t the above quated language in sectiion 2(�it would
appear i:hat any vegetaCian wil.hin 2U£eet of tho edge of thst type of ravane would be
regulated under�his rule.
I am suppnrtive of the]ax�guege cantained in Lho propoaed rule to r�gulate acLiv.ities within
2U feet of a shoreline af a creek ar}ake wh�n there iH an applicr,tion for improvemc3nt or
mainl.enancc of the shoreline aIong that watert�o�y. However, to suggest that no vegetation
remaval can occur. within 2Q feet of a wate�eourse in�nq in�tance is a rulo change tltat has
t�ever been discu�ssed, to the hest af my knawledge, by either fihe public or your advieory
committee�and.I would urge thaG thi�brc�d expansian of power noi:ba cansidor,ed until
there has h�en a full discussion with the public:
Tki�nk yau fox pllawing me an opportunity to share with you some of my concerns.
Sincer v,
15z� 94eh Ianct�.E.
VCinh�;�pniis,Nlit�nc�tsCt
S��r� avid P. ewman
Prc�sident
�>ftone.76:3 792-��)74
f�x 7C3?`22-897(i
• .
��`t�R @O
G`� � 'q�►
LAK� �'O�IKA
s
9�sOc I A"'��Ot,
January 10,2010
Mr.James Wisker
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Slvd. '
Deephaven,MN 55391
Dear: Mr. Wisker
At our last board of directors meeting held January i l,2006, our members expressed their unanimous
concern in regards to proposed changes to Rule F—Shoreline&Streambank Stabilization. We look
forward to supporting policies set forth by yaur��ce that better seek to meet the demanding needs of our
precious lake and its vital role as a recreational resource for our region. We feei that your proposed
amendments fail to acknowledge the importance of uniting responsible recreational use and ecological
conservation measures. We feel the need for"armored"shoreline on Lake Minnetonka is undervalued in
your propased revisions. This being said, we both respect and realize the vital importance of your
agency's ecological initiatives and will look forward to support them when they are coupled with a fair
recognition of the vital recreational role that Lake Minnetonka serves in our community and greater
region at large. We urge your agency to pursue means that allow responsible use of armored shoreline
(provisioned by current MCWD code)with the incorporation of ecological/biological enhancements that '
will smprove water clarity and equally serve to fortify run off and erosion management policy.
Respectfully,
Lake Minnetonka Charter Boat Association
Terry Jungers John Lambin
President Vice President
Lady of the Lake Queen of Excelsior
Hank Graef Jay Soule
Treasurer Secretary
Custom Charters Al and Alma's Charters
Wayzata Bay Charters Excelsior Bay Charcers
Holiday Fair Charters Bayview Event Center
Fazadise Charter Cruises Seanate Cruises
Safety. Respec�. Conservation.
LMCBA P.O.Box 301 Excelsior,MN 55331 *WWW.LMCBA.C�M*
, �
file:///P�/pern�it/PERM1"(�%20URi V�/DlS'I'RICf'0i620TECHNICIAN/Rule%...ule%2UF_Comments/Comments°/a2(hegarding%?ODraft%20Rule%20F.hmi
From: Mike Molitor [mikemolitor@msn.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:26 PM
To: James Wisker
Subject: Comments regarding Draft Rule F
I would like to state my objections to the proposed Draft Rufe F, for the fallowing reasons:
1) While vegetative pfantings may work in some situations for erosion control, especially in
smaller water bodies with less wave action, Lake Minnetonka is subject to use by very large
boats, that create very large wakes (commonly in excess of 3 feet). Rip-rap sharelines are
aften the only type of effective erosion pratection from these of waves. The repeated abuse
From these wakes will destroy vegetative type shorelines. As a result, the move to
�egetative shorelines will likely have the oppasite effect of what is intended - more erosion
rather than less.
As a result, this rule should be more cansiderate of these conditions on high traffi�
waterways with large boats, such as Lake Minnetonka.
2) The cost of any type of shoreline changes will be borne entirely by the shoreline property
owners, while the source of the erosion (large boats, aften not owned by those with
shoreline property) are not responsible for the damage they create.
As a result, rather than putting the entire burden of erosion control on the shoreline owners,
a difFerent rule approach should be developed that limits the source of the erosian, namely
large boats. This will result in a more fair burden of the costs of erosion reduction.
Thank you,
Mike Molitor
Hotmail: Trusted email with Microsoft's powerful SPAM protectian. Siqn up now.
fc(e:///P�/pern�it/PERMIT%20DRIVEtDISTRICT%2Q7"ECHNI...mments/Comments%24regardino/a2�Draft%ZORuIc%20F.htm[1/271201Q9:23;54 AM]
, '
DOCK & LIFT, INC. (952)471-8343.
Tim Latterner (952)474-7934.
Mike Latterner e-mail: info@dockandlift.com
4550 Shoreline Drive web: www.dockandlift.com
Spring Park, MN 55384
MINNET4NKA P�RTABLE DREDGING �952}474-9454
Tom Niccurn mpdred�ingC�qwestoffice.net
SOQ West Lake Street .
Excelsior, MN 55331
lanuary 13, 2010 •
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
18202 Minnetonka Boulevard
Deephaven, MN 55391
ATTN: James Wisker
Subject: Changes in Rule F:Shoretine and Streambank Stabifization
b�ck&Lift,Inc.and Minnetonka Portable Dredging has worked ctosely with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District#or many years with regards to Shoreline Stabilization. You have always been very easy
to work with and very accomodating. The MCWD has a very good staff in place. The current staff are
some of the best that we have worked with and sincerely hape that you are doing whatever you can
to keep them at the MCWD.
We would like to address some concerns that I have regarding the Changes in Rule F:
1.) By considering Rip Rap floodplain fill, which would require the homeownerto provide compensatory
storage,this would all but elimi�ate Rip Rap in most cases on Lake Minnetonka. Most homeowners on Lake
Minnetonka do not have the available land to provide forthis storage. In addition, many cities do not allow
any grading to be done 75'upland which would make it impossible to provide this storage.
Also,the Departrnent of Natural Resources does not consider Rip Rap Floodplain Fill.
2.) The Erosion Intensity Scoresheet looks to be a generic worksheet and we do not feel that this scoresheet wfll
wo�k on lake Minnetonka. We feel that most of the erosion•is due to boat traffic,ice push and unpredictable high
winds. The worksheet does not address some of thase factors.
, � .
3.? In our experience most of the Shoreline o�Lake Minnetonka has scattered boulders and gravei. This woufd
make it very difficult,and in many areas impossible,to establish anytype of plant growth. These areas still need
to be protected from erosion and we strongly feel that Rip Rap is the only solution.
4.} In applying for a Rip Rap permit,we do a thorough investigation of the Shoreline. The information we
provide to the MCVND is far more detailed than what is required by the DNR. Fo�this reason,we do not feel
that any changes in regards to Rule F are warranted.
We have been doing Shoreiine Restoration for many years and truly believe that the work we have done has
been very beneficial to Lake Minnetonka.
Best Regards,
Tim Latterner pock&Lift,lnc.
Tom Niccum Minnetanka Portable Dredging
. � ,
I would like to state my abjections to the proposed Draft Rule F, for the following reasons:
1) While vegetatiue plantings may work in some situations for erosion control, especiaily in
smaller water bodies with less wave action, Lake Mlnnetonka is subject to use by very 4arge
boats, that create very large wakes (commoniy in excess of 3 feet). Rip-rap shorelines are
often the only type of effective erosion protection from these of waves. The repeated abuse
from these wakes wili destroy vegetative type shorelines. As a result, the move to
vegetative shorelines will Iikely have the opposfte effect of what is intended - more erosion
rather than less.
As a result, this rule should be more consfderate of these conditions on high traffic
waterways with large boats, such as Lake Minnetonka.
2} The cost of any type of shoreline changes will be borne entirely by the shoreline
property owners, while the source of t�e erosion (large boats, often not owned by those
with shoreline property) are not responsible for the damage they create.
As a result, rather than putting the entire burden of erosion controi on the shoreline owners,
a different rule approach should be developed that limits the source of the erosion, namely
large boats. This wi11 result in a more falr burden of the costs of erosion reduction.
Thank you,
Mike Molitor
�_
�
_ � - � )
` MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor& City Council
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Admin. - Long Term Strategy ,:°`� /�
�
Date: February 8, 2010
Subject: Draft Ordinance for Discussion - Big Island Nature Park Regulations
Attachments:
A - Draft Ordinance - Latest Revision 2-8-10 (Includes City Attorney Suggestions)
1) Redline version
2) Clean version
B - Staff Memo 4-22-09
C - Council Minutes 4-27-09
D - Draft `Special Activity Permit Application' and Typical Approval Conditions
Draft Ordinance
Attached is the latest draft version of the ordinance that would establish special
regulations for Big Island Nature Park. The previous draft was reviewed by Council on
April 27, 2009 (minutes attached). The discussion hit on a number of topics centered on
the appropriate level of accommodation that should be afforded large groups, given the
limitations of the Park. A good deal of the conversation was with regard to the steamboat
Minnehaha and other tour boats that might deliver passengers to the island, leave for a
number of hours, and then return to pick them up. The lack of toilets in the Park and the
potential need for some level of supervision of large groups of visitors were seen as
critical factors in establishing parameters for such visits.
One point of discussion was whether certain types/levels of activity will require Council
approval. As currently drafted, the administration of Special Activity Permits is
completely at the staff level with appeals to the City Administrator, leaving the Council
out of the review process. Council should discuss whether certain levels or types of
activity should require Council approval - or whether all activity that requires a
permit should be subject to Council approval.
Council asked Soren Mattick to review the ordinance draft and make appropriate
revisions. He has done so - see Exhibits A(1) and A(2).
Draft `Special Activity Permit Application'
The attached draft `Special Activity Permit Application' form is based on Orono's
`Special Event Permit' application but tailored specifically to Big Island Park. Key
elements include:
Type of Activity - This is a checklist of activities that require a permit, based on past
discussions by the Big Island Committee and Council, and reflecting the activities that
the Draft Ordinance either defines as requiring a permit or notes as requiring `written
permission' from the City. The threshold of 2� persons is the Committee Consensus
Big Island Park Regulations . '
February 8, 2010
Page 2
from April 2009. The threshold of 5 or more boats related to the activity being docked
at one time is my own creation, an attempt to establish a level at which boat dockage
starts to affect other users. The list does not attempt to categorize the nature of the
event or its sponsors; past discussions have debated whether certain types of activities
should be given preference over others, such as for-profit vs. non-profit, disassociation
with liquar or entertainment (related to the cruise boats), educational aspects of
providing organized guided nature/history tours, and level of organized activity vs.
"drop `em and leave". These are still debatable, but are somewhat subjective and more
difficult to administer.
Applicant Information and Activity Details - Mostly self-explanatory.
Legalese & Small-Print - Adapted from the language in the Special Event permit
application. Soren to review and tweak.
Submittals - This section lists the various documents the City should have in support
of the permit, including a site plan, insurance certificate, sanitary facilities and
emergency plan, etc. as well as any necessary special licenses or permits from Orono
or other agencies.
Activity-Related Questions - These are intended to provide the City with additional
basic information as to the nature of the event to allow an assessment of its potential
impacts on the Park and other visitors. The Big Island Park Rules prohibit quite a
number of activities that could become problematic, hence this list of questions is not
particularly long.
Important Information about Big Island Nature Park - This section is intended to
provide potential applicants with a bit of a reality check, warning that there are no
sanitary facilities, no potable water, no concession stands, and that use of the Park is
subject to a variety of limitations.
Review/Approval (For office Use Only) - This will serve to ensure the necessary
departments review the application.
This draft application form can be revised as necessary pursuant to Council's discussion.
Council Action Requested
Provide staff with direction as to how Council wishes to proceed regarding the Big Island
Regulations Ordinance.
� :� -f
DRAFT 2-i9-09 REVISED 4-22-09
` LL-i � � /r�? �'`�� ,
ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 22 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING ARTICLE IV REGARDING
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO BIG ISLAND NATURE PARK
The City Council of Orono, Minnesota ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Title III - Streets Parks and Other Public Places,
Chapter 22 - Parks and Recreation, is hereby amended by adding Article IV - Special
Regulations for Big Island Nature Park as follows:
"ARTICLE IV. SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR BIG ISLAND NATURE PARK
Sec. 22-102. Purpos�
Through mutual collaboration between the City of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, Big Island Nature Park is intended to be preserved, maintained
and improved as a passive recreational, ecological and educational asset to the Lake
Minnetonka community and its visitors. A Conservation Easement has been
established over the Park property that restricts the level of improvements and
activities to ensure these goals are accomplished.
The rules within this Article are established as written guidelines for the use of Big
Island Nature Park. These rules are intended to ensure that visitors to the Park enjoy a
safe and positive experience, while protecting and preserving its natural and cultural
amenities.
Sec. 22-103. Regulation of Public Use:
(a) Park Hours. Big Island Nature Park shall be open to the public from 6:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. daily. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain in
the Park between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
(b) Closed Areas. Any section or part of the Park may be declared closed to the
public by the City of Orono at any time and for any interval of time, either
temporarily or at regular and stated intervals (daily or otherwise) and either
entirely or merely to certain uses as the City shall find reasonably necessary.
It shall be unlawful for any person to enter an area in the Park posted as
"Closed to the Public".
Page 1 of 9
150066Y��SMM)
(c) Permits & Reservations.
(1) Required. A Permit shall be obtained from the City of Orono for
holding any special event, activity or use in Big Island Nature Park. �
ai�t ��:ii�h ri�zr.a.ntr �rt;�•:r:�� a L. 11 l. 1 + f'1 �1, F�
__.,. .,� .,...,.. .,......�, .,......�..,., ....... ...�.,� ���u.� �,.. �.�,�,�
e�� �'�����'��� A stiecial event permit shall be required for�se
t}hat r..,,l.a ..,,+o„r;.,11., 1..,.,o ., ,-lo+,.;,�,o„�.,i o�f�,.� �„-. D.,«t� .. ,.+ rl,
Y J v i cun Yi�'P"z-`3�rv��T
��r�the followin�:
(2) Reservations. �� �� *'�� -�^'�^�� ^�*'�� �'�*�� ^�' n-��� *� + No facilities
within Big Island Nature Park shall be reserved nor designated for
exclusive use by any individual, group or organization.
(3) Permit Application. A person seeking issuance of a permit hereunder
shall file an application with the City Clerk. The application shall state:
(A) The name and address of the applicant.
(B) The name, address and contact information of the person
� sponsoring the activity, if any.
(C) The day and hours for which the permit is desired. For activities
that will occur on an ongoing basis or on multiple dates, a single
permit covering all dates may be issued at the discretion of the
City.
(D) The location(s) within the Park for which such permit is desired.
(E) An estimate of the anticipated attendance.
(F) Any other information which the City Clerk shall find reasonably
necessary to � �^�r a�'���^^*�^^ �� *^determine whether a permit
should be issued hereunder.
(4) Standards for issuance. The City Clerk shall issue a permit hereunder
upon C--f�determination:
(A) That the proposed activity will not interfere with, detract from or
impair the Conservation Values of the Park as identified by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
(B) That the proposed activity or use of the Park will not
unreasonably interfere with or detract from the general public
enjoyment of the park.
(C) That the proposed activity and use will not unreasonably
interfere with or detract from the promotion of public health,
welfare, safety and recreation.
(D
�c-�e-�ti�e�e�E , o ,. a:..,...ao..i., ,. ,.a + ��� That the
proposed activity will not entail unusual, extraordinary or
burdensome expense or police operation by the City.
(5) Appeal. Within ten (10) business days after receipt of an application, the
City Clerk shall apprise an applicant, in writing, of the reasons for
refusing a permit, and any aggrieved person shall have the right of
appeal, in writing, within ten (10) business days to the City
Page 2 of 9
]50066v2 fSMM1
Administrator, who shall consider the application under the standards set
- forth in subsection (�c) hereof, and sustain or overrule the City Clerk's
decision within ten (10) business days. The decision of the City
Administrator shall be final.
(6) Transferabiliry. Permits are not transferable.
(7) Permittee to be on premises. The permittee ar a permittee's designated
representative shall be in attendance at all times and have physical
possession of the permit.
(8) Liability of permittee. The person to whom a permit is issued shall be
liable for any applicable ordinances as fully as though the same were
inserted in said permits.
(9) Revocation. The City shall have the authority to revoke a permit upon a
�g violation of any rule or ordinance, or upon good cause shown.
Sec. 22-104. Regulation of General Conduct
(a) Alcohol�s. The sale, possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages in
the Park is prohibited. .
(b) Gambling. It shall be unlawful for any person to gamble or participate in any
game of chance in the Park.
(c) Nuisance. It shall be unlawful commit any act within the Park that constitutes
a nuisance as defined bv the Citv Code or State Statute.
(d) Littering & Sanitation. It is unlawful to litter or dump trash in the Park.
Garbage and recyclables shall remain in the possession of the Park user and
shall be removed from the Park upon leaving the Park property.
(e) Glass Containers. Glass beverage containers are prohibited in the Park.
(� ��Dangerous Weapons/Fireworks. �e��e��Exnlosives,
slingshots, bows and arrows, an�aintball guns-a�r�e�e��� are
prohibited in the Park at all times. Discharge of firecrackers or fireworks ar
detonation of explosive devices of any kind in the Park is prohibited.
�g) �'���t�c-�-��k-�is����-s���e-e€€�� ' , ' �se��
�—���}6#�e�e��6�cs-ei—cngzcgc—i�2-6�ei�si�oze--gcai�e5-vr
„-��- �se��r�-Ee��^�r����' o��le-�e�e�-s��
��� z=�z=<i�'��-se��-t�,��t�-e�n�r�-, e� �'��-e���es�s e��tes�ne
�E�
Int
erference with Employee Performance of Duty. It is unlawful for any person
to impersonate a park employee or C-e�Citv official or to interfere with,
Page 3 of 9
150066 MM
harass, or hinder any employee ar City official in the discharge of his/her
duties. -
Sec. 22-105. General Park Operation Regulations
(a) Commercial Activity. No person shall sell or by any means advertise for sale
any goods, wares, merchandise, liquids, edibles or services of any kind, nature
or description in the Park. c^'�^�*�*:^� : r^�^;�•* a
(b) Sign Posting. The posting, distribution and display of private signs, notices,
posters or advertisements is prohibited within the Park property.
(c) Noise/Amplification of Sound. The operation or use of loudspeakers, sound
amplifiers, or other devices for the production or reproduction of sound is
prohibited in the Park. The operation or use of any radio, phonograph,
television or other machine or device for the production or reproduction of
sound in such a manner as to be disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons
of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility is prohibited in the Park.
Live bands are prohibited in the Park.
(d) Fires. Open fires are prohibited everywhere in the Park including the
swimming beach. Open fires include campfires and charcoal grills. Propane
grills are allowed.
(e) Motorized Vehicles. The operation and use of motorized vehicles in the Park
is prohibited ��,.'„a�.,rt „*^��}��e��gg� �e�-nre.�e�e�.��-,ce�r
��zza���ote�r�es;-s�1e��e����-�����s-��r,-e��--o���--oT
�e�e�e��e�e-�_�s;—c�fFep�€e��e. The City or its designees m�a
utilize motorized vehicles as necessary for park operations, maintenance,
emergency vehicles or handicap accessibility.
(� Bicycles. The operation of mountain bikes or other bicycles within the Park is
prohibited.
(g) Engine-powered Models and Toys. It shall be unlawful for any person to
start, fly or use any fuel- or battery-powered model aircraft, model car, ar
rocket or like powered toy or model within the Park.
�h� • �
, ,
�
��E�—e�---g��ge*�—i��--��—���{�}
.,�,i � « �, i �
�� Yv� _
.,.,70,. 1,;� ,. ,.+,.,.1 ....�9�ii'�2-}�ccpr * ' �9e'S�}6�P�i6 aA��-uz�a-Ez'�S-
�^^" "~a ^�+�Animals & Pets. Animals and nets brought into the Park shall
be under the owner's physical control and effectively restrained by means of a
leash or chain no more than six (6) feet in length, and shall be kept from
disturbing persons, wild animals and wildfowl. �e�sAnimals and oets are
Page 4 of 9
150066v2(SMM)
prohibited in the swimming beach area. The owner of aan animal or pet shall
- have in his possession at all times equipment for the removal of any feces
deposited by such pet; and, upon such deposit being made, shall use such
equipment for the immediate removal and sanitary disposition of such feces.
ge�sAnimals and nets shall not be tethered to a tree, plant, building or park
equipment nor left unattended. I;�f ,es_it��i_��ht��iteu ti�Fth�r� the �' ��•i�_
i Re 7ulation ot_Recreation_Acti�_i�
�__ Cam _in , Overn�eam�ii�� within the Park is �rohi�ited._
��____P:icnickin��. Picnickin� in the Park is ailowed_su��ct to the follo«�in�:
��= No person or �rou�shall assume_e�elusi_�-_e usz of_ a�cnic _site_or
shelter..
iiLNo�erson or �roup sllall set._u�ten?Uorar�-� shelters. tents t�s_
can_ Oples al�d_other such devices without authorization bv �erinit.
�Swimmin� Swimmin�i_n_Lake_Minnetanka is at the individual"s own
- — -----------_—_
risk. Life �uarc�s are not���ided
�� Boatin�&Dock Use. It shall he unlawfui_to land a watercraft or le�ve a
watercraft unatteilded excet�t at locations desi�nated_fi�r_that purpose•
The docks at the main landin� area are intended solelv for th�ur�e e�f
loadina_and tmloadin� boats. No overniQht dockiil� is allowed. It shall
be unla«•ful_to fish. 1_ouil�e_sunbathe or otherwise_loiter on said c�ocl:s. It
sl�all_be unlawf�zl to_d���e or jum�fron� the docks. It shall ht. unla���fiil tc�
use the docks in a manner so as to disturb or endan�er an��_other�erson_
�__ Huntin�&__Fishi�____I-Iuntin��n� tra���n<�are�rohibitecl in the Park_at
all times. Shore fishin��_is ailowed excetit_in tlle d_esi��ated sw�mmin�
beach at-ea. Fishii�from_the=boat_docks at the main landin� are� is
-- _— _—
-- -- - - — —
�rohibited. It_is_ul�la«-�ful to fish in an_area desi�nated as a_"no_fis}lin�
area.
�)__._C�olf Practiee_Hittin «�,��If b•alis in the Park is�rohibitee�.
�7�_Research_�ctivitv._Researc_h ac_ti�-i_t�_within the Parl:=sha11 be��ei-�nit
onlv. �
Sec 22-106. Protection of Property, Structures and Natural Resources
(a) Vandalism. The intentional defacement, destruction, alteration, injury,
removal or disturbance of any Park property is prohibited. It is unlawful to
intentionally deface, destroy, cover, damage, tamper with or remove any
placard, notice or sign, or parts thereof, whether permanent or temporary,
Page 5 of 9
150066v�MM�
posted or exhibited by the City or by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District. -
(b) Disturbance of Natural Resources.
(1) Plant Life. All plant life within the boundaries of Big Island Nature
Park is protected. Patrons shall not intentionally alter, mutilate, cut,
prune, trim, injure, destroy, or remove any live or dead tree, shrub, vine,
wildflower, grass, sedge, fern, moss lichen, fungus or any other member
of the plant kingdom or portion thereof, except upon approval by the
City of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. No person
shall collect or harvest dead wood or plants, or portions thereof, except
upon written approval. Introduction of non-native species is prohibited.
This section shall not apply to employees or designees of the City of
Orono or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District performing property
maintenance or invasive species control under an approved management
plan.
(2) Wildlife. All wildlife within the boundaries of Big Island Nature Park is
protected. No person may kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, trap, remove,
feed or in any manner disturb or caused to be disturbed any species of
wildlife, except fishing in designated areas pursuant to the State game
laws, except upon written approval of the City of Orono and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. No person shall intentionally
remove, alter, injure, or destroy habitat used by any species, including
but not limited to nests, dams or burrows. No person shall allow a pet to
act in violation of these regulations.
(3) Harmful or foreign substances. No use of pesticides or biocides is
allowed, including insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, herbicides, or
"bug-zappers". No person shall place any debris, pollutant or other
agent in or upon the Park or adjacent waters. No person shall discharge
wastewater or any other wastes in the Park except into designated
containers or receptacles, except as authorized by the City or the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
(4) Topography. No alteration of topography is allowed, including ditching,
draining, diking, filling, excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, or
removal of earth materials except as minimally necessary to effect a
permitted use.
�j—cze-H�cr�i6i3-�cmcciirJ ��v-�=-iP��A��i�S�-1. a' .,1 f' ' �1.9
�c-a r�Pv�ccr-vr-rrrcr[�
D.,,-L . ,:+L,.,,,r . .«;tto,-. ,-. .�F+L.o (`'r ��l
. u.a� ...�.�vu� �
(c) Interference with Park Property.
(1) Cultural resources. All sites, objects, buildings, artifacts, implements,
and locations of historical, archaeological, geologic, scientific or
Page 6 of 9
150066v2(SMM)
educational interest of every character located in, on, or under the
- surface of Big Island Nature Park are protected. No person may remove,
excavate, take, dig into, or destroy any site, object, building, artifact,
implement or location of archaeological, geological, scientific or
historical interest without having first obtained written permission from
the City of Orono.
(2) Fences, gardening, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person to encroach
on Park property with such items as fences or gardens, or to disturb the
natural landscape, vegetation, or structures on Park property or
otherwise use Park property for private use.
D��T'�'l'1'I'• ��..� .F..{,. .�D. .F: A .4� :4..,
.�� ✓
�-�-��3}�ci ���'rrrn���yt �`unk�� .�.�.;4niim-iii�a T,,..i, , l, i' cc r:
. � . . .
��
,�rT �.rl�o,� �. l.l� rl�.,;..a:, . •;�1,�„r .,,,rL.l..-;�,,,r:�.,� 1..� ,� 'r •
�.���. �,�,..,� .�u�-„ u�v.c,ti,. , .
� a• � - , . .
T ;{o . ,-�a� � „i , ;,l�ri
i.ii.�� `uui � - . ,
� . .
rita.��c.i� <<t���r f��v� 1-},i � 1 � ��
...�,....., ...... �.... .....a... .uii�.i i` ai�u .. . _ . ._
. � . . . . � . . . . .
c� 4(. ��c�ti�v� . :z�ni��t:�s- .if-�ior• r� . .
ov uo iv uiotuiti i'� . . . .
J.
b ... b
... _ . .. . . . . . t, .
. � . b .
�F�F�-�--�El-�=r.si�1}-i-t3--a�-1--*:�F-c�-�e':i}�'3zai-c�'�c-a�--c�nc� �:--n-�i,-rr�c'�-�Lc�
� •
.-.,1.;l�;+vrl
�6'�S'Cti���c�'�'uid�a� I_7„-.- 1 'l�;r� 1 •'r' � � �} p .�'.
!�'�zaj-vrr0`��e��-�S 2-6��E}�6i'Tc2E��L�c-i'rc����c-Apercccivrr�r'�a--cr�c-vi
i?�6�6�'izPE��v��PS-l��k�:r.r^pi�^o�34��,-iziE��6rrr6�ric.s��
��gg2�"cT-iin-.c6�C-�E�2�SE00��""�,r�-cni-`r�i�ir���c E� "2r, �ir6i��0�-ii�",cTauag-
�;�e�s;-a��Er-�€�6�6##��fl�1�vt�TTaec�v�Cek�C-�c.��exEept-�6r-a�c vy-
Page 7 of 9
150066v2(SMMI
fi#�-$r�s—�es�Pe�s—�s--�ece�ss�€e��--e��o���s�;
/;i��C��}Eo u;rr: �m 7 f i., t 1. .1, T�, l. � •1,' a
� „b �,�
Sec. 22-�AS:� Enforcement
(a) Compliance Required. All persons shall comply with the Park signs and
markers installed by the City of Orono or Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
(b) Enforcement Authority. Designated City officials and law enforcement
authorities shall have the jurisdiction to enforce any violation of these rules
and any state or local laws which occur on Park property.
(c) Violation a Misdemeanor. Any infraction of a duly adopted Park Rule
constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable by law.
(d) Permit Revocation. The City shall have the right and authority to immediately
revoke for good cause any permit issued for use of the Park."
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective upon approval and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this day of ,
2009 by a vote of ayes and nays.
James M. White, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Page 8 of 9
150066v2 MM
Document comparison done by Workshare DeltaView on Monday, February 08,
' 2010 3:09:33 PM
Input: '
Document 1 Powerpocs://DOCS/150066/1
Document 2 Powerpocs://DOCS/150066/2
Rendering set Standard
Legend:
Insertion
��
�m����n
Mo�-ed to
Style change
Format change
�R�,��,Tl-<��+����.�,
Inserted cell
Deleted cell
Moved cell
Split/Merged cell
Padding ceii
Statistics:
Count
Insertions 28
Deletions 41
Moved from 18
Moved to 18
St le chan e 0
Format chan ed 0
Total changes 105
� .�� -
DRAFT 2-19-09/REVISED 4-22-09
� ,.`/ �-f�/�C� ��s:: i,: _
r
ORDINANCE NO. , THIRD SERIES
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 22 OF THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING ARTICLE IV REGARDING
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO BIG ISLAND NATURE PARK
The City Council of Orono, Minnesota ordains as follows:
SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Title III - Streets Parks and Other Public Places,
Chapter 22 - Parks and Recreation, is hereby amended by adding Article IV - Special
Regulations for Big Island Nature Park as follows:
"ARTICLE IV. SPECIAL REGULATIONS FOR BIG ISLAND NATURE PARK
Sec. 22-102. Purpose
Through mutual collaboration between the City of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek
Watershed District, Big Island Nature Park is intended to be preserved, maintained
and improved as a passive recreational, ecological and educational asset to the Lake
Minnetonka community and its visitors. A Conservation Easement has been
established over the Park property that restricts the level of improvements and
activities to ensure these goals are accomplished.
The rules within this Article are established as written guidelines for the use of Big
Island Nature Park. These rules are intended to ensure that visitors to the Park enjoy a
safe and positive experience, while protecting and preserving its natural and cultural
amenities.
Sec. 22-103. Regulation of Public Use
(a) Park Hours. Big Island Nature Park shall be open to the public from 6:00 a.m.
to 10:00 p.m. daily. It shall be unlawful for any person to enter or remain in
the Park between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.
(b) Closed Areas. Any section or part of the Park may be declared closed to the
public by the City of Orono at any time and for any interval of time, either
temporarily or at regular and stated intervals (daily or otherwise) and either
entirely or merely to certain uses as the City shall find reasonably necessary.
It shall be unlawful for any person to enter an area in the Park posted as
"Closed to the Public".
Page l of 7
150066v2(SMM)
(c) Permits & Reservations.
(1) Required. A Permit shall be obtained from the City of Orono for
holding any special event, activity or use in Big Island Nature Park. A
special event permit shall be required for the following:
(2) Reservations. No facilities within Big Island Nature Park shall be
reserved nor designated for exclusive use by any individual, group or
organization.
(3) Permit Application. A person seeking issuance of a permit hereunder
shall file an application with the City Clerk. The application shall state:
(A) The name and address of the applicant.
(B) The name, address and contact information of the person
sponsoring the activity, if any.
(C) The day and hours for which the permit is desired. For activities
that will occur on an ongoing basis or on multiple dates, a single
permit covering all dates may be issued at the discretion of the
City.
(D) The location(s) within the Park for which such permit is desired.
(E) An estimate of the anticipated attendance.
(F) Any other information which the City Clerk shall find reasonably
necessary to determine whether a permit should be issued
hereunder.
(4) Standards for issuance. The City Clerk shall issue a permit hereunder
upon determination:
(A) That the proposed activity will not interfere with, detract from or
impair the Conservation Values of the Park as identified by the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
(B) That the proposed activity or use of the Park will not
unreasonably interfere with or detract from the general public
enjoyment of the park.
(C) That the proposed activity and use will not unreasonably
interfere with or detract from the promotion of public health,
welfare, safety and recreation.
(D) That the proposed activity will not entail unusual, extraordinary
or burdensome expense or police operation by the City.
(5) Appeal. Within ten (10) business days after receipt of an application, the
City Clerk shall apprise an applicant, in writing, of the reasons for
refusing a permit, and any aggrieved person shall have the right of
appeal, in writing, within ten (10) business days to the City
Administrator, who shall consider the application under the standards set
forth in subsection (c) hereof, and sustain ar overrule the City Clerk's
decision within ten (10) business days. The decision of the City
Administrator shall be final.
Page 2 of 7
150066v2(SMM)
(6) Transferability. Permits are not transferable.
(7) Permittee to be on premises. The permittee or a permittee's designated
representative shall be in attendance at all times and have physical
possession of the permit.
(8) Liabiliry of permittee. The person to whom a permit is issued shall be
liable for any applicable ordinances as fully as though the same were
inserted in said permits.
(9) Revocation. The City shall have the authority to revoke a permit upon a
violation of any rule or ordinance, or upon good cause shown.
Sec. 22-104. Regulation of General Conduct
(a) Alcohol. The sale, possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages in the
Park is prohibited.
(b) Gambling. It shall be unlawful for any person to gamble or participate in any
game of chance in the Park.
(c) Nuisance. It shall be unlawful commit any act within the Park that constitutes
a nuisance as defined by the City Code or State Statute.
(d) Littering & Sanitation. It is unlawful to litter or dump trash in the Park.
Garbage and recyclables shall remain in the possession of the Park user and
shall be removed from the Park upon leaving the Park property.
(e) Glass Containers. Glass beverage containers are prohibited in the Park.
(� Dangerous Weapons/Fireworks. Explosives, slingshots, bows and arrows, and
paintball guns are prohibited in the Park at all times. Discharge of firecrackers
or fireworks or detonation of explosive devices of any kind in the Park is
prohibited.
(g) Interference with Employee Performance of Duty. It is unlawful for any
person to impersonate a park employee or City official or to interfere with,
harass, or hinder any employee or City official in the discharge of his/her
duties.
Sec. 22-105. General Park Operation Regulations
(a) Commercial Activity. No person shall sell or by any means advertise for sale
any goods, wares, merchandise, liquids, edibles or services of any kind, nature
or description in the Park.
(b) Sign Posting. The posting, distribution and display of private signs, notices,
posters or advertisements is prohibited wi�hin the Park property.
Page 3 of 7
150066v2(SMM)
� (c) Noise/Amplification of Sound. The operation or use of loudspeakers, sound
amplifiers, or other devices for the production or reproduction of sound is
prohibited in the Park. The operation or use of any radio, phonograph,
television or other machine or device for the production or reproduction of
sound in such a manner as to be disturbing or a nuisance to reasonable persons
of normal sensitivity within the area of audibility is prohibited in the Park.
Live bands are prohibited in the Park.
(d) Fires. Open fires are prohibited everywhere in the Park including the
swimming beach. Open fires include campfires and charcoal grills. Propane
grills are allowed.
(e) Motorized Vehicles. The operation and use of motorized vehicles in the Park
is prohibited. The City or its designees may utilize motorized vehicles as
necessary for park operations, maintenance, emergency vehicles or handicap
accessibility.
(� Bicycles. The operation of mountain bikes or other bicycles within the Park is
prohibited.
(g) Engine-powered Models and Toys. It shall be unlawful for any person to
start, fly or use any fuel- or battery-powered model aircraft, model car, or
rocket or like powered toy or model within the Park.
(h) Animals & Pets. Animals and pets brought into the Park shall be under the
owner's physical control and effectively restrained by means of a leash or
chain no mare than six (6) feet in length, and shall be kept from disturbing
persons, wild animals and wildfowl. Animals and pets are prohibited in the
swimming beach area. The owner of an animal or pet shall have in his
possession at all times equipment for the removal of any feces deposited by
such pet; and, upon such deposit being made, shall use such equipment for the
immediate removal and sanitary disposition of such feces. Animals and pets
shall not be tethered to a tree, plant, building or park equipment nor left
unattended. Horses are prohibited within the Park.
(i) Regulation of Recreation Activity.
(1) Camping. Overnight camping within the Park is prohibited.
(2) Picnicking. Picnicking in the Park is allowed subject to the following:
(i) No person or group shall assume exclusive use of a picnic site or
shelter.
(ii) No person or group shall set up temporary shelters, tents, tarps,
canopies and other such devices without authorization by permit.
Page 4 of 7
150066v2(SMM)
(3) Swimming. Swimming in Lake Minnetonka is at the individual's own
risk. Life guards are not provided. -
(4) Boating & Dock Use. It shall be unlawful to land a watercraft or leave a
watercraft unattended except at locations designated for that purpose.
The docks at the main landing area are intended solely for the purpose of
loading and unloading boats. No overnight docking is allowed. It shall
be unlawful to fish, lounge, sunbathe or otherwise loiter on said docks. It
shall be unlawful to dive or jump from the docks. It shall be unlawful to
use the docks in a manner so as to disturb or endanger any other person.
(5) Hunting & Fishing. Hunting and trapping are prohibited in the Park at
all times. Shore fishing is allowed except in the designated swimming
beach area. Fishing from the boat docks at the main landing area is
prohibited. It is unlawful to fish in an area designated as a "no fishing"
area.
(6) Golf Practice. Hitting golf balls in the Park is prohibited.
(7) Research Activity. Research activity within the Park shall be by permit
only.
Sec 22-106. Protection of Property, S�ructures and Natural Resources
(a) Vandalism. The intentional defacement, destruction, alteration, injury,
removal or disturbance of any Park property is prohibited. It is unlawful to
intentionally deface, destroy, cover, damage, tamper with or remove any
placard, notice or sign, or parts thereof, whether permanent or temporary,
posted or exhibited by the City or by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
(b) Disturbance of Natural Resources.
(1) Plant Life. All plant life within the boundaries of Big Island Nature
Park is protected. Patrons shall not intentionally alter, mutilate, cut,
prune, trim, injure, destroy, or remove any live or dead tree, shrub, vine,
wildflower, grass, sedge, fern, moss lichen, fungus or any other member
of the plant kingdom or portion thereof, except upon approval by the
City of Orono and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. No person
shall collect or harvest dead wood or plants, or portions thereof; except
upon written approval. Introduction of non-native species is prohibited.
This section shall not apply to employees or designees of the City of
Orono or the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District performing property
maintenance or invasive species control under an approved management
plan.
(2) Wildlife. All wildlife within the boundaries of Big Island Nature Park is
protected. No person may kill, harm, harass, pursue, hunt, trap, remove,
Page 5 of 7
1�0066v2(SMM)
feed or in any manner disturb or caused to be disturbed any species of
• wildlife, except fishing in designated areas pursuant to the State game
laws, except upon written approval of the City of Orono and the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. No person shall intentionally
remove, alter, injure, or destroy habitat used by any species, including
but not limited to nests, dams or burrows. No person shall allow a pet to
act in violation of these regulations.
(3) Harmful or foreign substances. No use of pesticides or biocides is
allowed, including insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, herbicides, or
"bug-zappers". No person shall place any debris, pollutant or other
agent in or upon the Park or adjacent waters. No person shall discharge
wastewater or any other wastes in the Park except into designated
containers or receptacles, except as authorized by the City or the
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
(4) Topography. No alteration of topography is allowed, including ditching,
draining, diking, filling, excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, or
removal of earth materials eXcept as minimally necessary to effect a
permitted use.
(c) Interference with Park Property.
(1) Cultural resources. All sites, objects, buildings, artifacts, implements;
and locations of historical, archaeological, geologic, scientific or
educational interest of every character located in, on, or under the
surface of Big Island Nature Park are protected. No person may remove,
excavate, take, dig into, or destroy any site, object, building, artifact,
implement or location of archaeological, geological, scientific or
historical interest without having first obtained written permission from
the City of Orono.
(2) Fences, gardening, etc. It shall be unlawful for any person to encroach
on Park property with such items as fences or gardens, or to disturb the
natural landscape, vegetation, or structures on Park property or
otherwise use Park property for private use.
Sec. 22-107. Enforcement
(a) Compliance Required. All persons shall comply with the Park signs and
markers installed by the City of Orono or Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District.
(b) Enforcement Authority. Designated City officials and law enforcement
authorities shall have the jurisdiction to enforce any violation of these rules
and any state or local laws which occur on Park property.
Page 6 of 7
150066v2(SMM)
(c) Violation a Misdemeanor. Any infraction of a duly adopted Park Rule
constitutes a misdemeanor and is punishable by law. '
(d) Permit Revocation. The City shall have the right and authority to immediately
revoke for good cause any permit issued for use of the Park."
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be effective upon approval and publication.
Adopted by the City Council of Orono on this day of ,
2009 by a vote of ayes and nays.
James M. White, Mayor
ATTEST:
Linda S. Vee, City Clerk
Paje 7 of 7
150066v2(SMM)
�
. �
� MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor& City Council
Bill Wells, City Administrator
From: Mike Gaffron, Asst. City Admin. - Long Term Strategy
Date: Apri122, 2009
Subject: Revised Draft Ordinance for Discussion - Big Island Nature Park Regulations
Attachments:
A - Revised Draft Ordinance
B - Request from Museum of Lake Minnetonka 4-15-09
C - Memo and Exhibits of February 20, 2009
Ordinance
Attached is a revised draft of the ordinance that would establish special regulations for
Big Island Nature Park.
The original draft was initially reviewed briefly at Council's February 24 work session.
Council suggested that language indicating the permit holder is responsible for any
damages should be added to permits when issued. It was also suggested that it is
necessary that we define (not necessarily within the ordinance) a list of events and
activities that require a permit, and determine criteria for when such a permit would need
Council approval. Discussion ensued about why we would treat the Minnehaha
differently than other charter boat groups that might want to visit the island. Four
specific elements were brought forth:
1) Non-profit status
2) Not associated with liquor or entertainment
3) Educational aspect of providing organized guided nature/history tours
4) High level of organized activity rather than "drop `em and leave"
Council also suggested that there should be a threshold level, perhaps based on number of
persons in attendance at a special event or activity, beyond which Council should review
and approve permits.
This item was next discussed at the Big Island Park Committee meeting on April 2. The
spirited discussion brought forth a number of elements that need to be considered as the
regulations move forward:
- Conservation Easement. We are obligated to follow the provisions of the
Conservation Easement in defining the types of uses that are allowed and that
may require a permit. The Conservation Easement functionally prohibits
activities or "organized events" that "could impair the Conservation Values of the
Protected Property" (Protected Property is the entire Park area, including the
Natural Area and the Recreation Area).
Big Island Regulations
April 22,2009
Page 2
- Public Access. The City did not "promise" to provide access in order to get State
money to purchase the Park. But we intend to provide public access to allow
activities and uses that are in line with the goals of the Conservation Easement,
and we are providing public docks that are an open invitation to the public to visit
the island.
- Cruise Boats. Charter or cruise boats merely providing members of the public
access to the Island as part of an "open charter" and not as part of an organized
group event or activity should generally not be an issue in terms of needing an
event permit.
However, we need to understand the workings of cruise boats. They are large.
They will have an impact on the docks, both in terms of dock structural needs as
well as in relation to how much space and time they will take up at the docks.
Profit vs non-profit status should not necessarily be a factor in our permitting
process. However, boats-for-hire perhaps should at least have an annual permit so
we know they have been advised of the Island's restrictions and limited facilities.
These boats are licensed through the LMCD and have to provide a list of
approved "ports-of-call" to the LMCD. The City should do an annual meeting
with Port-of-Call license holders to advise them of regulations, guidelines and
potential issues with delivering people to the Island.
- Special Event Permits. The number of people involved in an event on the Island
should be one of the triggers for requiring a permit. The City's standard Special
Event permit threshold of 200 persons is too high for the Island - the threshold for
requiring a permit should be 25 persons (this was a generally held consensus by
the end of the meeting)...
- Problematic are organized ac�ivities that do not adhere to the "leave no trace"
philosophy. Users need to know that they have to be self-contained in terms of
trash management, sanitary facilities, etc.
- The capability of�he City to maintain order should be a factor, especially if an
event requires an unusual level of added City resources (police, etc.)...and the
City's abilities are limited...
- The permit application should contain clear and detailed informational material so
that applicants will be advised of the goals and limitations of Big Island Park, as
well as what is and is not allowed. This may dissuade some applicants from
planning an inappropriate event at the Island, and should be detailed enough that
those who apply will have a fairly good idea of whether their permit will be
issued. In order to do that, we need to be clear about the parameters for permit
issuance.
Big Island Regulations
Apri122,2009
Page 3
One of the conclusions reached by the Committee is that use of the Park for 2009 is still
in an "interim" mode - we are still learning and adapting to what we learn. This is
definitely a work in progress.
I have revised the draft ordinance to include some of the details suggested by the
Committee. Council is requested to review this and determine if additional revisions are
needed.
Other Immediate Issue for Consideration
1. The Museum of Lake Minnetonka has requested a permit to allow the
Minnehaha steamboat to conduct guided Nature and Environmental tours each
weekend from May 23 thru October 17. Absent an ordinance in place that would
require a permit for this use, it would seem appropriate that the Museum make a
formal Special Event permit application similar to that submitted by Orono
Community Ed for their summer school.
One item of concern is that the Museum's proposal is to drop passengers off at
10:45 a.m., then leave and return to pick them up 3-1/2 hours later at 2:15 p.m.
This seems to be an extremely long period to have a potentially large group
(perhaps as many as 70-80 persons) on the island without immediate
transportation if needed, even with a tour guide, given that we won't have toilets
or other facilities available.
2. Regarding the part time CSO position, the hiring process is underway and we
have two excellent candidates from a group of six interviewees. Council is being
asked to approve the purchase of a boat/motor/trailer for use of the CSO and
potentially for other purposes (inspections, maintenance, etc.). Gabriel has
offered to provide a slip for the boat at Tonka Bay Marina. The CSO will be
provided a key to the Power Squadron restroom.
Staff has discussed with the City Attorney the issues of City liability regarding the
boat and how it should and should not be used. It is not intended to transport
members of the general public for any purpose, and is not going to be the
transportation solu�ion for group stragglers who missed their boat or the Park
patron who desperately "needs to go now".
3. Staff is scheduling a meeting with the members of the Lake Minnetonka
Charter Boat Association for the purpose of determining their interest in making
Big Island Park a port-of-call. At this meeting we will discuss the physical dock
structure requirements to make that possible, advise them of the very limited
facilities and amenities that they should expec� to find available, and go over the
goals and intent of Big Island Park.
Big Island Regulations
April 22,2009
Page 4
To date the discussions at Committee and Council level have suggested that for
the 2009 season the only entities we will approve for LMCD "port-of-call"
licensing are the Minnehaha, the Lake Minnetonka Sailing School, and the water
taxi service (H20 Towing and Taxi). If at some point it is determined that we
should allow the charter boats to use the Park as a port-of-call, the issue of liquor
licensing would have to be considered. LMCD staff has suggested that once a
charter is tied up at a port-of-call dock, local jurisdiction on liquor should take
over.
A formal Council decision on whether entities other than those noted above
should be allowed to use the Park as a port-of-call is needed rather quickly. If they
are allowed, we need to provide for installation of additional docking pilings to
ensure the stability of the second dock, and this needs to be done at the time that
dock is installed(i.e. within the next week or two).
4. As a final note, Renae Clark of MCWD will be working on a Trail Map and/or
similar informative materials for visitors to the Island.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
► Discuss the revised ordinance language.
► Provide direction regarding the request from the Museum of Lake Minnetonka.
► Provide direction as to whether the Park can be a port-of-call for charter boats for
2009.
, �
, MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,Apri127,2009
7:00 o'clock p.m.
*11. HAZARDOUS BUILDING ACTION AT 3443 CRYSTAL PLACE—
RESOLUTION NO. 5832
White noted he did receive a call from an elderly couple residing near Saga Hill and that the City
should be looking into other hazardous buildings throughout the City.
Bremer moved,Murphy seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 5832,a Resolution
Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Building Located at 3443 Crystal Place. VOTE: Ayes
5, Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
12. DISCUSSION REGARDING BIG ISLAND REGULATIONS
Mattick stated he requested this item be put on the agenda due to the ordinance that Staff was
asked to draft and that he would like some direction from the Council to ensure that the ordinance
reflects what the City would like to achieve for overall use of Big Island. Mattick noted the park
on Big Island would not be used for camping and fires and that he had some questions on how
large groups visiting the island would be handled. Mattick requested the Council provide same
direction for large groups using the island from a commercial standpoint through tour boats, such
as the Minnehaha. Mattick noted there appears to be an expressed desire to allow the Minnehaha
out to the island, but questioned whether the Council would like to allow other commercial
recreational boats to dock on the island.
Gabrial Jabbour asked if the City Attorney has reviewed the Big Island Conservation Easement.
Mattick stated he just received the information.
Jabbour stated there are three guiding issues that need to be addressed. One,the contractual
agreement with the Minnehaha;two,tlle city's philosophy concerning the use of recreational
areas; and three,the use of the land. Jabbour noted that the City's traditional practice has been to
spend very little on its parks and to leave them more passive. The Big Island Committee has had
a number of discussions about how they can be inclusive but yet limit the impact to the island.
Jabbour pointed out the conservation easement pretty much limits what use the island can be put
to and noted that alcohol is not allowed, the island is not to be used for profit, and that the use
would be passive, which is similar to other City parks.
Jabbour distributed a picture from 1999 to the Council depicting the number of boats that this
area has experienced in the past. Jabbour noted in the areas where there is no buckthorn, there has
been considerable dumping, so the buckthorn has been left as a natural fence.
Jabbour eXpressed some frustration with the limited progress being made by the Big [sland
Committee and the amount of vandalism that has been experienced to the bathroom facility on the
island. Jabbour noted the committee had originally recommended a boat with a bathroom be
made available for the island, which he was willing to provide to the City, but that they later
changed their recommendation to only allow for five gallon buckets with sawdust due to the
PAGE 12
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
Monday, April 27,2009
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(12. DISCUSSION REGARDING BIG ISLAND REGULATIONS, Continued)
vandalism. Jabbour expressed concern that providing that type of bathroom facility could
potentiaily generate some unintended consequences, such as bad publicity for the City.
Mattick stated it is not his intention to change anything that the committee has recommended but
merely to get some clarification from the Council on what they envision both long-term and
short-term for Big Island. Mattick indicated he is aware of the substantial amount of vandalism,
especially as it relates to the bathroom facilities, and that there is an issue from the City's
standpoint that when there are a large number of people visiting the island at a single time,there
may be the necessity to have five gallon buckets with sawdust if other options are not feasible
given the vandalism problem.
Murphy stated his comments are coming from his role with the Minnehaha and not as a council
member. Murphy noted he and Jabbour serve on the Lake Minnetonka Museum Board. In the
beginning of this project,there was the issue of how the public would have access to the island,
which evolved into having the Minnehaha make runs out to the island. Due to the other issues
that arose along the way, a plan has been compiled to assemble natural environmental tours
across the island. During the planning process for the tours and setting of the Minnehaha
schedule, it was felt that people could be dropped off at Big Island at approximately 10:15 a.m.
on a Saturday morning, the boat would then continue on to Wayzata, and then the boat would
return and pick people up from Big Island at approximately 2:15 p.m. Murphy indicated he is not
aware of another way to set up the boat schedule.
Murphy stated that schedule resulted in the issue of people arriving back to the dock in time for
the boat and also for the need of some type of restroom facilities to be available to the public
since the people visiting the island would be there for three or four hours. One option discussed
was that it could be made very clear that any visitors to the island off of the Minnehaha would
need to use the bathroom priar to going on the island or wait until they reboard the boat. Murphy
noted the committee spent a considerable amount of time at their last meeting discussing this
issue and other potential issues. Murphy stated the restroom issue is still unresolved as well as
liability issues the City could potentially face with allowing visitors on the island.
White stated the problem is basically with the people aboard the Minnehaha and that in his view
the people will simply need to be informed of the situation.
Franchot commented that he has repeatedly heard the concern raised regarding the lack of adult
supervision with these various groups. Franchot asked if they were still going with the tour
guide.
Murphy noted that Gabriel Jabbour has withdrawn his offer of serving as a tour guide but that he
has had other discussions with other people about performing that duty. Murphy noted they are
on a time deadline to get these issues resolved since the materials have already been published.
Franchot stated based on his attendance at two of the committee meetings, it was his
understanding the majority of the issues had been addressed and that it was his understanding a
decision had been made to have a boat with a bathroom available for the groups and to have a
person on the island during heavy usage times to provide supervision. Franchot stated based on
PAGE 13
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,April 27,2009
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(12. DISCUSSIONREGARDING BIG ISLAND REGULATIONS, Continued)
tonight's discussion, it appears the main issues relate to the larger groups visiting the island off of
the Minnehaha and not having bathroom facilities.
McMillan noted there are safety lanes for the boats now.
Jabbour commented he had thought it would be a good idea to have a person on share to help
guide the people over the island and to make sure that they make it back to the boat on time.
They also discussed the option of leaving a smaller boat out there to transport anyone who might
miss the Minnehaha. Jabbour indicated another issue is the safety of the people visiting the island
and that in the event of a starm, people will need to be transported back. Jabbour noted one
person did die in the harbor during a storm. Another option for limiting the number of people
visiting the island would be to have the Minnehaha limit the number of tickets it sells.
Franchot indicated he does not agree with all of the concerns raised by Jabbour but that he does
understand the concerns relating to safety of the larger groups visiting the island.
Jabbour stated his concerns relate to his past experiences.
Franchot asked what Jabbour would recommend the Council consider for the island.
Jabbour stated Big Island is an inhabited oasis and that unfortunately people visiting the island
could become obtrusive. Jabbour stated in his view all cruise boats shouid be allowed to visit the
island if they are acting as a ferry but not all large groups should be allowed on the island for an
extended period of time if they are on a recreational outing as part of a company event. Jabbour
stated he would like to see shorter visits to the island.
Murphy stated he sent a long memorandum to the committee after they met outlining the issues
and his concerns and that the City needs to determine what its long term vision is for Big Island.
Murphy stated he is not sure of a way to shorten the time period that a group would be on the
island. Murphy stated unfortunately the committee is forced to speculate what could possibly
happen and that they may not know how things will go until they start having people on the
island.
McMillan stated there needs to be contingency plans for the people on the island.
Murphy stated they have instituted a safety plan in the event someone goes overboard, if the boat
stops in the middle of the lake and other possible emergencies, but that there is always the
possibility something unexpected will happen.
Police Chief Farniok pointed out the groups that would visit Big Island via the Minnehaha are
probably not going to be teenagers and that in his opinion, based on the lenb h of ti�r�e they would
be on the island,there should be some bathroom facilities available, benches to sit on, and a
contingency plan to get people off the island in the event of an emergency.
Jabbour noted the cruise boats are profit driven and that�hey charge a certain amount per hour.
The cruise boats are not interested in parking at the island for a number of hours.
PAGE 14
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, Apri127,2009
7:00 o'clock p.m.
(12. DISCUSSION REGARDING BIG ISLAND REGULATIONS, Continued)
Murphy stated the committee is interested in doing everything they can to ensure the safety and
well-being of the visitors to the island but that given the complexity of the issues, they maybe
should look at not having the Minnehaha drop visitors off on the island. Murphy stated they
could have one or two people on the island that could assist the visitors but that the City will need
to decide whether they want to be in the transportation business or in the tour business. Murphy
stated in his opinion the City should only be in the transportation business. The committee does
not want to put the burden on the City, but if they feel it is worthwhile to allow people to have
that opportunity to visit the island,they need the assistance of the City to find those individuals
who would be willing to help with the groups.
Police Chief Farniok suggested the committee share its plans with the Water Patrol and the police
department to review.
Murphy stated the lack of bathroom facilities is the main issue given the amount of time the
group would be on the island.
Bremer stated without bathroom facilities, it is likely that people will relieve themselves in the
woods and leave debris behind that will need to be picked up.
White noted that currently there is not a taxi service available for people stranded on the lake.
Jabbour stated to his understanding most boats that are sold nowadays have a port-a-potty and
that he had thought a good option would be to purchase a boat with a bathroom and have
someone monitor it. Since the purchase of the island park, $1.4 million has been spent, with the
City spending approximately $110,000. The majority of the money spent by the City has been to
purchase the two docks. Jabbour noted that 50 barges of garbage were taken off the island during
the cleanup efforts.
McMillan stated the City does need to look at the long-term costs associated with having people
visit the island.
Jabbour stated the goal is to provide visitars to the island a safe and pleasurable trip.
Franchot asked whether there was any discussion concerning these issues before the park was
purchased.
White stated the Council felt the purchase was an exceptional deal and that they would work out
the issues as they came up.
McMillan stated the guiding principle for the committee has been to limit the impact to the island
and that one of the main issues surrounds the level of activity on the island.
Jabbour noted they have a contractual obligation with the Watershed District to create a safety
and management plan far the island. Jabbour indicated he has spent almost every day over the
past few months working with a representative from the Watershed District in developing a plan.
PAGE 15
MINUTES OF THE
' ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday,Apri127,2009
7:00 dclock p.m.
(IZ. DISCUSSIONREGARDING BIG ISLAND REGULATIONS, Continued)
Murphy stated following the letter he sent to the Council and Staff, Gaffron had recommended
the application be resubmitted. Murphy stated the committee will articulate in the application
their plans for the island and the visitors. If the City does not feel it is safe enough to allow lar�e
groups on the island,the committee would accept that decision.
Mattick noted Gaffron has prepared an ordinance for his review and asked whether the Council
would like him to go ahead and finalize it for council's preliminary review.
It was the consensus of the City Council to direct the City Attarney to prepare a preliminary
ordinance for their review.
Murphy stated in response to the question raised by Franchot, they did not anticipate all of these
issues but that they did know there would be some issues that would need to be worked out.
Murphy stated the unfortunate part is that there will be people who will exploit the island and that
the City will need to maintain the park as a passive use. Murphy stated he does not want it to
appear that the Counci] is getting in the way of the Minnehaha.
McMillan stated her biggest concern at the time of purchase was the cleanup of the island and
having a limited number of buildings on the island. McMillan stated she understood the
challenges of managing an island park and that in her view if they can take their time and not rush
into anything,the issues will eventually be resolved.
Gaffron noted either this week ar next week the docks will be installed as well as the posts for the
Minnehaha.
Jabbour stated if there will be large boats coming to the island,the side posts need to be installed,
and that the cost this year for installation would be $1500.
Franchot asked if they need the posts.
Gaffron stated if they would like to accommodate cruise boats this year,they will need the
additional posts.
McMillan stated in her opinion they are not ready to allow large cruise boats on the island.
Gaffron stated the committee had planned on meetinb with the cruise boat operators to give them
a presentation on what to expect as well as the City's vision for the island, which has not yet been
scheduled.
Franchot commented that it is unlikely the City would issue very many permits for tour boats this
year.
It was the consensus of the City Council to install the first set of posts for the first dock but to
delay installation of the second set of posts and second dock.
McMillan asked when the dock would be installed.
PAGE 16
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING �
Monday,April 27,2009
7:00 dclock p.m.
(12. DISCUSSION REGARDING BIG ISLAND REGULATIONS, Continued)
Jabbour indicated it would be installed next week.
Gaffron stated he would schedule a meeting in the next week or two with the cruise boat
operators.
Fire Department Contracts
Mattick reported City Administrator Wells has been reviewing the City's contracts with Long
Lake regarding fire protection. Mattick noted his law firm also represents the City of Long Lake
but that they do not participate in the negotiations or drafting of the contract terms.
Mattick stated there are currently three separate contracts with Long Lake, and that one of the
contracts is a contract for joint ownership of the new fire station. Mattick indicated it is not a true
50/50 split at the present time but that it is contemplated there would be a 50/50 split by 2020.
Murphy noted when the fire station was initially constructed, Orono agreed with Long Lake that
it would be joint ownership.
Mattick stated there is also a contract to provide services, which spells out a number of
responsibilities and quantifies what each community pays for services. In 2001,there was a two
and a half page addendum to the contract for ownership, which outlined some new expenses, but
it also addressed Long Lake providing 350 sewer units. Mattick stated while it seems odd to have
that provision in a fire services contract, it appears there was some reconfiguring done with
respect to sewer lines and at that time there was some contemplation for additional sewer
capacity. Generally in the City's past negotiations with Long Lake,the various agreements have
always been separately negotiated agreements, and that this contract could start to blend some of
the various topics.
Mattick noted there was also an agreement that was circulated at the end of 2006 relating to the
Navarre Fire Station. What had been negotiated was basically a clarification that the Navarre Fire
Station would be jointly owned and run by Long Lake and Orono as if it had been included in the
2001 contract It is his understanding that that agreement has not been signed.
White stated the history provided by the City Attorney is similar to his recollection but that he did
not remember the exact number of sewer units.
Murphy stated the joint ownership of the Navarre Fire Station was only a portion of the
agreement that the City had with Long Lake regarding fire protection services. At the time the
agreement was drawn up,the Council reviewed it and sent it over to Long Lake, who did not act
on the agreement. Murphy commented he is unsure what Long Lake would like to do about the
agreement but suggested the Orono City Council consider simply acquiescing to Long Lake on
their decision.
PAGE 17
/�/ 8�
� �O \\ ��. //�� _
� �'� ���� Bi Island Nature Park �����e�`"'��
� ��^} �J� g
��� �� '".'�.��� Special Activity Permit Application
`�xEsxo�
City of Orono ❑ Fee: $
2750 Kelley Parkway ❑ Late Fee: $
P.O. Box 66
Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date Received:
Type of Activity(check all that apply)
❑ Activity that involves more than 25 persons visiting the Park at one time
❑ Activity that requires 5 or more boats to be docked at the Park at one time
❑ Activity that requires the use of temporary shelters, tents,tarps, canopies or the like
❑ Research activity involving potential disturbance of cultural resources
❑ Disposal of Cremation remains
❑ Other(describe)
Applicant Information
Name•
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Email:
Organization (if applicable):
Address:
City, State, Zip:
Phone:
Activity Details
Name of Activity:
Location(s)within Park:
Date(s):
Hours:
Applicant Phone#on Activity Day:
Description of Activity:
(use additional paper if necessary)
I am aware of all applicable State laws ancl City Ordinances regarding special activities on Big lsland and wiU abide by sam�
IN CONSIDERATION of being a[lowed lo corizmence and operate the above-described activity,the undersigned hereby releases,
waives,discharges,and covenants not to sue tlie Ciry of Orono,the City's elected offrcials,employees, volunteers,or agents
("Releasees")for injuries,death,or damages caused by the negligence of Re[easees as a result ojparticipaling in the above-
described activiry. The undersigned further agrees to protect,indemnify,and hold harmless Releasees from any and all damages,
[iability,and costs,including attorney's fees,for injuries,death,or damages caused by the neg[igence of Releasees. This Llelease and
Indemnifieation does not app[y to intentional,willful,or wanton acts by Releasees.
The applicant for a Big Island Nature Park Special Activity Permit shal/pay a service charge for the governmenta!services provided
to enforce the Orono Cit��Code related to such activity;nnd the City may,as a condition of approval of the permit,reyuire that the
applicant deposit money with tlze City in a sum equal to the estimated service charge to be incuned by the City. Service charges
include al!City staff time or City consultant time neeessary.
Signature Date
Big Island Nature Park Special Activity Permit Application (continuec� �
Submittals
Please give consideration to the following list of documents and/or permits which may be required prior to City
and Council approval.
The application rriust be submitted at least 14 days prior to the event.
Documents
❑ Site plan identifying the locations within the Park in which the activity will be held.
❑ Certificate of Insurance Coverage may be required depending on nature of activity.
❑ For activities lasting more than 3 hours, description and location of sanitary facilities and an emergency
evacuation plan.
❑ Proof of possession of any license or permit which, under federal, state or local laws or regulations,the
applicant is required to have in order to conduct the special activity, or which, under any such law or
regulation, would exempt the applicant from the licensing requirements of Orono City Code Sec. 22-103(c).
Licenses/Permits (if applicable)
❑ DNR ❑ Fire Department(Fire Marshal)
❑ Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol ❑ Health Department(County)
❑ Lake Minnetonka Conservation District(LMCD) ❑ Temporary Sign
❑ Building Permit(temporary structure, i.e. tent) ❑ Other
Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on the application is classified by State law
as either private or confidentiaL Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the
public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally
cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this
information will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. If you refuse
to supply the information,the permit or license may not be issued.
Please answer the following questions related to this special activity permit application:
PARTICIPANTS/GUESTS
Approximately how many people are expected at the activity?
Is this activity open to the public? ❑ Yes ❑ No
DOCKAGE
Approximately how many watercraft are expected?
How many of these will be tied up at the Park docks at one time?
FEES BEING CHARGED
Will the activity have any fees collected? ❑ Yes ❑ No
Will there be any tickets sold for the activity? ❑ Yes ❑ No
What is the purpose for any money that is collected?
LARGE ACTIVITY
Will there be more than 200 participants? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, please provide a site map of the location of
activities, sanitary facilities provided by applicant, garbage containment, etc. Must meet requirements of
Orono Code Sec.38-802.
Will any special services be required from the Police Department or any other City department? ❑ Yes ❑No
Describe the required services:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Depending on the nature of the activity,additional information may be required.
.
. Important Information about Big Island Nature Park
1. The City is no longer able to offer operating bathrooms on Big Island, and potable water is not
available. Permittee shall be responsible for providing sanitary facilities for the special activity. The
preferred option is to provide a boat with toilet facilities stationed at the dock daring the activity.
2. Permittee shall operate the activity in a manner such that all published and posted regulations regarding
use of Big Island Nature Park will be adhered to (see below to access co�v of Park Rules; they will also
be attached to Permit). Note specificallv that onen fires, charcoal �rills and overnight camping are
prohibited. Bicvles are not allowed. Pets must be leashed and �icked up after There are no
concession stands.
3. Nothing in the Permit shall grant the Permittee exclusive use of any facility on Big Island.
4. Permittee is responsible for monitoring weather conditions, and if severe weather is predicted, the
activity should be postponed. Permittee shall adhere to the approved Emergency Evacuation Plan that
was submitted with the permit application, when adequate notification of severe weather has been
received. Permittee is advised that use of the existing shelters for protection during severe weather is
not recommended.
5. In the event that any facility or site being used by the Permittee is found to have sustained damage due
to natural or man-made causes, Permittee shall notify the Orono Police Department immediately via
Hennepin County Dispatch (763-525-6210) and shall discontinue use of the site or facility until
authorized by the Police department to return. Likewise, Permittee shall notify the Police Department
immediately of any unusual incidents that occur on the Park property. Permittee is responsible for anX
damage caused by Permittee.
6. Permit is subject to ongoing review and may be modified by the City Council.
7. The Orono Police Department through its police officers is empowered to revoke this special activity
permit at any time for any safety concerns that are not immediately resolved by the permit holder or a
representative of the permit holder. The revocation of the permit shall cause the immediate cancellation
of the activity originally authorized by this permit.
The Big Island Nature Park Rules are available at:
http://www.ci.orono.mn.us/rules & regulations.htm
For Office Use Only
Review by Administration:
❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA By:
Review by Building&Zoning:
❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA By:
Review by Fire Marshal:
❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA By:
Review by Police Department:
❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA By:
7
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Ron Olson, Finance Director
Date: February 8, 2010
Subject: Police Service Contracts
In December of last year, drafts of the proposed police service contract were provided to the
contract cities. Minnetonka Beach and Spring Park discussed the proposed contract internally
and sent it to their respective attorneys for review. Both Cities had some concerns with
wording in various sections of the contract. Their concerns have been discussed and forwarded
to Richard Schieffer; he is confident that acceptable language can be negotiated. Neither City
has expressed concern about the formula.
On Friday, a letter was received from the Mayor and Council of Long Lake. While they agree
that the service district approach is "more effective and efficient" than the current approach,
they do not accept the proposed formula as being an equitable way to spread the costs. They
would like to continue to use the current formula which will result in significant cost increases
to Minnetonka Beach and Orono.
Included with this memo you will find: Long Lake's letter, the contract approved in 2003, the
proposed contract, staff comments on the Long Lake letter, and 2010 financial information.
�-�`-`�,a_
ii�
u�.�.�.�-4.��..
� � T � n T
LONG LAKE
February 4, 2010
Mayor Jim White & Orono City Council
City of Orono
27�0 Kelley Parkway
Orono, MN 553�6
RE: Agreement and Contract for L�w Enforcement (Second Draft)
Mayor White:
The City of Long Lake received this proposal from the City of Orono on December 15, 2009
and, since then, has had several Long Lake City Council discussions regarding it. The purpose of
this letter is to document City of Long Lalce objections to the proposal as currently drafted, offer
counterproposal points, and communicate a suggested timetable for resolving this issue.
Backaround
The aareement that all parties (the contract cities of Long Lake, Minnetonl:a Beach, and Spring
Park) are currently operating under is the Law Enforcement Agreement that was signed in late
2003 and initially effective for a 2004-2006 initial three year term. Clearly the intent of this
document was to have the agreement be renewable by a budget ratification process that would
extend into future three year rolling budget periods. It appears that the 2009 (Year One Budget)
budget was ratified by acceptance of all parties. However, the 2010 (Year Two Budget) budget
was clearly not ratified by all parties prior to October 1, 2009. Therefore, if the 2011 (Year Three
Budget) budget is not ratified by all parties by October 1, 2010; the term of the agreement would
not be extended beyond 2011. The City of Long Lake has benefitted from the high level of
service provided tc its taxpayers by the Orono Palice Department. The current second draft
proposal suggests that the cost to the City of Long Lake for delivering police protection service
for the 2010 to 2012 three year period would rise 17.5% from the 2009 (2012 $355,000 versus
2009 $302,177) cost level.
Snecific Second Draft Proposal Objections and Counterproposal Points
• Identifying a minimum full time officer department size of eighteen. The customers and the
department should not be constrained by absolutes. Perhaps language referring to a
department size commensurate with activity level would suffice.
• A service district approach is operationally more effective and efficient than an ill defined
basic level of service by jurisdictional boundaries. The transition from the additional
staffing/supplemental officer concept referred to in the current agreement will financially
affect contract cities differently. This is not addressed in the second draft proposal.
450 Virginia Avenue•P.O.Box 606• Long Lake.Minnesota 55356 •952-473-6961 • 952-476-9622(fax) •l�ttp://www.ci.long-lake.mn.us
LETTER RE: AGREEMENT ANDCONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT(SECOND DRAFI'j
DATED FEBRL'ARY 4,2010-PAGE 2 OF 2
• The provision of police protection services is a "common good" that is best funded from ad
valorem taxes and not user fees. The current agreement use of property value and population
cost sharing factors on a 50/�0 basis was itself a compromise instead of using property value
as a 100% factor as some other neighboring police departments (e.g. South Lake and
Minnetrista) do who charge out for police protection services. Application of the current
agreement bears no relationship to the proposed 2010 10% property value factor weighting in
the second draft proposal.
� Calls are a pro�:y for population and only serve to double-weight these proposed cost share
factors.
• Assuming the transition from additional/supplemental officers referred to above to the
service district is more fully addressed; we support the continued use of the property value
and population cost factors on a 50/�0 weighting basis.
• A ten percent administration overhead charge ($259,436 in the 2010 budget) is an excessive
element of a shared departmental cost pool. Unless this cest allo�ation percentaae c�n be
supported, a four percent ($103,774) administrative overhead charge is reasonable.
Suaaested Issue Resolution Timetable
We have acted in good faith by agreeing to accept a 2010 police protection services bill from the
City of Orono of$310,000 when application of the current agreement would call for 2010
charges to be less than those in 2009. However, as stated above, we do have objections to the
second draft agreement as presented.
As a matter of expedience, a response from the City of Orono regarding the concerns raised in
this letter by February 26, 2010 would be appreciated. Police protection for our property owners
is of utmost importance to us as elected officials. We would expect resolution of these contract
issues by June l, 2010.
Sincerely;
Nlayor Ra dy Gilbert & Long Laice City Councii
CC: Agreement File
Long Lake City Council Members
Terrance Post, Long Lake City Administrator
Ron Olson, Orono Acting City Administrator
�
i
SECOND DRAFT
AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT is made this day of ,
20_, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation ("Orono"),
and the CITIES OF LONG LAKE, MINNETONKA BEACH AND SPRING PARK, Minnesota
Municipal Corporations ("Contract Cities").
1. Purpose. This Agreement provides for the City of Orono to furnish law enforcement
services to the Contract Cities upon the terms and conditions described herein, under
authority of Minn. Stat. § 471.59, which provides, in part, that the police powers of a city
may be exercised on behalf of other participating cities by agreement of all such cities.
2. Law Enforcement Services Provided. Orono agrees to furnish law enforcement
services to the Contract Cities 24 hours per day, seven days a week, and the Contract
Cities agree to share the costs of the law enforcement services in accordance with the
formulas, terms and conditions of this Agreement. The law enforcement services shall
include, without limitation, the following:
A. Squad car patrol services as needed with random coverage of streets and
residential areas, security checks of businesses, and patrols of parks and other
public gathering areas during all shifts;
B. Enforcement of Minnesota Statutes and the ordinances of the Contract Cities
including animal control services provided by Orono's contractor, nuisance and
parking violations;
C. Traffic enforcement on public streets including, where required, regular use of
radar and other electronic speed deterrent equipment during all shifts;
D. Crime prevention programs such as Neighborhood Watch, School Resource
Officer, Lake Area Emergency Response Unit Services, West Metro Drug Task
Force Resources, Enhanced Traffic Enforcement Programs, Safe and Sober, and
Chief's Challenge, Reserve Officers Services, as well as other business and
residential crime prevention programs;
E. Criminal investigative services, liquor license and background check
investigations, tobacco and alcohol education and annual compliance checks,
predatory offender registration compliance checks, and coordination with
Hennepin County and Minnesota State Crime Lab services;
F. Follow up contact with persons who have reported crimes, including contact by
telephone, email or surface mail as to the status of investigations, as permitted by
the Minnesota Data Practices Act;
Page 1
�
i
G. Appropriate law enforcement response to automobile crashes, pedestrian injuries,
home or business medical emergencies, fire emergencies, and other law
enforcement requirements including securing emergency scenes, providing follow-
up information to emergency responders and accompanying emergency responders
on medical calls as necessary;
H. Dispatching law enforcement personnel, officer management, coordination and
communication for response services;
L Driver license inspections, background checks and license enforcement services as
required under State law and city ordinances;
J. Special event traffic patrol and patrol services for community festivals and other
special events;
K. Submission of regular reports and attendance at public safety or City Council
meetings are requested by a Contract City.
3. Definition of Terms. For the purpose of this Agreement, the terms used in this
Agreement shall have the meanings given to them in this section.
A. "Contract Year" means a 12 month period during which law enforcement services
are to be furnished or were furnished to the Contract Cities Orono. The contract
year shall commence on January 1 and terminate on the next December 31.
B. "Contract Cities" means any city which is receiving Law Enforcement Services
under this contract or a similar contract, the terms of which are interrelated with
this contract for the purposes of allocating the total cost far law enforcement
services. The Contract Cities are Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach, and Spring
Park, in Hennepin County, Minnesota.
C. "Orono Police Budget" shall include all preliminary, estimated and actual costs of
operating the Police Department of the City of Orono for a given contract year,
including, without limitation:
(1) Insurance. Workers compensation, unemployment compensation, tort
liability, automobile insurance and property damage insurance and similar
items.
(2) Personnel. Salaries, PERA, holiday and severance pay, overtime pay,
unemployment benefits, uniform and equipment allowances, health and
dental insurance and all other employee benefit costs and similar items.
Page 2
r
(3) Equipment. Equipment used to furnish law enforcement services
including both acquisition and maintenance and similar items.
(4) Consulting Fees. All non-prosecution, legal or other professional
consulting fees and similar items.
(5) Utilities. Janitorial services, electricity, sewer and water, heating fuel
costs, and similar items.
(6) Communication Services. Telephone, internet, information technology,
computer hard and software, copy costs, surface mail and similar items.
(7) Motor Vehicle Maintenance. Motor fuel and oil, repairs, parking,
licensing and fees, and similar items.
(8) Continuing Professional Education. Books, periodicals, video's,
memberships, seminars, training sessions, and similar items.
(9) Wearing Apparel. Uniforms, insignia, personal care materials, and similar
items.
(10) Officer Equipment. Flashlights, firearms, office equipment, materials
and supplies, and similar items.
(11) Station Operation. Building operation, maintenance, and repair costs and
similar items.
(12) All other expenses normally and reasonably incidental to the operation of
a police department with a current minimum of 18 full-time officers.
(13) Administration. Administrative overhead charge of 10% of Police Budget
Costs to reflect the support provided to the Police Department by the
City's Administrative, Finance and Information Technology Departments.
D. "Three-Year Budget Projection" means a rolling projection of the Orono Police
Budget for the three years following the current year. The Three-Year Budget
Projection is updated in August of the current contract year by adding a Budget
Projection for one additional year and applying the updated cost allocation
formula. Subject to adoption of the final budget by Orono and the debits or
credits as provided in Section 20, Annual Audit of Actual Costs, the Budget
Projection for the next following Contract Year is final. Budget projections for
years two and three, while based on the latest available cost allocation factors, are
provided for information purposes only.
Page 3
1
4. Public Image. The designation "Orono-Long Lake-Minnetonka Beach-Spring Park
Police Department" shall be affixed to all marked police cars used by the Orono Police
Department under the terms of this agreement and the Orono shall cause the listing for
the Police Department for each Contract City to be inserted in the appropriate telephone
directories as may be distributed in the Contract Cities. If an additional Contract City is
added to this Agreement, its name may also be added to the above.
5. Level of Services. The quality and level of Law Enforcement Services furnished to the
Contract Cities shall be the same as such Services which the Orono Police Department
furnishes to the City of Orono. Except for periods of low volume calls for service, (e.g.,
3 a.m. to 7a.m.), Orono will assign its police force, currently 18 officers, in three patrol
districts, each of which will be comprised of one of the Contract Cities and an adjoining
portion of Orono. The borders of these districts and the number of officers may change
from time to time as Orono evaluates the law enforcement needs of the districts.
6. Administrative Responsibility. The Law Enforcement Services furnished to the
Contract Cities shall be under the sole direction of Orono through its Chief of Police,
subject to the requirements of this contract; the degree of services furnished, the
standards of performance, the hiring and discipline of the officers assigned, and other
matters relating to regulations and policies, shall remain in the control of Orono. Any
disputes between the parties to this agreement as to the extent of functions and duties to
be furnished hereunder, or the level or manner of performance of such service, shall be
resolved by the City Administrator of Orono. If a Contract City disagrees with the
resolution, the Contract City may appeal within thirty days of receipt of written notice of
the resolution, by giving written notice to Orono asking for arbitration, as provided in
Section 26 of this agreement. The City Administrator of Orono, through the Chief of
Police, shall submit to the Contract Cities a quarterly report of services furnished to the
Contract Cities, as well as suggestions regarding any efforts or initiatives that may be
helpful.
7. Joint Advisory Committee. Each Contract City may appoint two volunteer members to
a Joint Advisory Committee and the name of such appointees shall be furnished to the
City Administrator of Orono. The Joint Advisory Committee shall meet not less than on
an annual basis, to discuss and make recommendations regarding concerns or problems
identified regarding the provision of Law Enforcement Services, and to review and
provide input re�arding the proposed Orono Police Budget. Any Contract City may
request an additional meeting of the Joint Advisary Committee. Upon such request,
Orono will promptly schedule a meeting.
8. Of�cers, Employees of the City of Orono. Officers assigned to provide services to
Contract Cities shall be police officers of Orono. Orono shall assume all obligations with
regard to workers compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, etc. arising from the
employment of such officers. The Contract Cities shall not be required to furnish any
Page 4
f
fringe benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any officer assigned to
duty within the Contract Cities by Orono. The Contract Cities may employ officers
directly, independent of this agreement, to provide special law enforcement services in
such Contract City. In such event, all obligations and liabilities with respect to
employment of special law enforcement officers by a Contract City shall be the complete
responsibility of such Contract City. No such direct employment of such special law
enforcement officer shall be entered into by the Contract City without first obtaining
written approval of the City Administrator of Orono which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld.
9. Enforcement Policies. The Law Enforcement policies used within Orono shall be used
as the Law Enforcement policies within the Contract Cities. The Law Enforcement
philosophy and the general Law Enforcement polices of Orono shall be provided in
writing to any Contract City upon request.
10. Enforcement of Ordinances of the Contract Cities. The Orono officers assigned to
duty within the Contract Cities shall enforce the Ordinances of the Contract Cities, or
equivalent state statutes, including, without limitation, liquor ordinances.
11. All Officers to be Officers of the Contract Cities. The officers assigned duty within
the Contract Cities shall be provided authority to enforce the several laws of the Contract
Cities by proper action to be taken by the governing councils of the Contract Cities. The
Chief of Police of Orono shall furnish the names of all Orono police officers to the Clerks
of the Contract Cities. In the event any officer is not provided with enforcement
authority by a Contract City, such officer may nevertheless operate with the full and
complete authority of a peace officer licensed by the State of Minnesota, provided that
such officer has successfully completed a professionally recognized peace officer pre-
employment education as prescribed by the POST Board as further described in Mirul.
Stat. § 471.59, Subd. 12.
12. Offenses. All offenses shall be charged in accordance with the laws of the State of
Minnesota or the laws of the Federal Government, or in accordance with the ordinances
of the Contract City in which the offense occurred
13. Communications, Equipment and Supplies. Orono shall furnish communication
equipment necessary to perform the services which are to be furnished. Orono shall
provide the necessary equipn�ent and vehicles and the Contract Cities shall provide any
necessary supplies which must be specifically printed for the Contract Cities.
14. Cooperation and Assistance from the Contract Cities. With respect to the
performance of this Agreement, and the services to be furnished under the Agreement,
Orono and the Contract Cities shall have full cooperation and assistance from each
other's officers, agents, and employees.
15. Headquarters. Headquarters for the services furnished to the Contract Cities under the
agreement shall be located at offices owned or leased by Orono, and the citizens of the
Page 5
t
Contract Cities shall notify headquarters, or radio dispatch for services requested either in
person or by some other means of communication. Services shall be furnished to the
Contract Cities 24 hours per day, 7 days per week.
16. Cost-Sharing Formula. In consideration of furnishing Law Enforcement Services under
this agreement, the Contract Cities shall pay a pro-rated share of the Orono Police Budget
(net of town aid) determined by a three-factor cost-sharing formula for each contract
year. The three factors of the formula, and the weight to be given to each, are defined as
follows:
A. Population of Each Contract Cit� The population of each Contract City and
Orono shall be computed as of August 1 of the year prior to each Contract Year
from the then most recent Metropolitan Council estimate. Provided, however,
that in a census year when there is a new census figure available by August 1 s` of
the year prior to the Contract Year, the new census figure shall be used.
B. Market Value. The Estimated Market Value of each parcel of real property within
the Contract City and Orono as carried on the books of the Hennepin County
Assessor on August 1 of the year immediately preceding the Contract Year shall
be calculated and totaled for all parcels of real property within each Contract City
and Orono.
C. Calls for Service. A call for service is an event requiring a response, intervention
or investigation by Orono whether generated by a request from a citizen, law
enforcement agency, or other person, or on the initiative of a police officer or a
policy of the Orono Police Department. Calls for service for each Contract City
and Orono shall be calculated by totaling the calls for service during the 12-month
period next preceding August 1 of the current Contract Year.
D. Weight of Factors. The weight to be allocated to each of the three factors is as
follows:
Factor 2010 2011 2012
Population 45% 40% 37.5%
Estimated Market Value 10% 20% 25%
Calls for Service 45% 40% 37.5%
17. Three-Year Budget Projection. On or about August 15 of each year, Orono will
provide the Three-Year Budget Projection for the next three Contract Years, along with a
budget report showing the major categories of expenditures, and explain the key elements
of the budget for the next Contract Year.
Page 6
18. Calculation of Pro Rata Share. The following terms used in this Agreement shall have
the meanings given to them in this section.
A. Market Value Ratio. The ratio which a single city's total Market Value bears to
the Market Value of all four cities, expressed in percent to the nearest tenth of one
percent.
B. Population Ratio. The ratio which a single city's population bears to the
population of all four cities, expressed in percent to the nearest tenth of one
percent.
C. Calls for Service Ratio. The ratio which a single city's calls for service bears to
the calls for service of all four cities, expressed in percent to the nearest tenth of
one percent.
The Market Value Ratio, Population Ratio and Calls for Service Ratio of each city shall
be converted to dollars by multiplying each ratio of each city (expressed in percent) times
the Orono Police Budget final total and multiplying that product by the weight for each
factor (expressed in percent) for the appropriate year as found in Paragraph 16D of this
Agreement. The dollar amounts so derived for a Contract City for each of the three
factors shall then be added and the sum thereof divided by three to determine the pro rata
contract share for each city for the Contract Year.
19. Pro Rata Contract Payments. The pro rata share of the Contract Year costs calculated
under this Agreement shall be paid in equal monthly installments by the last day of each
month by the Contract Cities to Orono. Orono agrees to provide the Contract Cities with
reasonably detailed information relating to the manner in which each city's pro rata share
was calculated. Under the provisions of this contract, Orono agrees to make its records
available to the Contract Cities for inspection for the purpose of determining the basis for
the calculations by Orono under the provisions of this section. Orono will periodically
provide budget update reports to the Contract Cities in such detail as the Cities may
reasonably require, including, by line item, amounts originally budgeted and year-to-date
expenditures for the Contract Year.
20. Annual Audit of Actual Costs. The Contract Cities understand and agree that it is
impossible to project the actual costs of law enforcement services with complete
accuracy. The Contract Cities agree that on or about April 1 of each year, Orono will
tabulate the actual cost of providing law enforcement services for the prior Contract Year
and will submit to the Contract Cities a summary of said costs. The actual costs
calculated for the prior Contract Year may result in an increase or a decrease when
compared with the budget approved for that Contract Year. A decrease in actual costs
compared with budgeted costs will require Orono to credit each Contract City with its pro
rata share of the decreased costs. An increase in actual costs compared with budgeted
Page 7
costs will require Orono to debit each Contract City with its pro rata share of the
increased costs.
Where a credit is due to a participating Contract City, it shall be applied as a credit
against the monthly payment due from such Contract City divided equally among the
final six months of the Contract Year. Where a debit is due to a participating Contract
City, it shall be applied as a debit to the monthly payment due from such Contract City
divided equally among the final six months of the contract year.
In the event a current Contract City is no longer participating in this Agreement when a
debit or a credit is to be applied as set forth in this section, such debit or credit shall be
paid in cash in six monthly installments on the contract payment anniversary dates as
stated in this section.
21. Extraordinary Capital and Personnel Costs. In the event unbudgeted capital costs or
an unbudgeted increase in the current sworn officer force becomes necessary or desirable
during a Contract Year, Orono shall notify each Contract City in writing of its pro rata
share of such unbudgeted costs prior to the expenditure thereof. Contract Cities shall
approve or disapprove of such unbudgeted expenditures within thirty days and notify
Orono in writing by United States Mail within ten days thereafter. In the event of
approval, a Contract City's pro rata share of such costs shall be applied as a debit in ec�ual
monthly installments over the next twelve monthly contract payments due under this
Agreement. In the event of disapproval of the unbudg�eted costs by a Contract City, no
increase or debit to such Contract City's obligations under this Contract shall be made,
nor shall Orono include such costs in the budget projections for the remaining years of
the current Three-Year Budget Projection.
22. Proceeds from Statutory Forfeitures. If a vehicle or other property is forfeited through
a police action in a Contract City, and the type of forfeiture requires the attorney for a
Contract City to handle the legal work involved in following through on the forfeiture,
the Contract City shall retain the portion of the proceeds from the disposal of the forfeited
vehicle or property as prescribed by law, for use subject to the provisions of Minnesota
Statutes Section 169A.63, 609.5311, or other applicable law.
23. Liability and Indemnification. For purposes of the Minnesota Municipal Tort Liability
Act (Minn. Stat. § 466.01 through 15), all municipal officers and employees providing
law enforcement services pursuant to this Agreement are, or are hereby deemed to be
employees (as defined in Minn. Stat. � 466.01 Subd. 6) of Orono.
Orono agrees to defend and indemnify any Contract City against any claims brought or
actions filed against such other Contract City, or any officer, employee or volunteer of
any Contract City, (except for special Law Enforcement Service personnel described in
Section 8 hereo� for injury to, death of, or damage to the property of, any third person or
persons, arising from the furnishing of law enforcement services, or the performance
Page 8
thereof pursuant to this Agreement. Provided, however, that Orono shall not be required
to pay on behalf of itself or any other Contract City, any amounts in excess of the limits
on liability established in Chapter 466 of Minnesota Statutes applicable to any one city.
The limits of liability for some or all of the Contract Cities and Orono may not be added
together (stacked) to determine the maximum amount of liability for any one city. Each
Contract City and Orono shall purchase and maintain liability insurance coverage through
the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust in at least the amount of the tort liability
limits established in Chapter 466 of Minnesota Statutes or the successor thereof.
Orono shall not be liable to any other Contract City for the promptness of its response to
a law enforcement event, the number of officers and equipment furnished for such a
response, or the measures undertaken by its officers and employees in responding to the
law enforcement event.
24. Duration of Contract. The term of this agreement is three years commencing on
January 1, 2010, and may be extended for an additional year by the Contract Cities
approving the Orono Police Budget on or before November First of 2010 and may be
further extended in one-year increments by the Contract Cities approving the Orono
Police Budget by November First of each Contract Year after 2010.
25. Termination of Contract. First, in the event this agreement is not extended as above
described, it shall terminate at the end of the most recently extended three year term. If
termination occurs, the pro rata contract payments for each Contract City in the final two
years of this agreement shall be equal to the last approved Orono Police Budget, subject
debits or credits calculated in accordance with the Annual Audit of Actual Costs.
Second, this agreement may be terminated during any three year term by any Contract
City which is receiving law enforcement services, for a breach of contract by Orono
which is so substantial and so material to Orono's obligation to the furnish law
enforcement services, that the safety and welfare of the terminating Contract City is
threatened or impaired. This agreement may be terminated during any three year term by
Orono for failure of a Contract City to pay its pro rata share of costs, or costs debited to it
under the Annual Audit of Actual Costs, or for a breach by a Contract City which is such
a substantial and material impairment of Orono's responsibility to the furnish law
enforcement services, that the safety and welfare of the citizens or property of any
Contract City is threatened or impaired.
Any Contract City alleging breach of this agreement shall provide every other Contract
City with written notice by United States Mail specifying the alleged breach in detail.
The Contract City against which the breach is alleged shall be allowed 45 days in which
cure the alleged breach, and if not cured, either the Contract City or Orono may request
that the question of the breach be submitted to arbitration as described in this agreement.
The arbitrators shall determine that a breach has or has not occurred. If a breach has
occurred the arbitrators may terminate the agreement or may order the breaching City to
cure the breach. If the arbitrators find that a breach has occurred and further find that the
Page 9
non-breaching City has suffered damages directly related to the breach, the arbitrators
may award damages to be paid by the breaching city, to the city suffering damages.
Third, this agreement may be terminated by any Contract City by mutual agreement with
Orono.
26. Arbitration. If a Contract City is aggrieved by the determination of Orono as to the
allocation of the actual costs of the immediately preceding Contract Year, the Contract
City may appeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of Orono's audit. Said
appeal shall be in writing, shall specify the basis for the appeal, and shall be addressed to
Orono asking for arbitration by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall
consist of three persons; one to be appointed by Orono, one to be appointed by the
appealing Contract City, and the third to be appointed by the two so selected. The name
of each arbitrator shall be submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that the
two arbitrators do not appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of written
notice of appointment of both of the first two arbitrators, the Chief Judge of the District
Court of Hennepin County shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either
Orono or the appealing Contract City, the third arbitrator to the Board. The third
arbitrator selected shall not be a resident of either Contract City, and shall be a current or
former city manager or administrator. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with
the other expenses, not including legal counsel, accounting or consultant fees, incurred in
the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally between the parties to the
arbitration. Each party to the arbitration will pay its own attorney, accountant or
consultant fees. The decision shall be rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third
arbitrator. Except as described above in this section, the arbitration shall be conducted in
accordance with the Uniform Arbitration Act, §§ 572.08 through 572.30 of Minnesota
Statutes. Said arbitration shall be binding on both parties but subject to rights of
modification and appeal as described in the statute cited in this section.
CITY OF ORONO LONG LAKE
James M. White, Mayor Randy Gilbert, Mayor
Ronald J. Olson, Acting City Administrator Terrance Post, Interim City Administrator
Page 10
t
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of
Orono_by Resolution No. dated , 20
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of
Long Lake by Resolution No. dated , 20
City of Orono/Police ContracUContract(03}—Clean 12-16-09
Page 11
�
AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT made and entered into this �- � day of
C-�D c' ✓ , 20 0 3, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, Minnesota and the CITY OF LONG
LAKE, Minnesota, is made under and by virtue of Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS,the City of Long Lake is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono for the
performance of law enforcement services within the City of Long Lake, and
WHEREAS,the City of Orono is agreeable to render law enforcement services on the terms
and conditions hereinafter set forth, and
WHEREAS, a contract such as this is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions of
Mirmesota Statutes, Section 471.59,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Orono agrees that it will provide law enforcement
services for the City of Long Lake on the following ternls and conditions and the City of Long Lake
ab ees as follows:
1. Definition of terms. For the purpose of this Agreement, the tern�s in this Agreement shall
have the meanings given to thein in this section.
A. "Contract year"means a 12 month period during which law enforcement services are
to be rendered or were rendered to the Contract Cities by the City of Orono. The
contract year shall conunence on January 1 and terminate on the next December 31.
B. "Contracting Cities" means airy city which is a party to this contract or a similar
contract which by its terms is interrelated with this contract for the purposes of
allocating the total cost for law enforcement services. The contracting cities are
Orono, Long Lake, Minnetonka Beach, and Spring Park.
C. "City of Orono Police Budget" shall include all preliminary estimated and actual
costs of operatin� the Police Department of the City of Orono far a given contract
year, including but not limited to:
1. All insurance costs including PERA,OASI,Workers Compensation Liability.
2. All salaries, fringe benefits, overtime.
3. All costs of equipment and apparatus acquisition and maintenance.
4. All non-prosecution consulting fees.
Page 1
♦
5. Holiday and severance pay.
6. Unemployment benefits paid.
7. Utilities.
8. Telephone Service.
9. Gasoline and oil for police cars.
10. Books and periodicals.
11. Wearing apparel.
12. Officer equipment.
13. All other expenses normally and reasonably incidental to the operation of a
ten officer, Chief included, police department.
14. Administrative overhead charge of 10°/o of all the above costs.
2. Public Imaae. The designation "Orono-Long Lake-Minnetonka Beach-Sprin� Park Police
Department" shall be affixed to all police cars used by the Orono Police Department under
the tenns of this agreement and the City of Orono shall cause the listing for the Police
Department for each Contract City to be inserted in the appropriate telephone directories as
may be distributed in the contracting cities. If another city contracts with the City of Orono
for service, its name may also be added to the above.
3. Level of Seiti�ices. The quality and level of services rendered to the Contract Cities shall be
the same as the services rendered to the City of Orono, eacept as hereinafter stated.
It is the desire of the City of Long Lake to purchase from the City of Orono police service
beyond the basic service; such service to be delivered in a method that provides service
equivalent to that which would be received had Long Lake hired two individual officers to
serve it exclusively. The equivalent of two full-time officers is agreed to be a total of 3640
in-service hours per year(35 hours per officer per week for 52 weeks)because provision is
made for vacations, sick days, trainin�, etc. This two officer equivalent will be provided in
tl�e form of staff hours served within the boundaries of the City of Long Lake. The exact
number of hours during any given month may vary by mutually agreed upon scheduling,but
the aggregate average over the year will be 70 hours per week with variations of plus or
minus 10 hours in any given week being considered acceptable delivery of the contracted
Page 2
J
extra service.
During the period in which such additional service hours are provided, the staff inember(s)
assigned to provide such service will be physically within the city liinits of Long Lake at all
times except for the following:
A. Responding to Necessarv Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate
necessity for police service, such as responding to a medical einergency, a crime in
progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will always be a
part of the communications log of the Orono Police Department and the officer
responding will have been directed by official communication to respond to the
Necessary Call.
B. Scheduled travel to the Orono Police Department Offices at the begiiuling or end of
shifts, or for break periods as called for by Union Contract.
C. Looping tluough Orono as a part of regular patrol patterns through the City of Long
Lake. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by the
Long Lake representatives to the Police Commission.
D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail,
Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center, or other locations as necessary.
There shall be the equivalent of four additional officers,who when on duty shall be stationed
within the City of Spring Park. During the period in whicli supplemental police service
hours are provided, the staff inember(s) assigned to provide such service will be physically
witlun the city limits of Spring Park at all tiines save far the following:
A. Responding to Necessarv Calls which are defined as calls created by immediate
necessity for police service, such as responding to a medical einergency, a crime in
progress, an officer requiring immediate assistance, etc. Such calls will always be a
part of the coinmunications log of the Orono police department and the officer
responding will have been directed by official communication to respond to the
Necessary Call.
B. Scheduled travel to and from the Orono Police Department Offices at the beginning
and end of shifts, or for break periods as called for by union contract.
C. Looping through Orono as a part of re�ular patrol patterns through the City of Sprin�
Park. The loops that are permitted will have been agreed upon in advance by Spring
Park.
D. Transporting prisoners to the Orono Police Department, Hennepin County Jail or
Juvenile Detention Center, Detox Center or other locations as necessary.
Page 3
�
4. Administrative Res onsibilitv. The law enforcement services rendered to the Contract Cities
shall be under the sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered,the
standards of performance,the hiring and discipline of the officers assigned,and other matters
relating to regulations and policies, shall remain in the control of the City of Orono. Any
disputes between the parties to this agreement as to the extent of functions and duties to be
rendered hereunder,or the level or manner of performance of such service, shall be resolved
by the City Administrator of the City of Orono. If a Contract City disagrees with the
resolution,the Contract City may appeal within thirty days of receipt of written notice of the
resolution,by giving written notice to the City of Orono asking for arbitration,as provided in
paragraph 17 The City Administratar of the City of Orono,through the Chief of Police,shall
submit to the Contract Cities a monthly report of services rendered to the Contract Cities,as
well as suggestions regarding any changes that may be helpful,and a quarterly bud�et update.
These reports will include copies of Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Criminal Justice
Information summaries for law enforcement services rendered within the Contract Cities.
5. Joint Advisory Committee. Each Contracting City may appoint two volunteer members to a
joint advisory committee and the name of such appointees shall be furnished to the City of
Orono Administration. The Joint Advisory Committee shall meet periodically to discuss and
make recommendations regarding concerns or problems identified regarding the provision of
police service and to periodically review budget updates. The Joint Advisory Committee
shall have the specific task of reviewing the Police Department's budget proposal for the next
calendar year and amving at a consensus Budget Package consisting of an Annual Operating
Budget, a Year Two Budget amount and Year Three Budget amount by August 15 of each
calendar year.
6. Officers, Employees of the Citv of Orono Officers assigned to duty in the Contract Cities
shall be police officers of the City of Orono. The City of Orono shall assume all obligations
with regard to workers compensation, PERA, withholding tax, insurance, etc. arising from
the employment of such officers. The Contract Cities shall not be required to furnish any
fringe benefits or assume any other liability of employment to any officer assigned to duty
within the Contract Cities unless a Contract City employs officers directly, independent of
this agreement, to provide special law enforcement services in the Contract City. In such
event, all obligations and liabilities with respect to employment of special law enforcement
officers shall be the complete responsibility ofthe Contract City. No such direct employment
shall be entered into by the Contract City without first obtaining written approval of the City
Administrator of the City of Orono which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
Page 4
7. Enforcement Policies. Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail as the
enforcement policies within the Contract Cities. The enforcement policies of the City of
Orono shall be provided in writing to the Contract Cities.
8. Enforcement of Ordinances of the Contract Cities. The City of Orono officers assigned to
duty within the Contract Cities shall enforce the Ordinances of the Contract Cities.
9. All Officers to be Officers of the Contract Cities. The officers assigned duty within the
Contract Cities shall be provided authority to enforce the several laws of the Cities by proper
action to be taken by the governing councils of the Contract Cities. The Chief of Police of
the City of Orono shall furnish the names of all Orono police officers to the Clerks of the
Contract Cities.
10. Offenses. All offenses shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances of the Contracting
City in which the offense occurred in each case possible,otherwise,the charge shall be made
in accordance with the laws of the State of Minnesota or the laws of the Federal Government.
11. Communications,Equipment and Supplies. The City of Orono shall furnish communication
equipment necessary to perform the services which are to be rendered. The City of Orono
shall provide the necessary equipment and vehicles and the Contract Cities shall provide any
necessary supplies which must be specifically printed for the Contract Cities.
12. Cooperation and Assistance from the Contract Cities The City of Orono and the Contract
Cities shall have full cooperation and assistance from each others officers, agents, and
employees.
13. Headquarters. Headquarters for the services rendered to the Contract Cities under the
agreement shall be located at offices owned or leased by the City of Orono, and the citizens
of the Contract Cities shall notify headquarters,or radio dispatch for services requested either
in person or by some other means of communication. Services shall be rendered to the
Contract Cities on a 24 hour basis.
14. Cost to the Contract Cities.
A. Cost Sharina Formula for the Total Base Cost. For and in consideration of provision
of Law Enforcement services under this agreement,the Contract Cities shall pay total
base costs determined by the formula, as illustrated in Appendix A,for each contract
year.
The factors of the formula which shall be weighed equally, shall be defined as
follows:
Page 5
Population of Each Contractina Citv The population of each Contracting City
computed as of April l, prior to each contract year from the then most recent
Metropolitan Council estimate, except in a census year when there is a new census
figure available by August lst, then that figure shall be used.
Market Valuation of Each Contractin� Citv The market valuation of each
Contracting City is based on taxes due and payable for the year immediately
preceding the contract year. The source of the assessed valuation data shall be the
official figures of the Hennepin County Assessor's Department.
B. Cost to Lon�Lake-Additional Manpower The cost of additional manpower above
the base cost contract to the City of Long Lake, shall be determined as follows:
The actual salary of officers assigned to the City of Long Lake shall be computed. To
this salary figure will be added an overtime cost calculated as the total overtime
budget for all officers divided by the number of all officers times the number of
supplemental officers, 88 hours of holiday pay at the hourly rate, wearing apparel,
hospitalization, life insurance , memberships, workers compensation and pensions
calculated at the salary figures above. This total(net of town aid)is then added to the
base contract cost to deternline the cost of service for Long Lake for the new budget
year. This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost.
It is understood that the City of Long Lake may, due to budget consideration in any
contract year at the beginning of the contract year, adjust the number of additional
officers in which event they shall pay all those extraordinary costs as outlined in the
third paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement.
C. Cost to Sprin�Park-Additional Manpower The cost of additional manpower above
the base contract cost to the City of Spring Park, shall be determined as follows:
The actual salaries of officers assigned to the City of Spring Park shall be computed.
To this salary figure will be added that percentage of the total overtime budget for all
officers calculated by dividing the number of officers assigned to the City of Spring
Park by the number of all officers, 88 hours holiday pay at the hourly rate, wearing
apparel, hospitalization, life insurance, memberships, workers compensation and
pensions calculated at the salary figure above. This total is then added to the total
cost per Contracting City (total plus support service charge, net of town aid) for
Spring Park to determine cost of service far Spring Park for the new contract year.
This procedure is illustrated in Appendix A. This cost will be an actual cost.
It is understood that the City of Spring Park may,due to bud�et considerations in any
contract year, at the beginning of the contract year adjust the number of additional
officers, in which event the City of Spring Park shall pay all extraordinary costs as
Page 6
outlined in the third paragraph of Section 23.5 of this agreement.
15. Bud�et Packa�e
15.1 Definitions
A. The Annual Operatin�Bud�et refers to the calendar year budget of the Orono Police
Deparhnent during the first year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
This budget will become the official Annual Operating Budget upon ratification by
the Contractin� Cities. The Annual Budget incorporates all costs of operations.
B. The Year Two Bud�refers to a single number, not to be exceeded, dollar amount
which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by all Contracting Cities by October 1 of the
first year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
C. The Year Three Bud�et refers to a single number not to be exceeded dollar amount
which will be used as the budget limit for the next calendar year in the event the
Annual Budget Package has not been ratified by all Contracting Cities by October 1
of the second year of any three year period covered by this agreement.
D. The Annual Budget Packa�e refers to the grouping of the Annual Operating Budget,
the Year Two Budget and the Year Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the
City of Orono for ratification by the Contracting Cities. The Annual Budget Package
must be ratified by all Contracting Cities prior to October 1 in the year submitted to
become the valid budgets for the following three years. The Annual Bud�et Package
must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
15.2 Budget Process
By August 15 of each year during which this agreement remains in effect,the City of Orono
will provide an Annual Budget Package covering the cost of Police protection for the next
three calendar years. The budgets presented to the Contracting Cities must have been
presented to the Joint Advisory Committee prior to August 1 for discussion and review.
Although it is expected that the Annual Budget Package which is provided to the Contracting
Cities by the City of Orono will have the consensus support of the Joint Advisory
Committee,that is not a requirement since each Contracting City has the opportunity for final
ratification or rejection.
16. Contract Pavments. The City Budget Share(See Appendix A)of each Contracting City shall
be paid by the Contracting City to the City of Orono in equal monthly installments by the last
day of each month.
Page 7
Orono agrees to provide the Contract Cities with reasonably detailed information relating to
its estimated expenditures and its actual expenditures so as to adequately inform them of the
basis for the calculation of billings made by Orono. Under the provisions of this contract,
Orono agrees to make its records available to the Contract Cities for inspection far the
purpose of determining the basis for the calculations by Orono under the provisions of this
section.
17. Arbitration. If the Contracting City is aggrieved by the determination of the City of Orono as
to the allocation of the actual costs of the prior year's service, the Contracting City may
appeal said determination within 30 days after receipt of the City of Orono's audit. Said
appeal shall be in writing and shall be addressed to the City of Orono asking for arbitration
by a board of arbitration. The Board of Arbitration shall consist of three persons; one to be
appointed by the City of Orono, one to be appointed by the appealing Contracting City,and
the third to be appointed by the two so selected. The name of each arbitrator shall be
submitted in writing to the other party. In the event that the two arbitrators so selected do not
appoint the third arbitrator within 15 days after receipt of written notice of appointment of
either of the first two arbitrators, the Chief Judge of the District Court of Hennepin County
shall have jurisdiction to appoint, upon application of either the City of Orono or the
appealing Contracting City, the third arbitrator to the Board. The third arbitrator selected
shall not be a resident of either Contracting City, and shall be a city manager or
administrator. The arbitrators' expenses and fees, together with the other expenses, not
including counsel fees, incurred in the conduct of the arbitration, shall be divided equally
between the parties to the arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the
Uniform Arbitration Act, Chapter 572 of the Minnesota Statutes, and any decision shall be
rendered within 60 days of appointment of the third arbitrator. Said arbitration shall be
binding on both parties.
18. Annual Audit of Actual Costs. The Contract Cities understand and agree that it is impossible
to project with complete accuracy the actual costs for labor and equipment as well as the
service to be required by each Contracting City for the forthcoming contract year,and there-
fore,agree to a yearly audit to adjust the prior year's estimated police service cost as set forth
above to the actual police service cost based upon the actual costs for that contract year. On
or before April 1 of each year, the City of Orono will tabulate the actual cost of providing
law enforcement services for the prior contract year and will submit to the Contract Cities a
summary of said costs. The actual costs set forth for the prior contract year may result in
either a credit or a debit applied to the estimated police service costs char;ed to the Contract
Cities. If a Contract City is still participating in this agreement, and if a credit, one-half of
the credit shall be deducted in each of the third and fourth quarters from the estimated police
service cost payments required of the Contract City for the current year of service; and if a
debit, the Contract City shall pay the additional sum to the City of Orono together with the
estimated contract charge for the current year by adding one half of the debit to both the third
and fourth quarter payments. The allocation of the credit or debit shall be made pursuant to
the same formula set forth above. If a Contract City is not still participating in this
Page 8
agreement at the time the credit or debit amount is determined as set forth above, the
Contract City shall receive from (in the case of a credit) or shall make to (in the case of a
debit)the City of Orono a cash payment in the amount of such credit or debit,one-half on the
date that the third quarter estimated police service cost payment would be due if this
agreement was still in force and one-half on the date that the fourth quarter estirnated police
service cost payment would be due if this agreement was still in force.
19. Hold Harmless and Indemnification. As part of the Police Budget for each contract year,the
City of Orono shall purchase liability insurance to insure the City of Orono against liability
incurred in the rendering of law enforcement services to the Contract Cities. The City of
Orono shall maintain insurance covering its police services with limits of not less than
$600,000 for general liability coverage and $2 million for excess liability coverage.
However, the amount and extent of insurance coverage may not be sufficient to insure the
City of Orono and the Contract Cities completely and to pay all expenses incurred by the City
of Orono,including attorneys'fees and judgements rendered against the City of Orono and/or
the Contract Cities. Therefore, the City of Orono exposes itself to potentially underinsured
and noninsured liabilities. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary herein,the Contract
Cities agree that the City of Orono is faced with such an exposure and therefore the Contract
Cities agree to hold harmless and indemnify the City of Orono,its employees and agents for
any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever caused by the rendering of law enforcement
services in the Contract Cities to the extent that the loss or damage and all expenses related
thereto are not covered by the insurance policies of the City of Orono in effect during the
contract year in which the act or alleged act giving rise to any claim for loss or damages
occurred.
In no event shall this agreement be construed to fix upon City of Orono any responsibility or
liability to the Contract Cities or to third parties which are greater or different in kind then
the responsibilities and liabilities borne by the Contract Cities if they were providing law
enforcement services through their own police department. Without limiting the generality
of the foregoing, the police chief of the City of Orono or his designee will have the sole
discretion as to the officer and equipment that will answer police calls, and it shall not be a
violation of this agreement nor shall the City of Orono be held responsible to the Contract
Cities or to a third party for any loss which may result in the event that the City of Orono,in
the exercise of reasonable judgment, is unable to respond promptly or to respond with only
limited officers and equipment,or is delayed in responding to a call by reason of answering a
previous calL The Contract Cities agree that they will hold harmless and indemnify the City
of Orono for any judgement rendered against it or sums paid out by it in settlement,payment
or defense of any such claims, to the extent the City of Orono is uninsured or underinsured
arising out of any calls for police services to be rendered in the Contract Cities under the
policies of insurance the City of Orono is required to maintain as set forth above.
Page 9
20. Unforecasted Expenditures. Not withstanding any of the above, the Contract Cities shall
have the right to approve any proposed capital expenditures and/or increase in number of
officers not otherwise included in the annual budget. Notice of such proposed and
non-budgeted capital expenditures and/or increase in the number of officers shall be given in
writing to the contracting cities prior to actual expenditure for such items and the contracting
cities shall thereafter have until the later of their next Council meeting or 30 days after
receipt of said written notice in which to approve and/or disapprove the same in writing or
else it is agreed that such proposed expenditures may be made and the cost thereof shall be
included in that year's budget. In the event the Contracting Cities shall disapprove such
non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in the number of officers, it shall not be
liable to the City of Orono for any costs incurred by the City of Orono should the
non-budgeted capital expenditure and/or increase in number of officers be made despite such
disapproval. Furthermore,the cost of such disapproved capital expenditures and/or increase
in number of officers shall not be computed in determining the "Base Cost" or "Contract
Charge" herein above set forth for each contracting city for the years in which the
disapproved expenditure(s) is/are made.
21. Prior Contract. Notwithstanding any language herein to the contrary, or in prior contracts
between the parties, any credit or debit due to the Contract Cities or to the City of Orono on
account of prior agreements and contracts for law enforcement between the parties shall be
payable in 2004 as provided herein for credit or debit payments payable in 2004 and
thereafter.
22. Police Contract Service Explanation The City of Orono will deliver 24 hour patrol and
response throughout Minnetonka Beach, Spring Park and Long Lake will conduct routine
patrol throughout the city as needed, and will conduct periodic security checks of businesses
and will conduct such duties as requested by the Contract City's councils. The City of Orono
will submit regular reports to the Contract City officials and appear at council meetings or
any other special ineetings as required by the council. This can be the Chief or any other
member of the department as required by the council.
Four officers were requested by Spring Park and will be assigned to Spring Park by mutual
agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Spring Park City Council.
Two officers were requested by Long Lake and will be assigned to Long Lake by mutual
agreement between the City of Orono Police Department and the Long Lake City Council.
23. Term of this A�reement. This Agreement is for three contract years and covers the period
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2006. A contract year covers the period January 1
through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon
ratification by the Contracting Cities of all its parts including Appendix A and Appendix B
which contains the Annual Budget Package. The term of this agreement may be extended as
described below.
Page 10
23.1 On each occasion that the Annual Budget Package is ratified by October 1 by the Contracting
Cities, this Agreement will be renewed for a total period of three contract years beginning
with the contract year following the current contract year. The details of this process are
covered in sections 23.2 through 23.3 following.
23.2 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1,this Agreement shall
be extended by one contract year. When during the second contract year of any three year
period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget Package is ratified by Contracting
Cities by October 1, this Agreement shall be extended by two contract years. When during
the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the Annual Budget
Package is ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1,this Agreement shall be extended by
three contract years. The elements of the Annual Budget Package so ratified will replace the
elements of the previously ratified Anrival Budget Package.
233 When during the first contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount
previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for
the second contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended.
23.4 When during the second contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, the amount
previously ratified as the Year Two Budget shall become the Annual Operating Budget for
the third contract year and the term of this Agreement shall not be extended.
23.5 When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement the
Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October l, this Agreement
will terminate at the end of that contract year.
This Agreement may be terminated by either the method detailed in section 23, or by mutual
agreement of all Contract Cities. If any one of the Contract Cities terminates this Agreement,
the other Contract Cities may terminate or renegotiate the Agreement.
In the event that a Contract City terminates this Agreement with or without cause, the
Contract City agrees to pay to the City of Orono any of the extraordinary costs incurred by or
within the Police Department of the City of Orono on account of such termination; said costs
include but are not limited to unemployment benefits paid because of the need to lay off
existing police department personnel and those costs occasioned by the need to reduce
overhead because of the termination of this agreement. Extraordinary costs shall not include
the costs of day to day operations of the police department of the City of Orono at level of
performance and quality of it's choice.
Page 11
PROVIDED,HOWEVER,that no such termination costs shall be imposed unless and until
authorized representatives of the parties hereto have met and such termination costs have
been mutually agreed upon. In the event the parties are unable to reach agreement,the matter
shall be submitted to arbitration as provided in paragraph 17 of this agreement.
Termination of this contract by either party shall not affect the obligation of either party to
perform the contract prior to the time that such termination becomes effective.
All Contract Cities signing this agreement agree to participate in a pro rata share of all the
operating costs of the department's total base cost based upon a ten officer department. It is
understood that the formula for allocation and the distribution of costs will be calculated
yearly as illustrated in Appendix A.
24. No Discrimination. The City of Orono agrees that during the period of this contract, it will
not, within the State of Minnesota, discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race,color,creed,sex,national origin,or ancestry and will include a
similar provision in all subcontracts entered into for the performance hereof. This paragraph
is inserted in the contract to comply with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section
181.59.
CITY OF ORONO CONTRACTING CITY
:�
�'�� �� ���
` ���� �_-
City Admi stratar �1.�- (tifi�� ��c�`;;:=-u-�,�::-��r,�
City of Long Lake
� __�.
.� � �--
<_���,...�.� --�:;�y,-,� _— lo,,�,..:����--.
Mayor Mayor
The above agreement was reviewed and approved by the City Council of the City of
.� v,r-� �� /_ :�.f� � by Resolution No,,�,7�,��-/�-<<dated ��,-��_ , Zp��.
J
The above agreement was reviewed and approved bzy�the City Council of the City of
�l'�i%c� by F�es�o�trtie�O. ,�.�c �'� ,�� �a� �c �-� l�f�,- :� 7 , 2���.
X:�Data�P.dministrative Support\Lin Vice\CONTRAC7ILONGLAKEVaw Enforc 2004-2006.con.doc
Page 12
�
APPENDIX A
Page 13
c
APPENDIX A
ORONO POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT
BASE BUDGET FORMULA FACTORS
BUDGET YEAR 2004
MINNETONKA SPRING
ORONO LONG LAKE _ BEACH PARK TOTAL
POPULATION 7,592 1.849 618 1,720 11.779
%OF TOTAL 64.4�% 15.70% 5.25% 14.60% 100.00%
WEIGHT 50% 32.23% 7.85% 2.62% 7.30% �0.00%
MARhET VALUE �1.427.900,500 $]60,819,900 $144,359.100 $121.049.500 $1,854,129.000
%OFTOTAL 77.01% 8.67% 7.79% 6.53% 100.00%
WEIGHT 50% 38.51% 4.34% 3.89% 3.27% 50.00%
TOTAL PERCENT 70.74% 12.19% 6.52% ]0.57% 100.00%
ORONO POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT
DISTRIBUTION OF COSTS
SERVICE YEAR 2004
MINNETONKA SPRING
ORONO LONG LAKE BEACH PARK TOTAL
PERCENTAPPLIED _ 70.74% _ 12.19% 6.�2% 10.57% ]00.00%
BASE BUDGET $1,216,877 $170,119 $88,990 $139,964 $1,615,950
TOWN AID CREDIT _ (43,281) (7,460) (3,990) (6,469) (61,200)
TOTAL 1,173,596 162,6�9 85,000 133,49� 1,554,750
ADMIN CHARGE(10%) 117,360 16,266 8,500 13,349 155,47�
TOTAL BASE _ $1,290,956 $178,925 $93,500 $146,844 $1,710225
ADDITIONAL OFPICERS $147;530 $292,370 $439,900
TOWN AID 10,200
_ � ) (20,400) (30,600)
TOTAL ADDL OPFICERS _ �137,330 $271.970 $409,300
GRAND TOTAL $1,290,956 $316.25� $93,500 $418,814 $2.119.52�
APPENDIX A
, CITY OF ORONO
POLICE SERVICE CONTRACT
BUDGET YEAR 2004
Adjustment to
2003 2004 Long Lake Long Lal:e
Police Department Expenses Budget Budget Cost Base Cost Base
Salaries-F.T. $1,114,250 $].15�,780 ($128,240) $1,027,�-t0
Overtime 40,000 50,000 50,000
Salaries-P.T.Officers/CSO's 40,170 47,110 47,110
Salaries-P.T. Clerical/Alcohol Compliance 24,240 24,100 24,100
Holiday Pay(LELS) 37,220 38,190 (4,190) 3�.000
Pera-City Contribution 111,660 118,140 (11,230) 106,910
FICA/MDCR-City Contribution 20,560 21,590 (3,700) 17,890
Health,Life,Dental,Disability,Other Benefits 129,910 135,000 (18,000) I 17,000
Worker Compensation Insurance 34,830 45,780 (4,610) 41,1;%0
Office Supplies 9,010 9,010 9,010
Books&Periodicals 920 600 600
Motor Fuels&Lubricants 39,780 37,000 37.000
Equipment Parts cX..Accessories 8,�00 8,�00 8.�00
BIdQ&Grounds Ivfaint&Repair Supplies 3,000 2,7pp 2,��Q
Clothin�&Personal Equipment 2�,000 21,000 21,000
Trainino Supplies 4,020 4,020 4,030
DARE Program � 270 � �
Small Tool&Minor Equipment 4,000 4,000 4,000
Maint-Office Equipment 2,500 2,�00 2,�00
1v(aint-Automotive Equipment 29,360 27,000 27.000
Maint-Misc Equipment 2,930 �,930 2.930
Maint-Bidgs&Grounds 12,000 11,000 11,000
.Tanitorial Services 9,270 9,000 9,000
Data Processing 36,0�0 36,050 36,0�0
Animal Care 3,830 3,830 3.830
Professional Services 9,210 11,500 I1,�00
Insurance Agent of Record 3,640 3,640 3,6-l0
Genei-al Liability lnsurance 15,510 16,290 16.?90
Property insurances 7?�0 7,610 7,610
Umbrella Liability insurance 5,450 5,720 j,���
Telephone 15,000 13,000
13,000
Postage 1,480 1,480 1.�380
Internet 1,920 1,920 1.9?0
Travel-Mileage-Parking 180 180 1 SO
Printing/PublishinQ/Advertising 2,�30 2,530 2,���
Utilities � 11,440 10,300 10,300
Radio Rental 25,100 25,I 00 25,I 00
Office&Buildiiig Rental 50,420 50,420 (50,420) p
Memberships 2,330 1,600 1,600
Training&Development 20,000 17,000 17,000
Meeting Expenses 1,380 1,380 1.330
Special Equip Replacement Charge 940 940 g.}p
Licenses&Taxes 1,060 1,Ofi0 1,060
Other Charges 2,100 2,100 2,I 00
Buildines& Structures p � p
Office Furn-Fixt-Equipment 14,000 27,000 27,000
Automotive Equipment 33,000 S�,000 83,000
Other Equipment 5,000 0 0
POST Training Reimbursement (8,080) (8,100) (8,100)
School Liaison Officer Reimbursement (18,000) (18,000) (18,000)
Federal Grant-COPS p 0 �
Federal Grant-Emergency Preparedness p p �
Safe of Used Squads/Other Equipment (1�,000) (12,000) (12,000)
State Aid-Payroll PERA (6,000) (6,000) (6,000)
TOTAL $1,977,140 $2,054,500 ($220,390) $1.834,110
APPENDIX A
LONG LAKE ADDITIONAL MANPOWER
2004 SERVICE YEAR
EXHIBIT 'C'
Projected Salaries, 2.0 Officers $110,580
Overtime 3,700
Holiday Pay 4 680
,
P.E.R.A. - City Contribution 11 060
,
FICA/MDCR- City Contribution 580
Health - Life Insurance 12,000
Worker Compensation Insurance 4 280
�
Clothing&Personal Equipment 650
Total $147,530
Deduct Town Aid Credit (10,200)
Total Additional Officers 137,330
Total Base Cost 178,925
Total Cost of Service $316,255
APPENDIX B
2004-2006 BUDGET PACKAGE
Orono Long Lake Mtka Beach Spring Park
Amount Amount Amount Amount
2004 Annual Contract Cost �2,119,525
2004 City Cost Share Using
2004 Cost Allocation Numbers $1,290,956 $316,255 $93,500 $418,814
Two Year Contract Cost $2,225,500
Two Year City Cost Share Using
2004 Cost Allocation Numbers $1,355,504 $332,067 $98,175 $439,756
Three Year Contract Cost $2,336,776
Three Year City Cost Share Using
2004CostAllocationNumbers $1,423,279 $348,671 $103,084 $461,74.2
r��
1'
Back�round
The Cities are currently operating under the "Police Zone" approach. Minnetonka Beach
and Spring Park are being billed under the new formula.
Long Lake contends that the ratification of the 2009 Annual Operating Budget
automatically extended the contract by three years. As described in section 23 of the
contract, the contract is automatically extended for three years when the "Budget Package"
is ratified by all contracting cities, not when a single year's Annual Operating Budget is
ratified.
Section 15.1 of the contract defines the budget package as:
The grouping of the Annual Operating Budget, the Year Two Budget and the Year
Three Budget which is submitted as a unit by the City of Orono for ratification by the
contracting Cities.
Section 23.3 states:
When during the third contract year of any three year period covered by the Agreement
the Annual Budget Package is not ratified by Contracting Cities by October 1, this
agreement will terminate at the end of that contract year.
The only `Budget Package"that was ever provided to the contract cities was when the
contract was si�ned in 2003. Since then the only budgets that have been ratified are the
Annual Operating Budget. During one meeting between the administrators, this was
described as a year to year agreement.
Specific Obiections
Minimum department size. Spring Park also commented on this. We may want to remove
an absolute number because Orono may want to be able to decrease the number of officers.
We need to have language that ensur�es that Orono has the final say on staff size.
Financial effect on the contract cities. ?
Funding by ad valorem taxes. This has been Long Lakes stand from the beginning. Orono
would prefer no property value in the formula. Using 100% property value would result in
Minnetonka Beach paying a greater share (8.02%) than either Long Lake (6.81%) or Spring
Park (7.71%) while having only 5.03% of the population and 3.78% of the calls.
Calls are a proxy for �opulation. This is not accurate. See Minnetonka Beach's percentages
listed above. Long Lake's call percentage is 1.17 percenta�e points higher (15.43 — 14.26)
than its population. This is an 8.2% variance.
50/50 Weighting Basis. This allocation applied to police districts would result in Long Lake
and Spring Park's shares being decreased significantly. Long Lake would decrease by
5.7%. Minnetonka Beach's share would increase by 42%. Orono's share would increase
by 7%.
Administrative Fee. It is unclear how this was set at 10%, but this does not seem out of line.
If the Finance Department budget and the City Administrator's wages and benefits are
allocated by percentage of budget, the administrative fee would be $183,000 or 7.1% of the
budget. There are additional costs associated with Central Services, Planning, Public
Works, and Administration. Of the total fee, the contract cities only pay $87,000 with
Long Lake's share being $36,400.
,'
Su��ested Resolutions
Long Lake indicates that they have tentatively agreed to pay $310,000. Under the terms of the
contract that they believe that we are operating under, we would be required to reconcile
budget to actual at the end of 2010. The formula would calculate to around $290,000 if the
expenditures were 100% of budget. This would result in Orono owing Long Lake $20,000 at
the end of 2010.
w
Orono Police Service Contract
Budget Formula
100%Property Value
Minnetonka Spring
Orono Lonq Lake Beach Park Total
Population
Population 7,841 1,725 609 1,926 12,101
Percentage 64.80% 14.26% 5.03% 15.92% 100.00%
Weighting 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Property Value
Fina12004► 3,098,028,100 272,432,500 320,579,500 308,320,700 3,999,360,800
Percentage 77.46% 6.81% 8.02% 7.71% 100.00%
Weighting 100.00% 77.46% 6.81% 8.02% 7.71% 100.00%
Calis
2007/08 Calis 9,075 2,134 522 2,098 13,829
Percentage 65.62% 15.43% 3.78% 15.17% 100.00%
Weighting 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Allocation
Percentage 77.46% 6.81% 8.02% 7.71% 100.00%
Amount $2,094,441 $184,183 $216,736 $208,436 $2,703,796
Increase(Decrease)
2009 Amount $1,798,003 $302,177 $123,530 $503,458 $2,727,168
Variance 296,438.50 (117,994.42) 93,206.29 (295,022.37)
Long Lake's Preferred
�
Orono Police Service Contract
Budget Formula
Population/Property Value
Minnetonka Spring
Orono Lonq Lake Beach Park Total
Population
Population 7,841 1,725 609 1,926 12,101
Percentage 64.80°/o 14.26% 5.03% 15.92% 100.00%
Welghtifig 50.00% 32.40% 7.13% 2.52% 7.96% 50.00%
Propertv Value
Fina12009 3,098,028,100 272,432,500 320,579,500 308,320,700 3,999,360,800
Percentage 77.46% 6.81% 8.02% 7.71% 100.00%
Weighting 50.00% 38.73% 3.41% 4.01% 3.85% 50.00%
Calls
2007/08 Calls 9,075 2,134 522 2,098 13,829
Percentage 65.62% 15.43% 3.78% 15.17% 100.00%
Weighting 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Allocation
Percentage 71.13% 10.53% 6.52% 11.81% 100.00%
Amount $1,923,197 $284,804 $176,409 $319,386 $2,703,796
IncreaselDecrease)
2009 Amount $1,798,003 $302,177 $123,530 $503,458 $2,727,168
Variance 125,193.58 (17,372.65) 52,879.17 (184,072.10)
Long Lake Proposal
Orono Police Seroice Contract
Budget Formula
10%Property Value
Minnetonka Spring
Orono Lon Lake Beach Park Total
Population
Population 7,841 1,725 609 1,926 12,101
Percentage 64.80% 14.26% 5.03% 15.92% 100.00%
Weightirlg 45% 29.16% 6.41% 2.26% 7.16% 45.00%
Property Value
Fina12009 3,098,028,100 272,432,500 320,579,500 308,320,700 3,999,360,800
Percentage 77.46% 6.81% 8.02% 7.71% 100.00%
Weighting 10% 7.75% 0.68% 0.80°/a 0.77% 10.00%
Calls
2007/08 Calls 9,075 2,134 522 2,098 13,829
Percentage 65.62% 15.43% 3.78% 15.17% 100.00%
Weighting 45% 29.53% 6.94% 1.70°/a 6.83% 45.00%
Allocation
Percentage 66.43% 14.04% 4.77% 14.76% 100.00%
Amount $1,796,263 $379,610 $128,841 $399,082 $2,703,796
IncreaselDecrease)
2009 Amount $1,798,003 $302,177 $123,530 $503,458 $2,727,168
Increase/(Decrease) (1,740.18) 77,433.25 5,311.29 (104,376.36)
Orono Proposal
Projected Sevice Contract Costs
2010 - 2012 �
2009 2010 2011 2012
Long Lake * 302,177 379,610 365,054 365,742
Minnetonka Beach 123,530 128,841 4.30% 141,380 9.73% 151,049 6.84%
Spring Park 503,458 399,082 -20.73% 385,457 -3.41% 385,588 0.03%
929,165 907,533 891,891 902,379
Long Lake Adj 0 (59,610) (30,054) (10,742)
929,165 847,923 861,837 891,637
Orono 1,798,003 1,837,706 2.21% 1,909,033 3.88% 1,982,947 3.87%
Long Lake Adj 0 59,610 30,054 10,742
1,798,003 1,897,316 1,939,087 1,993,689
Long Lake - Adjustec 302,177 320,000 5.90% 335,000 4.69% 355,000 5.97°/o
Assumes Stable Allocation Factors
2011 Budget Increase 2% - Estimate Only
2012 Budget Increase 3% - Estimate Only
City of Orono
Police Service Contract
Budget Year 2010
Police Department Expenditures:
Salaries - F.T. 1,423,220
Overtime 65,000
Salaries - P.T. 57,640
Holiday Pay (LELS) 0
Pera - City Contribution 196,610
FICA/MDCR - City Contribution 30,050
Health, Life, Dental, Disability, Other Benefits 220,750
Worker Compensation Insurance 51,930
Office Supplies 11,000
Books & Periodicals 500
Motor Fuels & Lubricants 67,500
Equipment Parts & Accessories 5,000
Bldg & Grounds Maint & Repair Supplies 1,400
Clothing & Personal Equipment 21,000
Training Supplies 8,500
Small Tool & Minor Equipment 6,000
Maint - Office Equipment 10,000
Maint - Automotive Equipment 42,000
Maint - Misc Equipment 5,000
Maint - Bldgs & Grounds 11,000
Janitorial Services 15,500
Data Processing 52,510
Animat Care 2,500
Professionai Services 13,500
Insurance Agent of Record 4,350
General Liability Insurance 8,500
Property Insurances 12,850
Umbrella Liability Insurance 6,000
Telephone 17,000
Postage 1,200
Internet 3,000
Travel-Mileage-Parking 180
Printing/Publishing/Advertising 2,000
Utilities 13,500
Office Equipment Rental 3,000
Radio Rental 30,000
Memberships 1,500
Training & Development 24,000
Meeting Expenses 1,500
. �
Special Equip Replacement Charge 3,500
Licenses & Taxes 800
Other Charges 2,600
Office Furn - Fixt - Equipment 50,770
Automotive Equipment 90,000
$2,594,360
Administrative Charge 259,436
Total Expenditures $2,853,796
Revenues:
Police State Aid $110,000.00
POST Training Reimbursement 7,000
School Liaison Officer Reimbursement 18,000
Sale of Used Squads/Other Equipment 10,000
State Aid - Payroll PERA 5,000
$150,000
2010 2,703,796
2011 2,757,872
2012 2,840,608
�
s . . ._ �
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: LIN VEE, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: COMMENTS REGARDING INFORMATION UPDATES
DATE: FEBRUARY 8, 2010
Attached are the Information Update memos from January 29 and February S for reference if
Council wishes to discuss any of these items.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ORONO MANAGEMENT TEAM
SUBJECT: INFORMATION UPDATE
DATE: JANUARY 29, 2010
• According to the Assessors, property values for 2010 collect 2011 will be down 6-8°/o across
the board. They will not have the lakeshore/non-lakeshore comparisons for a couple of
weeks. Nate will be attending a work session prior to the Local Board.
• Attached is a letter the City received regarding dial-a-ride services. Met Council has
restructured the dial-a-ride service to establish a uniform service throughout the metro
region, which will be linked to the fixed-route system. Any rides that could not be made on a
fixed route service in Hennepin County would, within defined parameters, be eligible for
dial-a-ride service. The current dial-a-ride provider, CT RideNet, will end their service on
January 29, 2010 and Midwest Paratransit will be the new provider beginning in February.
• The attached letter from Phyllis Hanson of Met Council is a follow-up to staff's meeting with
MC staff in early January. It confirms what we heard them say, that their 1998 approval of
�he Maxwell Bay MUSA addition was subject to the City planning to meet future density
requirements. The inconsistency of this is that they never questioned the City's 2007 permit
request for the sewer extension to serve Farview, which request did not document failing
systems or dates of home construction; but a year later they denied the request to serve
Devries on Fox Street. At any rate, we are on a track to address the density issue— expect
Comp Plan to be again on your work session agenda in early February. (MPG)
• Notes from Correy—Nearly done with week 3. Writing papers, running, and in classes most
of the week. On weekends have done site-seeing. 255 students from all over US and 20
international students. Enjoying the sites, but not the time away from family and friends, and
yes I do miss being at work. 7 more weeks to go, but time is flying by. Most of this
weekend will be spent at the library and on the computer.
Tl1e Ciry of Orono complies with the Minnesota Data Practices and Open Meeting Law. The recipients of this
elect�•onic file ar�asked not to `Fo��ward"or "Repl��to All"concerrzing infornaation contained in this en2ail.
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ORONO MANAGEMENT TEAM
SUBJECT: INFORMATION UPDATE
DATE: FEBRUARY 5, 2010
• Attached are special event permits for the Fred Kurz Memorial Run and Tour de Tonka.
• Mike met with Amanda Novak on Thursday who indicated that Common Bond will be
requesting a letter from the City indicating its general support of the proposed project. This
letter would be needed in furtherance of their application to Hennepin County for a $500,000
Affordable Housing Incentive Fund grant (deadline is February 25). Amanda indicated she
will forward a suggested letter and tentative schedule of additional key dates for this project,
which should be available for discussion at the February 9 work session. (MPG)
• Steve Grittman is analyzing potential properties to be re-guided far higher density and the
numerical impacts of re-guiding them. He and I are also warking on the necessary text
revisions/additions that would accompany these changes - there are a significant number of
tables in the draft Comp Plan that will have to be revised based on revisions to the density
allowances. We are planning to have this info prepared for Council discussion at your
February 23 work session. (MPG)
• We received the attached letter from Jason Ziemer, Maple Plain City Administrator regarding
the Comp Plan, indicating their support of bike ®ional trail connections between Orono
and Maple Plain; and encouraging traffic routing from the "proposed" Ring Route to their
planned Park-N-Ride just off Baker Park Road. Since the Ring Route (McCulley Road Link
between CR19 and CR6) has been in place for 30 years, I think Jason misinterpreted the
CMP discussion on this. However, establislung a more efficient link between the Ring Route
and their Park-N-Ride would likely require re-opening the closed intersection of Highway
12/Townline Road. Such a move would need significant public input. Now that there is a
semaphore at that intersection, the safety aspects that were one of the reasons the intersection
was closed are perhaps less of an issue. The poorly situated railroad underpass and potential
negative nei�hborhood impacts of converting Townline Road into a busy connector roadway
would still come into play. Because the Maple Plain Park-N-Ride seems to have sufficient
momentum to actually happen, it makes the Park-N-Ride we had contemplated at 6/12 less
likely. (MPG)
• I met today with a group of Lake Minnetonka city administrators to discuss the possibility
and advantages of a combined response to the MCWD rulemaking process. While we may
have some minor philosophical differences with some of our sister cities on specific details
of the proposed rules, there are a few key points that we all likely agree on. A small
The Cit}�of Orono complies with tlie Minnesota Data Pr�actices mzd Open Meeting Law. The recipients of this
electronic file are asked not to "Forward"or "Repl��to All"conce��ning information contained in this email.
subcommittee of this group (including me) will meet next week to boil down the various city
responses into a single unified position statement. An additional point of discussion was
whether we need to have a joint effort in monitoring the rulemaking processes as we go
forward, perhaps sharing the costs of an engineer or other professional to act as a
representative of the cities. Pm not too excited about that idea, as I think we benefit from the
input of our own engineers who know Orono's point of view. In your work session packet I
will provide copies of responses to MCWD from other cities, agencies, businesses and
individuals. (MPG)
� Attached is the draft agenda for the Tuesday, February 9t" work session. A work session
packet will be available at Monday's Council meeting.
The City of O�•ono complies with the Mi�znesota Data Practices and Open Meeting Law. The recipients of this
elect��onic file are askecl not to "Fo�-ward"o�• "Replv to All"concerning infor-mation contai�zed in this email.
�
�
Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
January 26, 2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
Present: Mayor Jim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Lili McMillan and Jim Murphy; Assistant
City Administrator for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, Finance Director Ron Olson
1. Common Bond Discussion Regarding Property Behind Long Lake Fire Station
• Ellen Higgins,Vice President of Development for Common Bonds Communities, provided an update
on progress of the potential workforce housing project including use of the property, designs, City
participation and benefits of the project to the City.
• Common Bond has been working with an architect from UrbanWorks on a number of different
concepts as well as putting together a financing package and reviewing marketing studies.
• A meeting was held with the Miller family regarding the property to the north of the fire station.
The family is willing to discuss selling the property and considers the project a benefit to the
community.
• The financial package includes equity, mortgage and soft funding. Minnesota Housing Finance
would probably be the main equity piece, mortgage with Wells Fargo, as well as 5 other funders for
soft funding as follows:
o Hennepin County Home Fund
o Met Council—$300,000
o Hennepin Home—$500,000
o Hennepin County CDBG—$125,000
o Minnesota Housing Challenge Funds—$500,000
• A key financing issue is if the developer can negotiate a below marketplace price for the property or
if the city will consider a donation of property.
• The following investors have shown interest in the project:
o Wells Fargo (took over Wachovia Bank)
o Enterprise Community Partners
o Berkshire Hathaway
• Murphy questioned if Common Bond had ever done a long-term lease of property. Higgins
indicated they have, but the funding is more complicated.
• The City lot is 3.4 acres with only 1.65 acres of buildable area. It is crucial to come to an agreement
with the Millers to have a large enough building site.
• Financial benefits to city:
o If the City donates or reduces the property price,the developer will pay SAC and WAC charges.
o Property that is currently off the tax rolls would be put back on tax rolls.
o Property would not be assessed at the full value because it would be classified as affordable
housing ($45,000 would come back to the City in taxes).
• Todd of UrbanWorks Architecture presented a general site plan and three design options.
o He noted that access would be off of Fire Drive. The south side of the site includes a wetland
and utility easement.
o The project proposal includes 42 townhomes or apartments with two-thirds of the units with 2
bedrooms and one-third of the units with 3 bedrooms. One enclosed parking stall and one
surface stall are proposed for each unit. Square footage of the 2-bedroom units would be
approximately 1200 s.f. with 1 %z bathrooms.
o Option A
- 42 townhomes in a configuration of 4 distinct 2-story buildings, a center commons area
including tot lot, and access closer to the bridge.
Page 1 of 4
'!
�
Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
January 26, 2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
o Option B
- 42 townhomes with green space north of the fire station, no secondary access, and a
separate building for the commons/community space.
o Option C
- 42 apartments in a 2-story building, more of a traditional parking lot, green space north of
the fire station, and community space inside the building. More trees would be saved with
this design.
o Price points are the same regardless of configuration of the buildings.
o Samples of projects in Blaine and Delano were presented.
o Handicap accessibility could be accomplished by designing some units with a bedroom on the
first level.
o This project is not subsidized housing. Workforce housing requires a certain level of income
usually at 50-60%of the median income—approximately$33,000- $40,000.
o The project will maintain a connection to the park which is actually in Long Lake.
o McMillan asked if there is an advantage to having the commons area separate from the main
buildings. Higgins commented that while designs have been done both ways, it is preferable to
have the commons area (Advantage Service Center) closer to the units to maximize its use.
o Bremer preferred Option B, noting the view along the road is an important consideration.
Murphy agreed, stating that the apartment building design would be least preferable. White
also preferred Option B commenting that this design preserves viewsheds, tucks against the
park and includes natural barriers.
o McMillan questioned the parking needs of the fire department, noting that the fire department
should be comfortable with the parameters of the design. The fire department conducts
activities such as the pancake breakfast or emergency operations that may rely on overflow
parking.
o Bremer suggested a combination of Options A& B could result in a commons building closer to
the main buildings. Murphy added that he would prefer to avoid an additional access.
o White recommended that the Met Council be encouraged to look at public transportation
nearer to the site.
o Murphy asked what the incentive would be for Met Council to contribute $350,000. Higgins
responded that this project could be a model for similar developments.
• Gaffron added the following comments:
o The developer will need to work on stormwater management. There may be room for a
stormwater pond in the southeast corner. The east end of the property already has a drainage
easement which may impact development. The open space to the north of the fire station is
the highest spot on the site and it would be difficult to direct drainage to that area if needed.
o Ron Miller is concerned about the impact to his property if the city lowered the purchase price
of its property. Miller would like some sort of assessment of his property interests at full value
as he doesn't want his value affected by the city's selling price. Miller is also concerned with
higher density in the area.
o Local SAC and WAC charges will need to be paid upfront. The city spent extra money on sewer
capacity when the fire station was built to serve additional properties. The city may want to try
to recover some of these costs.
o This project is quite intense for what is normally seen in Orono with many details to address.
o The city benefits by meeting some housing goals with 3.5 acres developed with 42 units.
o Proximity of parking directly east of fire station parking may impact homes closest to the fire
station.
Page 2 of 4
/
Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
January 26, 2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
o The current financial situation is difficult for a large project. The senior housing complex has
not been filled to capacity. Very little multipie-unit rental housing is available in Orono.
• Murphy stated the Council wili need to further discuss what the city is willing to do regarding
financing for the project.
• White indicated he would work with Common Bond on their application which includes financing.
2. Comp Plan Discussion
• Steve Grittman recapped the foliowing goals for the Comp Plan update:
o Maintain low density pattern
o Avoid offset as much as possible to minimize number of units to account for on other sites
o Maintain rural development pattern - avoid 1 unit per 10 acre requirement
o Maintain predominant pattern of development in MUSA areas
• Met Council housing count projection for 2030 is 4100 units for the overall community and 3020
sewered units. Current sewered units are at 2256 which leaves a difference of 764 units to meet
the Met Council projection. Met Council allows a 5%variance, resuiting in 726 new sewered units
to be connected between 2010 and 2030. The minimum density is 3 units per acre on average.
• The number of sewer units that could be accomplished in areas that are currently planned for
development were discussed. The net density results in .8 units per acre. 113 units can be
subtracted from 726.
0 2 acre sewered lots -45 units on 117 acres
o Fire station site—14 units on 6.6 acres; current Common Bond proposal would increase unit
count
o Senior housing site (Comforts of Home site) —50 units on 4.9 acres
o New MUSA sites-4 units on 7.3 acres
• A Comp Plan Amendment would be easier to do than to try to include all potential areas in the
update.
• Met Council will look at the existing zoning in the MUSA as of 1998 which includes the capacity for
69 sewered units with no offset required. An additional 69 units can be subtracted from 726.
Murphy questioned if there was any leverage the city might have to getting the 1998 date moved
closer to the current year. Grittman commented that there is not a huge impact on the number of
units that would be affected. Since Met Council accepted the Comp Plan from 2000, it is difficult
for the city to accept the date from 1998. Grittman considers a bigger and more important issue to
be a request to waive the 1 unit per 10 acre requirement in rural areas and to be able to finish out 2
and 5 acre development.
• 726 units minus 113 units in planned development areas minus 69 units in existing MUSA area
leaves a gap of 544 units to accomplish in other high density areas of the city.
• The Dumas/James/Eisinger sites were discussed. Two of the properties are in the MUSA with a
total net developable area of 63 acres. If all of remaining 544 units were put on this site, the
density would be at 8.6 units per acre. Met Council wants to use whole numbers for land use
classification. If these sites were classified at 9 units per acre, the unit count would meet and
exceed the Met Council requirements.
• Murphy questioned if the total of 63 acres is accurate considering the former dump on the Eisinger
site. Gaffron commented that Welsh Companies has listed the Eisinger site and is considering
selling the house separately with a lot line rearrangement. To make this site useful to the city, the
house and remaining property should be kept together.
• Council discussed options for density on the Dumas/James/Eisinger property. Council preferred 7
units per acre which results in the need to locate 103 units at a minimum of 6 units per acre in
other mixed use areas, such as the Navarre area.
Page 3 of 4
.�
Orono City Council ,
Committee of the Whole
January 26, 2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
• The Met Council also has a requirement to provide 311 affordable housing units. This can be met
by having any development at 6 units per acre. For example, the Common Bond proposal would
receive credit for density as well as affordable housing.
• Approximately 2-3%of the existing housing in Orono would be classified as affordable housing.
• Met Council will monitor plat reviews, but they can't force the city to build a high density project.
The city should be prepared to approve high density projects. Although a high density project could
be denied, the reasons would have to be based on performance issues and not just density.
• McMillan asked how property taxes are affected for properties that are reguided. Grittman stated
that the county has statutory authority to assess property at the highest and best use. The county
almost always assesses property at the existing use and wouldn't change until the property was
actually re-developed.
• To get a sense of density, the Stonebay Lofts building is at 15 units per acre (60 units). This would
translate to 10 buildings of similar size on the Dumas property to accomplish 9 units per acre.
• Grittman commented that the city is well served to identify some mixed use development as the
Met Council looks favorably on mixed use areas. Mixed use could potentially be used in exchange
for the 1 in 10 acre requirement.
• McMillan stated she would not want to concentrate all of the high density on the Dumas property.
• The summary proposal to submit to the Met council will include the following:
o Development pattern and history
o Impracticality of extending sewer to remaining rural parcels
o Difficulties of promoting lakeshore density
o Environmental advantage of providing sewer to existing unsewered parcels in MUSA without
offset penalties
o Compliance with system statement numbers for density and housing count in new
development
o Willingness to provide density in appropriate locations (Dumas/James and Navarre, etc.)
• Murphy asked if there was anything that allows for expanding the MUSA. Grittman responded that
the Eisinger property would be a good consideration. Per Gaffron, the White Oak Circle
neighborhood would also be an option because it was developed prior to 1985 and without
alternate septic sites, the area would meet the criteria for not having to be part of the density
count.
3. Open Book vs. Local Board of Review
• Olson stated there was a brief discussion last year about considering a change to the Open Book
process. If the city wants to pursue the Open Book process for 2011, it would be helpful to notify
residents at this year's Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
• Council agreed to discuss further after the new City Administrator starts and that it may not be the
right time, politically,to make a change in the process for the Local Board of Review.
• The city has until December 1 to notify the county if they wish to change to the Open Book process.
• The Hennepin County Assessor has indicated that both formats have advantages.
• McMillan asked how the property assessments are coming in compared to prior years. Olson
indicated that there has been a decrease but not as much as last year. He will provide additional
information in the next Information Update.
4. Comments Regarding Information Updates
• None
Page 4 of 4
,-� __O ...�
� �
/%� \�
�/ O O
�'� �r �� r �:��, �,,
'''' CITY of ORONO
� � �� �
'�'+� 1'r,�' '',��� , � ti /� Municipal Of�ices
'ti,/,
� ` �n��� 1�^� �
�'� I �� �i ��� � i
¢.� ;: Street Address: Mailing Address:
� ��,`9$EggO,�� � 2750 Keiley Parkway P.O. Box 66
—= Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323-0066
January 21, 2010
Cris Gears, Superintendent
Three Rivers Park District
3000 Xenium Lane North
Plymouth, MN 55441-1299
Re: Dakota Rail Regional Trail Parking
Dear Mr. Gears:
On behalf of all City of Orono residents and the many visitors to our community, we would like
to extend our gratitude to you and the Three Rivers Park District for establishing the Dakota Rail
Regional Trail. The high level of Trail use during 2009 was clear proof that this recreational
amenity is a tremendous benefit to the Lake Minnetonka area.
We appreciate the willingness of your staff, in particular Boe Carlson, to work with the City in
ironing out some of the wrinkles during the first year of Trail operation. Boe took the time to
informally meet with City staff in December to discuss our concerns regarding trail user parking,
and has provided a copy of the 2008 Spring Park Trail Parking Sites Study. As you may be
aware, the lack of designated parking facilities directly adjacent to the Trail as it traverses Orono
has resulted in trail users parking on certain local streets, causing some consternation among
neighborhood residents. The City Council has authorized designation of certain locations as `No
Parking' areas to help alleviate these concerns, but this does not solve the need for provision of
designated parking for the Trail.
We believe that these parking issues are resolvable, and we stand at the ready to partner with
Three Rivers Park District and our sister Lake Minnetonka area communities in a cooperative
effort to identify, designate, and improve if necessary, parking facilities for users of the Dakota
Rail Regional Trail. Please feel free to contact me at 612-297-4318 or Assistant City
Administrator Mike Gaffron at 952-249-4622.
Sincerely,
James M. White
Mayor, City of Orono
Telephone(952)249-4600 • Fax(952)249-4616
www.ci.orono.mn.us
�
�
FROI� MET COEJNCIL WEBSITE - PRIPVTED 2-8-af�
Region maicing �rogress towarci improvec4 �rar�s'st
"We are no longer behind our peers," Bell says
The Metropolitan Council is making "great progress" toward achieving its transit vision,
building ridership and slowing the growth in traffic congestion, says Council Chair Peter Bell.
Speaking Feb. 1 at the Council's 2010 State of the Region event, Bell said recent milestones
include:
•Opening the region's first commuter rail line in the Northstar Corridor.
•Moving toward construction of the region's second light-rail transit line in the Central
Corridor.
•Completing the first phase of bus rapid transit (BRT) improvements in the I-35W and
Cedar Avenue Corridors.
Six transitways are now in place or under development," Bell said. "When completed in
2014, we will have a total of 115 miles of transitways."
q,
�
�_
.. . .. ..._.����.. .. . .
� . ., . . ti`� .
_ , :ar1
; �� --� ��� _ .
; .
� ''' r _� �,,: �
,� �Y;;- - r� �
� '��:
;.. .,
..
� � ,:�_ , �. __ .
_ . ,
_ ,
. _ - � �- :�-.
_� _, �_
The region's multi-modal transit system is no longer behind its peers across the country,
Bell said in his State of the Region address.
Bell also noted that since 2003, the region registered significant gains in transit ridership,
park-and-ride spaces and its nation-leading system of bus shoulder lanes.
"We no longer are behind peers such as Denver, Dallas, Portland, Salt Lake City and St.
Louis," he said. "Our transit system is growing faster, is more productive and has a lower
subsidy per passenger than most of our peers."
Despite recession, region has competitive strengths
Bell addressed a crowd of about 200 legislators, local officials and community leaders at the
event, held at Silverwood Regional Park in St. Anthony.
He said that the region has felt the effects of the "worst recession in more than 60 years,"
including high unemployment, record numbers of foreclosures and a record low in housing
starts in 2009.
�
�
Still, Bell said, the Twin Cities metro area has many competitive strengths, including high
workforce participation, home ownership, educational attainment and per-capita income.
Moreover, he said, it is still adding population — unlike many urban areas in the northern
tier of states.
Bell reflects on seven years at Council helm
�+- ��,� �:- � a�� ,�.
-', �:.� ,v,�"�:k',:ap�� �"��°`i'�,'�',�,�,'��t,# � �l ��" �""�-,-����'��:€ �.��;..
,� S � } rF:..
�Sr �' �
C k �e,: b n^�,�� , �� � :'�"�'
� ' z. _��µ..� � ,��
, t r '�q � �£�'�q
�' '� & � � ��� � �s' ���� �
�c�� e� _ ,�, .3';.'� �3`'a��_a� '�
� �r r7� m � ��'
r�i. �.-% � "��'�'.� t' t�d `
� i �� � ������ 'Y,
�
� r. � �� p���
,—�y :. �4 �� � �°t�'�,�P{�3 ,,
�y � �� gy�'
3- < fJ
R � � 4'.. ��� '_ 'I. '� �'q' 3.��.
r �
�„� �� d.�i. 1. ��, � 5 v��� � '�
� ..,.� '�Y �✓�,.. _
•1 M.."�, J � -
�l £ ���
� S " � xy
§�� �
��
� ��k
�
�'f
1
::"<'�
... . . ._.. .....`�
Council Chair Peter Bell reflected on the Council's successes and what he has learned during
his seven-year tenure.
Bell, the longest-serving chair in the Council's 43-year history, also discussed some of the
lessons he has learned in seven years on the job. Among those he listed:
•The Council needs to strike a careful balance between "local control" and efficient use
of regional infrastructure, saying both are important values.
•The Council, the Governor and Legislature need to explore ways to involve the
adjacent counties in regional planning, since the metro area clearly is larger than
seven counties.
•The Council should be the lead agency for planning both transit capital investments
and transit operations, saying you can't divorce one from the other.
•The region is blessed by many outstanding local elected officials who work hard to do
what's best for their communities and avoid the partisan rancor that affects other
levels of government.
Debate should occur on Councii make-up
During the question-and-answer session following the speech, Eagan Mayor Mike Maguire
asked about Bell's thoughts regarding the make-up of the Council. Bell said he sees several
possibilities. One is the reinstatement of staggered terms, with the same appointment
process, that would bolster the institutional memory of the Council and '�depoliticize the
Council a bit."
'�Another idea that I think bears exploring is to have a mix of elected officials and appointed
officials on the Council," Bell said. '�We have that on the TAB; that works fairly well." He
acknowledged that the Council is sometimes criticized that by virtue of the size of its budget
it is the fourth or fifth largest government unit in the state, with taxing and regulatory
authority, "all without an election certificate. [That criticism] does not fall on deaf ears with
me," he said.
�
However, Bell said, he is concerned that an elected Council would become "hyper-politicized
and polarized," and that its decisions would be characterized by a '�you get your park if I get
my bus stop" mentality. That would '�jeopardize the relatively high regard we are held in.
'�Yet I think there are legitimate concerns about the power and authority of the Council
without having an election certificate," he said. ��One way of addressing that, perhaps, is to
have nine representatives appointed by the governor and approved by the Senate, and one
representative from each of the county boards."
"But I think it is time after about 42 years that we in this region...that an open, honest,
candid debate should take place," Bell said. "I'm not apologetic about the Council. I think
we have served this region well. But I think all of us...should not be afraid of scrutiny, we
should not be afraid of the hard questions."
' http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/83682617.html?page=l&c=y Page 1 of 2
���.� �. :� �,;
�_.�,
���-c ��
� f`}�4FCit:'�Ot3r
St�rTri�u ne���� " `� mobilebrorvserto
�'• http://staetribune,com
Editorial: Deeentralization dulls there a mention of the Met Council's
Ill@tt'O�S edge fundainental flaw, one that predates the
Pawlenty years The council has been
powerless to stop the steady and destructive
Despite lnvestments, Met CounCil decentralization of the metro rebio��. Despite
falls the Central Cltles. its natioi�al reputation for pla��nii�g and its
mission of"orderly and economical
Last update: February 7, 2010-6:23 PM development," the council continues to
encourabe arowth at the suburban edge at
If Metropolitan Council Chairman Peter Bell's the eapense of redirecting development and
final State of the Regio�� speech last week vitality back toward the center.
contained a subliminal message, it was
probably this: Sevei� years of conservative That kind of planning is neither orderly nor
leadership has not destroyed the Twin Cities' econo�nical. And it moves the Twi�1 Cities
four-decade experiment in metro �netro "in the wrong direction," according to
goveri�ance. The sky has not fallen. The clock Bruce Katz, the metropolitan policy director
has not been turned back. Even the most at the Brookings Institution. Brookings
eaalted liberal element of inetro planning-- follows closely the comparative strengths
rail transit--has pushed ahead to the point and weaknesses of the nation's largest metro
that the Twin Cities is no longer decades areas. It classifies the Twin Cities as "rapidly°
bel�ii�d its competitors. decentralizing" at a time when conditions
deinand just the opposite.
Indeed Bell, who expects to leave his post
when Gov. Tim Pawlenty steps aside next y Katz and other a��alysts worry, and rightly
ear, has done a stellar job on ma»y fronts. so, that this metro area is out of step with
Under his guidance, Republican catcalls of profound global chan��es that demand more
"train to nowhere" have given way to an efficient development patterns, smaller
acceptance of transit as a worthy partner and carbon footprints and a wedding of
a�� expectation (tha��ks to a veto override)of transpor�atioi� and land-use policies. The
more train lines in the years ahead. future, they believe, deina��ds more Pilates (a
strengthening of core muscles) and less
But nowhere in Bell's thoughtful recountin� expa��sion of the metro ���aistline.
�
_ _ ----- __.
_ .__-�--_ �-��- � , . ;,;
�� � _.. ... . s#-�t
�
;�� � TH E
-�.��g# AL�JMI1VtJlV�' �H�V�I
FatDAY, MAACH 5 - S!1'tUt�LIY, Nl!AR�1M 7
ON SALE NaiN rt�rcFr�nasr�R.can� M�'��'i� �A�E'
CnSitvO-rtOi'EL
oMuab+uocov��oa�srawx�ua�w��o+s;.,,.:M.�wn, mystic�ake.corra
Print Powered By t� .��,�"���s4^s
http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?1265653116690 2/8/2010
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/editorials/83682617.htm1?page=l&c=y Page 2 of 2 �
�
.{ -�-�"-��,���
� T �A Point your
St�rTr�b�a �e���� '•+;, �. ma�ilebrovJsert4 `
hftp�://startribune,com
it stren�then incentives to locate jobs near-
Yet the Met Council continues to encourage transit. It's not that he disputes Brookings'
70 percent of new arowth on fresh around at "decentralizing" assessment. He doesn't. But
the suburban edge and only 30 percent in he says that political reality prevents the
developed areas with infrastructure already council from emphasizing infill. The
in place. Those numbers should be reversed. expanding suburbs at the metro ed�e want to
Our growth pattern is more akin to the failed continue expanding, and flley are tl�e tail that
cities of the Rust Belt than the attractive wags the dog. Metro governance is a delicate
places that the Twin Cities likes to consider thin�, as Bell pointed out on Monday. It
its peers. The cei�tral districts of Denver, teeters between what's best for the metro as
Seattle and Portland, for example, have been a whole and the perceived self-interest of
attracting a metrowide share of individual suburbs -- and self-interest has
redevelopment well above the share of been on a roll. Decentralization,
Minneapolis and St. PauL (See chart). unfortunately, has become who we are.
The dispersal of jobs away from downtowns Our best hope, perhaps, is that the market is
is especially worrisome because it forces shifting toward a more benign �rowth on the
auto dependence and longer commutes. metro's outer limits. Large households, lar�e
When jobs were still eapanding and transit lots and lengthy commutes are on the �
emerging(2002-2008), the western suburbs decline; compact communities, transit
added 24 times more office space than ridership and walkabie neighborhoods are o
transit-friendly downtown Minneapolis. The n the rise, even on the suburban ed,e. A
Hiawatha line may have attracted housing tight state budget will limit the expansive
(7,700 units by Bell's count), but not jobs. road projects that encourage sprawl. And
The acres of empty land abutting the rail line development, when it resumes, may be rated
in downtown Minneapolis are symbolic of the -- at least nominally -- on carbon impact.
council's failure to generate efficient land
use. One way or another,the Twin Cities metro
needs to strengthen its coi-e if it wants to
Bell resists any plea that the cou��cil -- like re;ain its competitive edge. It needs more
some tra��sit agencies elsewhere-- get into Pilates and less middle-age spread.
the land development business, or even that
Advertisement
�,. ;. _ _ __ _..
z����„�,� + ���,�_ ""- � _ �.
���,r�
��� ��''� �� . �ENIV1�'� JaA l�' �IG
`ci r.r�l.��.�� .
°ti��^�: , � � ; � THE N10S7 PE11�NY SLL)TS�
.�� 4.� �;�� � �yS�;� �AKE-
�'+ r
t
.. .. GASiMO•KOY�4
o�u�.aaw�eaao,osn�.opcew�.wuo�u.so..:o�.wr� mystictake.CC33fT1
— —�
Print Powered By �-€# �,-n�r�-�ics
http://www.startribune.com/templates/fdcp?12656�3116690 2/8/2010
CENTRAL CITY LIVING
Share of inetro residential development in central cities, 2007:
New York 5� percent
Chicago 40 percent
Portland 33 percent
Seattle 26 percent
Denver 25 percent
Atlanta 21 percent
Mpls-St. Paul 16 percent
Detroit 7 percent
St. Louis 5 percent
Pittsburgh 3 percent
Source: EPA
BONESTROO
Low Impact Development
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT(LID)
'� '}��{ LID refers to a set of approaches and practices designed to retain
� � �,,n or reduce runoff of stormwater and pollutants from developed sites
'��� - through infiltration, evapotranspiration, and reuse of rainwater.
��4�R:;; ��c�� y The commonly-heard goal of LID is to"keep the water on the
�,�,,- , land.
V �.
���;��' ; � :�;; LID seeks to maintain or replicate predevelopment hydrology
'� � r�'�.`�� through thoughtful, holistic design. This includes structural and
���:
.�; s, � ., c�^�,���,�:,,� ; '4z non-structural strategies such as reduction and disconnection of
z. � '� q� � . impervious surfaces, infiltration and bioretention, and the collection
Raingardens turn stormwater and reuse of rainwater.
management facilities into
amenities. GOALS OF LID
• Preserve, protect, and incorporate high-quality natural areas into
development
• Reduce impervious coverage
• Preserve or enhance soil permeability
• Use vegetation for uptake and treatment of stormwater
• Use appropriate BMPs for effective stormwater control
POSSIBLE LID S�RATEGIES
• Bioretention (e.g., raingardens, grass swales, and infiltration
basins)
• Green roofs
• Permeable pavers, asphalt, and concrete
• Subsurface groundwater recharge chambers
• Rain barrels and cisterns
• Collection and reuse of rainwater for irrigation
BONESTROO'S COMMITMENT TO LID
Because water is a critical resource for all biological systems, the
impact of development on water use, surface and groundwater
quality, water conservation, and aquatic and terrestrial habitat
must be addressed. Bonestroo is at the forefront of sustainable
development and design.
Our approach emphasizes integrating natural systems, construction
methods, and human needs. We develop sustainable solutions that
balance function and aesthetics.
�Bonestroo
SARTELL, MN
Rain Gardens
:"�'��` ;- � '��,;��f ;`:� y�����,��� �=`' ��
;` �x� „' �� { �' ' a � � ,�� �. , . :$
�� � �� '� �` �� ." �'�. , ��"�
' � � �r, �,�,_.� � , ._,�..y,� ..
�� � �,� ,3'. ,i ���x�^ y'��.t..� � �'r''�`,.� �'�� �� ����,� -. �
.� � � ��1' . ' ° " J_ A� �y� . -j'.�-'r+ �(,� .. .,� • �-i�
� �`�' Y b , t� �r �r.���{��' ' _ � t �:1•` �
� �A~ A '�� `��i .r< .�' '� �J.�. �.���� .� ..�♦ �.-^s ���hdrr •
� � C fiir ���1 ° i �r k� ,�.w'� :�. . • ,�„ wr, ` .. Ty�{t.�''" �•
.��` �'' . �'i �' '�. !i +1� � � -_,Sy1_���►,�� �R
_� _1����, �' ����� � � t- z �` - � 4 �.. �'i�. �� � +� ����
�!. � � �,.,1D i��'e"• •"
'i��� � ,� .< �f z: �., �, ll +y��� �% � � ,.�..e
�s �'!i' ti , 1y � ' ,� .,
iil�'> �..,�` "g�y�1 �Hi� .'� '�w�; _� . ,Pj.. �� � ••i 4�.'t`�.r�y *` �
�� � 3� �.:�� A � ,�� �s� �. ,�
,- ,,r; ` '�
-� � � ��
° Y: . .
t��,z; .��. . , �
�„� �T. ...• . �'¢�� !'r ... ..': �" asn . .h I w i• .rr� + 1��"��:.- '�: _
. .�:4'. . ... •�. � �k. ���
��
..$,.a•'. � ' �, . a��� ���.���,ay�' � .� , rt�q � �� ti�#�t,,�x��,r'� `° '�_
t}"L: " y�4 �.`` �� e� Y,�7 �„r�y�,. �� � �� ♦ � �,t� .. ��s�
f.� fil'�'t 4 ��I� �,' - �.$; .� St"�' i3 t�� 5�6-b•':y���� . ��,��a;.6�4` �'+ , ^• � .�1''l
-♦ �r. }:a ..:� �i,y�''� �Ad „� ':�..
, � .. +Y i :� .�'��la -.♦�5 i T'
�i�at '�'..4 �-� � +s & 5��y�J+ � .. , ,1 �..� � �� .
> __ay� � ;».� . . ti1 �'��T, �,� �, '} i �`� '�I 3,. '., ���� ' i,� � � '
..T �;,w��, � e . r� �/ :i. �2 ''�,e,� .
f. r� p�� � ,��,,�_,�� � +I-s '3a�i 7�'����,;y'�►•� -� � �`'� `� �.
,�`.ij �•� i . .� �`.i q �,� .'y� �'S'�ya l �•' h
'�fi71�V.� rt�y A i. .�.. �Q.,-,. ��"`��... �r l �� �r � � . Q
e3� #��$r �, � �!'� .it� .
.n� ,� .- y ' i�"�'
. .��rs �.� � ��p� ' . ... +� ,
. ��"� '� -w�J'• _ tl ,�
� �
. � � � �
. , �, �� r,
-��� � „ ..�. ,* �;. 4� 4:�. �>' ���/�
�... �y'��4 E ,r w t , .>'�' .... _ �r�' -j�,
� Y�1'.` . i'ti,' - , r�� '. �� 1 L'd� I
Retrofitting rain gardens into Sarteil's street reconstruction project
THESARTELLRAINGARDENPROJECT was an innovative solution to common drainage problems that
RECEIVEDTHE2OOHLEAGUEOF beautified the neighborhoods, involved residents, generated
regional interest, and helped meet the City's MS4 requirements for
MINNESOTACIlTESCITYOF water quality protection.
EXCELLENCE AWARD
During the 2007 Capital Improvements Project, two residential
developments directly adjacent to the Mississippi River were
selected for upgrades. Prior to this reconstruction project, all
stormwater runoff was directed into the river with no pretreatment.
The main project goals were to upgrade existing infrastructure
(roads, storm sewer, water main, and sanitary sewer), implement a
stormwater treatment system using rainwater gardens, and involve
area residents.
Fifty-one rain gardens were constructed on a voluntary basis. The
rain gardens allowed the reconstruction project to meet MS4 permit
requirements.
Rain garden design and installation fees totaled $105,500, a
significant savings over traditional ponding methods. City council
and staff members collaborated with residents to make this project
a success. Support from the Minnesota DNR and the Stearns
County Soil and Water Conservation District also helped achieve
positive results.
�Bonestroo
CENTURY COLLEGE — WHITE BEAR LAKE, MN
Low Impact Parking Lot Reconstruction
and Expansion
���� �� �
;� ..
,�����,�� � �
�` �p @! � @� •. � 8 8 --
� a a a a a a a a
� � Qe O� a a � � �
a a a a a a a a
� a �a► �� �� .� . � 4i� �Gi� � "
f..
�aL • �aii� ��Q�
a ' s s g
�'°
� ap � 8 8
����=;�- � �
i � ---- i � :
��\ °'u ,~`' `'`Q Vc��B �
e�
O U
Y � C
��.EIIaY'y�.li�ll,�Y
f� � i'' j #Bonestroo
� �— �
'��� o � .
�o o�� � ��� ��a
This$3.1 million site development redefines 16 acres of existing parking
lots as a larger-capacity, interconnected system of parking and pedestrian
GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE spaces featuring green infrastructure and environmental education
TECHNOLOGIES ARE USED TO stations.
RECONSTRUCT A PARKING LOT FOR
The 1,900-vehicle parking lot was redesigned using underground
GREATER CAPACITY�AESTHEfICS�AND
stormwater infiltration technology, porous asphalt, porous concrete, porous
LE55 NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE
pavers, infiltration planters, and structural soil systems for trees. The
SURROUNDING INFRASTRUCTUREAND project incorporates designated stormwater education areas to foster
r,nrur�n�ecosrsreMs. student and public awareness. Other features are emergency call stations,
Internet Protocol (IP)security cameras, and context-sensitive lighting.The
selected plantings are low-maintenance and water-efficient.
The technology and systems used in this lot reconstruction reduce the
impact of stormwater on city sewer systems by improving the quality and
lowering the quantity of campus stormwater runoff.The result is a multi-
use facility that revitalizes and enhances this area of the campus.
Bonestroo services included site survey, civil engineering, water resource
engineering, electrical/lighting engineering, stormwater pollution
prevention plan development, bid package/bid/award coordination,and
construction administration.
�Bonestroo
ST. CLOUD, MN
Stone Gate Development
> , � o,.
. , , '���� ..�I
N „ . •
= ----- —
- --- , `� - _--
�����w -— , / I
��!� �,.---�, � �� ����; ������ ;
� �u'� �� ' � ," t . _ . ' *
� ; � , -
= �, �-- - - A
� � � '��� � � � �,��, �r�,� � °';
�` � `1
3 . � b �_
,�'�`���, � `���+/ �, "�.'�„�- i' _���,� � � ��-�� ��
� > l , r+���.,,� ,,.. ��
�`�t� q'���'�`�,���A * ,�' �'�`�� ,,
�i �;; � =f�� r"� ,;� �'�` ii# � J ,
� , � -- - �.
� � � � �- ,
� ` � a;� ��; �s � ' _ ;
� �-� � ��F� � _ ;�
� , '� '1� �'` '� -- ' 1�
t �
� � -�--� �' � - _.�� ��` _ �� ��
F �� __ �"�� �`�ct_� . " > � - `
� �
` \ —�;.�.� � ��► � `�-0
. ,
�� �`�: E� %
:� �� � \� w�r.-�� --_�1�
< , " _ _ -C�
�� � � �,;��?rr�-� ,�� ��
' �'� �1 , "r.�.,r,+r '� � •
� ¢ �� ��� F/��,,�,� � �� � _ ��� �
� t � J �� � � �
�.� ,�,� 4,..,�.,
�, � ��� ,� ,?.– , �,, �
_�
�I— � � ,,�..� � r—
�'�� � � i�r�, ��� I� � 1!'►1e1�' �
1 ��r � �� � � �,� �� �/ ����;:# .
�4 � � � � . ,� � ... ��� -�"`_ - ���
�� �
� ,_�``\�c:�, ��► i J� � � E � s�,��
� � ,��� ��:��i �" '�.�i '�►� �� -� � �� �
..
� � _
_
� � , � �;
f — �
-. _. . . ��____,.,: _ . . _ .. — ' ..
When existing site constraints that included a high groundwater
table, flat topography, and high-quality wetlands at Stone Gate
ALTERNATIVESTORMWATER development drove up costs of traditional stormwater practices,
MANAGEMENTMAIQMIZES Bonestroo worked with Lumber One to design a low-impact
DEVELOPABLESPACE�DECREASES development that relied solely on rain gardens for stormwater
cosrs management.
The rain gardens protected more than 36 acres of high-quality
wetlands and reduced the amount of storm piping and fill needed,
saving Lumber One money. Because no storm ponds were needed,
the amount of buildable land was maximized.
Bonestroo seeded all rain gardens with a custom native seed mix
designed to facilitate infiltration and improve aesthetics. Five acres
of uplands and 36 acres of wetlands were designated as community
open space and enhanced with a showy mix of native prairie
wildflowers and grasses.
•#'BOIle5t1'00
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM
Parking Lot Rainwater Gardens
. . ,���'`--�+�,���
'�_�,��
�-! �.._� �
,� _ �
�f ~ �h'���� �f•' �'T
�: A �� r.� L �-y 1+�`.'. .
�r
/ �4 � � �,. .�:
� � �„ �" ��I���
♦ i`+i?� ,✓,e�! ..� J' y���'t` .��
��.' - t jft- -[
.+ : }4 + *�� ��"4h
�.`,� �;� fi . � � �/zw � y�y .
; ..�`,�, �, ��,��� . . ���t{'-'� ���
�` ,� � � _�.�- �,
�''��� ��i#-., r�:q, ,��€�`'' :. k� _ .
<t. , , w. . '�I�,Fi��G���i'�'1�-:t , �"s ,�. ,�
. ,
.
, � . r:.�.., y� ' ,� t
' - -- �(t ' _. ��' ...,.
� :.�, '��ez ► �tn_ �I
. � s-r � y � . _
. :Nr.�.:_.. � i�� ' rN .v ..-. . �:`7� �. �*- �----�+11r�1
. ��� ' °j }.x�4:. ..'� �i. i ' y . m t�`� ' �J .
1y� � r "4 r,
—� ._`i 4�" ��T �' , . � r� .�s� ' {�s'�,'� � � � '� - ��,«
._, i � �+���a�h����.:��i `� `�3` ,�'�t''.��' $��\ � `r -"��91�+a� '�l. , i � F '��i ���'�
R�.�_�� ,�R"`
� -s �°j� y i1�i �r�� t �,�K ���� s. � �, y�„ 1 %w Y
..r �.y. ., �' w+t7t.t, �-��i91t���f'� ' �j � -s�4 ' �' `�i �3�. _
n w+ ,
�-s T , '' r �;�'�` r�i v�K`.�.r�t'.� • �' �.i {� ��� +�: "� '?�
. ' ,'�,y{�,,,.d t "!I'w�'�S'pe'":' �. ,�.e� ,� ` '�tl;.�. .�k..-
.� :�'y p:.MYs��'� .. . ��, C.� ..�� . . -_ - .,++ _ �
. � -�t �� _ � . �;- �.
_ _ '� ,:.�.. " �_ � _- ,.
_ . _ � ':� � ��,.+-c��"�+�ii✓'�'. - f y�- _,.. _= �,
_ � . .'.:- ._ ... � ; . �; �. . ��.._� .. ''��. . :•c'fF'3��►:� .:.:i�. �t _ v_•tSt'•tiS.:���=�fii'.1 "� t
As the University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum expanded its
facilities, stormwater runoff impacts from added parking lots was a
THE COMBINED BENEFIT OF
concern. Arboretum staff wanted to demonstrate how rainwater
PLANTS AND SOILS CREATES
gardens hold, clean, and filter stormwater, while being aesthetically
ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY pleasing.
STORMWATER FILTRATION SYSTEM
The gardens are planted with native plants that adapt to wet and dry
conditions. Sandy soil filters stormwater and removes sediments and
pollutants. Trees and shrubs along the edges distribute and slow the
flow. Ribbon curb along the edge indicates parking boundaries, but
also allows stormwater to sheet flow into the gardens.
Bonestroo designed the new parking lots and five rain gardens, which
treat runoff from at least the first 1.5 inches of rain. This"first flush"of
stormwater carries the majority of sediments and pollutants from the
parking lots. For heavy storms, a nearby holding pond receives excess
stormwater overFlow from the gardens, then treats and releases it into
nearby wetlands.
In addition to providing a scenic walk in from the parking lots, the
gardens improve water quality by preventing sediments and pollutants
from entering surface waters. They also help replenish groundwater
and prevent erosion. Even in their inaugural season, the rainwater
gardens successfully handled up to three inches of rain in a few hours.
�Bonestroo
MOUNDS VIEW, MN
Street Improvement Project
� � , �
� �� - ---=_ - _- -___- —� _-� - � ;
----__----_-= ,� �--�
� . , ���� �
F � .r � � ' ,, �=�'� i �
�� '>� � ,�_ - , �,, .�:;�'�
__ 1=�a" h • . y�.y� .� y . '��' Tl ,'.
�- - ; .�i ' � �k�
l) 4 $' . �.'�1. R �{ J� �,'��� P,t�
' i�''� �N`� �'� ' —— kd�" .�r t --'r -
� a �j �
. ���- � _ _ � � -
,
� . K����� 4 { `��t �...�� I. � '_ � ,,. •���
. �j f
,t � '-_ t"� >
t i i� �` '.�` � '�}���N. L � ` _.,i- �?'.�'` 1 h � � .��
�-� ^t�., �.. .•. /'� , �y,. y,,tF�{e � - Yr ����'�
, -
.
�
. .� ,� � �� , .
'� �.1 � . �'`� � q I .
' F � f �
r ' :
� / _ ,�/��yf '{ r 7�3�j'- .,
r �."i4-"....ti V . <. Y .S
.. �' R . � �.�. '�� ,���
, t
' . �
' . -4 ' . .. , l :..
� �' .,,..`� �T'''�°'+* '.. t' ! " "" '`' �y _� aS
. .
�
_ . , T^ v !
.
i � � �
. . � . � � w_ . . � .
"��." ".� _ ' _: , . �-"'� � .`'��j �"'A � „
. .> _ . .., .._ � �. .� � ,,,
�
�.._.�. � � 1 a
- y r - j�.- � -: .. . . ' ;
:..p� w �jdt . � _x;'- ..� � . ._._:...�.. - � .:-.
1'.:, .c�s�- -. ' .
,«,r��� �,. .�...�� ...._.1.....� � �
�� ri �
*' ' �'
,
� .
,. .: ^.� —... . ;...... . ..,.. ..�.Dia�Y�e-�
: n. ti
X �
� i
s.. v �F"rx: ,
;� < ��.� � _ � ,�;�.�� MN����
'�,� ��y�, r} � ���
<��7�`!��!"y t* � #w sr — ������*�r�, """"� J
,�.Y..i:" ' t1���,.� _ . _
When Mounds View initiated its 18-year street reconstruction plan,
S�REEfIMPROVEMENT55ETSTAGE the streets were in a distressed condition and in need of repair in
the area designated for the first project. We assisted the City in
FOR CITY�S LONG-RANGE STREET
determining a typical street section and investigated bituminous
RECONSfRUCTION PL4N and concrete curb options. We also reviewed the condition and
service areas of existing utilities to determine needed repairs, and
areas with insufficient service.
We worked with City staff, the City Council, and residents to
develop a City standard typical street section and a revised
assessment policy. Frequent neighborhood meetings kept residents
involved throughout the process. Meetings with the Rice Creek
Watershed District were conducted throughout the feasibility and
design process. The result was storm water quality and infiltration
features, such as rain gardens.
To maintain resident access during construction, the existing
bituminous was reclaimed and the street was constructed one-half
at a time, which allowed for salvaging aggregate material.
Stormceptor structures installed at storm water discharge points to
Spring Lake remove sediment, oil, and debris from the storm water
before it enters the lake. The structures improve lake water quality.
Overall, the project improved the streets within the project area,
and provided an example for the remainder of the City as it
continues with its street reconstruction plan.
�Bonestroo
ST. PAUL, MN
Bonestroo Campus
� _
�� :t
. g
� �' � , � � ' �♦ - - - �
r.�" �h'� t'�' �'�#�r P �y@+�y r�-�./:.--_ . #:•''��.r i,.�,..,:.'.
�..�,a'4it.� .4 �'��i � ���i� 'sEB•� �i���� . . ` �� �
.Y�►&�.:.� a^•.� ".�'�' ��.`1�6 �_;.�.,�w'
S�er"�,� � � . ��. , _ ���., .,+ _.. . . .v..•
� �. � a�
� ._.�, �[� �, i .
'.� '' '- ..,;` .' � % ,
�"�it�"r"_
* � .
;�.-
g �-' f,y, fR 1. ��. � ," _ � '/ � -�� .. � '_
�' i� �� � -: �� /� /�/�
: �
4i� "+",.oS'�. •:4 �.� - � / j� . .
y .., � � �/ /
.. .- . . ,. . � / _
_� ��(�L{y���....,-�. � ��j � � �
,,; ��.::
�� ; , .�.� F
��- t '"y''. / � % /
-.e e<�i�.:.. ,% .�///� ` !_, �:i.
/ �i � � i
� � ` � �� �
��� � � : //`��f � �
��.� / f � , � � � / 1
�j%���� � f ;% :� � f l
.._ ....... ...._ :., R... .: :�. . ... .,,
�'_,_j. r .. .. _�.r«+k `.�, h'w�ci}�.{`.�" ��.� _.---F'- �' "�1',
�+ ' I_
Y 4 t . '.'{:� �I
vt`�
n .�
r'- . ' , �'t.. '�.
^, ��
�� ,� � - - � � r*�-"�� • �� . _ _
;'�` ,e, _ ,
h �Y� Y'r '.(� k,`_ • .
� �..y � f y6� � . �..�. . .
:�r v . 1 /�\.
. 4,, N ' + �'" r � .
�� �.. �Y,.�'F'� ��. ,� � �;. ''T_
p�, � � �
._ .. .. .. �..iP�� �� �"��.i ���_ �'�� �i �.•� . . L���ti.
Bonestroo's St. Paul campus sits on a critical regional stormwater
BONESTROO�S UPDATED S�.PAUL management basin managing runoff from Highway 36. A challenge in
CAMPUSINCORPORATESANUMBER designing and constructing a third campus building was providing sufficient
OFSUSTAINABLESTORMWATER stormwater management with the existing pond. The pond was split in
two, and its surface area and volume were expanded, providing additional
MANAGEMENT FEATURES AND IS
storage capacity and helping meet nutrient removal goals.
AESTHEflCALLY PLEASING TO
EMPLOYEESANDVISITORS A subsurface stormwater storage system was installed beneath the
reconstructed porous paver parking lots. Surface water flows through the
pavers into seven storage/infiltration chambers. The chambers slow the
rate of runoff entering the pond, and improve water quality by filtering the
water. Manholes are used to monitor the level of treatment occurring. The
south parking lot features a rainwater garden that is hydraulically
connected to the larger porous paver system.
The pond slopes feature native vegetation. A long-term benefit will be the
enhanced wildlife habitat resulting from shoreline's emergent plantings. A
rip-rap streambed was installed on the property's southern edge with a
settling pool that captures floating debris from the highway.
#Bonestroo
, ,.
� Orono City Council
�
Committee of the Whole
January 26,2010, 6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
Present: MayorJim White, Council Members Cynthia Bremer, Lili McMillan and Jim Murphy; Assistant
City Administrator for Long-Term Strategy Mike Gaffron, Finance Director Ron Olson
1. Common Bond Discussion Regarding Property Behind Long Lake Fire Station
• Ellen Higgins,Vice President of Development for Common Bonds Communities, provided an update
on progress of the potential workforce housing project including use of the property,designs, City
participation and benefits of the project to the City.
• Common Bond has been working with an architect from UrbanWorks on a number of different
concepts as well as putting together a financing package and reviewing marketing studies.
• A meeting was held with the Miller family regarding the property to the north of the fire station.
The family is willing to discuss selling the property and considers the project a benefit to the
com m u nity.
• The financial package includes equity, mortgage and soft funding. Minnesota Housing Finance
would probably be the main equity piece, mortgage with Wells Fargo, as well as 5 other funders for
soft funding as follows:
o Hennepin County Home Fund
o Met Council—$300,000
o Hennepin Home—$500,000
o Hennepin County CDBG—$125,000
o Minnesota Housing Challenge Funds—$500,000
• A key financing issue is if the developer can negotiate a below marketplace price for the property or
if the city will consider a donation of property.
• The following investors have shown interest in the project:
o Wells Fargo (took over Wachovia Bank)
o Enterprise Community Partners
o Berkshire Hathaway
• Murphy questioned if Common Bond had ever done a long-term lease of property. Higgins
indicated they have, but the funding is more complicated.
• The City lot is 3.4 acres with only 1.65 acres of buildable area. It is crucial to come to an agreement
with the Millers to have a large enough building site.
• Financial benefits to city:
o If the City donates or reduces the property price,the developer will pay SAC and WAC charges.
o Property that is currently off the tax rolls would be put back on tax rolls.
o Property would not be assessed at the full value because it would be classified as affordable
housing($45,000 would come back to the City in taxes).
• Todd of UrbanWorks Architecture presented a general site plan and three design options.
o He noted that access would be off of Fire Drive. The south side of the site includes a wetland
and utility easement.
o The project proposal includes 42 townhomes or apartments with two-thirds of the units with 2
bedrooms and one-third of the units with 3 bedrooms. One enclosed parking stall and one
surface stall are proposed for each unit. Square footage of the 2-bedroom units would be
approximately 1200 s.f. with 1 % bathrooms.
o Option A
- 42 townhomes in a configuration of 4 distinct 2-story buildings, a center commons area
including tot lot, and access closer to the bridge.
Page 1 of 4
` �
Orono City Council �
Committee of the Whole
January 26, 2010,6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
o Option B
- 42 townhomes with green space north of the fire station, no secondary access, and a
separate building for the commons/community space.
o Option C
- 42 apartments in a 2-story building, more of a traditional parking lot, green space north of
the fire station, and community space inside the building. More trees would be saved with
this design.
o Price points are the same regardless of configuration of the buildings.
o Samples of projects in Blaine and Delano were presented.
o Handicap accessibility could be accomplished by designing some units with a bedroom on the
first level.
o This project is not subsidized housing. Workforce housing requires a certain level of income
usually at 50-60%of the median income—approximately$33,000-$40,000.
o The project will maintain a connection to the park which is actually in Long Lake.
o McMillan asked if there is an advantage to having the commons area separate from the main
buildings. Higgins commented that while designs have been done both ways, it is preferable to
have the commons area (Advantage Service Center)closer to the units to maximize its use.
o Bremer preferred Option B, noting the view along the road is an important consideration.
Murphy agreed,stating that the apartment building design would be least preferable. White
also preferred Option B commenting that this design preserves viewsheds,tucks against the
park and includes natural barriers.
o McMillan questioned the parking needs of the fire department, noting that the fire department
should be comfortable with the parameters of the design. The fire department conducts
activities such as the pancake breakfast or emergency operations that may rely on overflow
parking.
o Bremer suggested a combination of Options A& B could result in a commons building closer to
the main buildings. Murphy added that he would prefer to avoid an additional access.
o White recommended that the Met Council be encouraged to look at public transportation
nearer to the site.
o Murphy asked what the incentive would be for Met Council to contribute $350,000. Higgins
responded that this project could be a model for similar developments.
• Gaffron added the following comments:
o The developer will need to work on stormwater management. There may be room for a
stormwater pond in the southeast corner. The east end of the property already has a drainage
easement which may impact development. The open space to the north of the fire station is
the highest spot on the site and it would be difficult to direct drainage to that area if needed.
o Ron Miller is concerned about the impact to his property if the city lowered the purchase price
of its property. Miller would like some sort of assessment of his property interests at full value
as he doesn't want his value affected by the city's selling price. Miller is a�so concerned with
higher density in the area.
o Local SAC and WAC charges will need to be paid upfront. The city spent extra money on sewer
capacity when the fire station was built to serve additional properties. The city may want to try
to recover some of these costs.
o This project is quite intense for what is normally seen in Orono with many details to address.
o The city benefits by meeting some housing goals with 3.5 acres developed with 42 units.
o Proximity of parking directly east of fire station parking may impact homes closest to the fire
station.
Page 2 of 4
� ..
� . Orono City Council
Committee of the Whole
January 26,2010,6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
o The current financial situation is difficult for a large project. The senior housing complex has
not been filled to capacity. Very little multiple-unit rental housing is available in Orono.
• Murphy stated the Council will need to further discuss what the city is willing to do regarding
financing for the project.
• White indicated he would work with Common Bond on their application which includes financing.
2. Comp Plan Discussion
• Steve Grittman recapped the following goals for the Comp Plan update:
o Maintain low density pattern
o Avoid offset as much as possible to minimize number of units to account for on other sites
. o Maintain rural development pattern -avoid 1 unit per 10 acre requirement
o Maintain predominant pattern of development in MUSA areas
• Met Council housing count projection for 2030 is 4100 units for the overall community and 3020
sewered units. Current sewered units are at 2256 which leaves a difference of 764 units to meet
the Met Council projection. Met Council allows a 5%variance, resulting in 726 new sewered units
to be connected between 2010 and 2030. The minimum density is 3 units per acre on average.
• The number of sewer units that could be accomplished in areas that are currently planned for
development were discussed. The net density results in .8 units per acre. 113 units can be
subtracted from 726.
0 2 acre sewered lots-45 units on 117 acres
o Fire station site—14 units on 6.6 acres; current Common Bond proposal would increase unit
count
o Senior housing site (Comforts of Home site)—50 units on 4.9 acres
o New MUSA sites—4 units on 7.3 acres
• A Comp Plan Amendment would be easier to do than to try to include all potential areas in the
update.
• Met Council will look at the existing zoning in the MUSA as of 1998 which includes the capacity for
69 sewered units with no offset required. An additional 69 units can be subtracted from 726.
Murphy questioned if there was any leverage the city might have to getting the 1998 date moved
closer to the current year. Grittman commented that there is not a huge impact on the number of
units that would be affected. Since Met Council accepted the Comp Plan from 2000, it is difficult
for the city to accept the date from 1998. Grittman considers a bigger and more important issue to
be a request to waive the 1 unit per 10 acre requirement in rural areas and to be able to finish out 2
and 5 acre development.
• 726 units minus 113 units in planned development areas minus 69 units in existing MUSA area
leaves a gap of 544 units to accomplish in other high density areas of the city.
• The Dumas/lames/Eisinger sites were discussed. Two of the properties are in the MUSA with a
total net developable area of 63 acres. If all of remaining 544 units were put on this site,the
density would be at 8.6 units per acre. Met Council wants to use whole numbers for land use
classification. If these sites were classified at 9 units per acre, the unit count would meet and
exceed the Met Council requirements.
• Murphy questioned if the total of 63 acres is accurate considering the former dump on the Eisinger
site. Gaffron commented that Welsh Companies has listed the Eisinger site and is considering
selling the house separately with a lot line rearrangement. To make this site useful to the city, the
house and remaining property should be kept together.
• Council discussed options for density on the Dumas/James/Eisinger property. Council preferred 7
units per acre which results in the need to locate 103 units at a minimum of 6 units per acre in
other mixed use areas, such as the Navarre area.
Page 3 of 4
'' 1
Orono City Council `
Committee of the Whole �
January 26,2010,6:30 p.m.
Orono City Council Chambers
• The Met Council also has a requirement to provide 311 affordable housing units. This can be met
by having any development at 6 units per acre. For example, the Common Bond proposal would
receive credit for density as well as affordable housing.
• Approximately 2-3%of the existing housing in Orono would be classified as affordable housing.
• Met Council will monitor plat reviews, but they can't force the city to build a high density project.
The city should be prepared to approve high density projects. Although a high density project could
be denied, the reasons would have to be based on performance issues and not just density.
• McMillan asked how property taxes are affected for properties that are reguided. Grittman stated
that the county has statutory authority to assess property at the highest and best use. The county
almost always assesses property at the existing use and wouldn't change until the property was
actually re-developed.
• To get a sense of density,the Stonebay Lofts building is at 15 units per acre (60 units). This would
translate to 10 buildings of similar size on the Dumas property to accomplish 9 units per acre.
• Grittman commented that the city is well served to identify some mixed use development as the
Met Council looks favorably on mixed use areas. Mixed use could potentially be used in exchange
for the 1 in 10 acre requirement.
• McMillan stated she would not want to concentrate all of the high density on the Dumas property.
• The summary proposal to submit to the Met council will include the following:
o Development pattern and history
o Impracticality of extending sewer to remaining rural parcels
o Difficulties of promoting lakeshore density
o Environmental advantage of providing sewer to existing unsewered parcels in MUSA without
offset penalties
o Compliance with system statement numbers for density and housing count in new
development
o Willingness to provide density in appropriate locations (Dumas/James and Navarre, etc.)
• Murphy asked if there was anything that allows for expanding the MUSA. Grittman responded that
the Eisinger property would be a good consideration. Per Gaffron, the White Oak Circle
neighborhood would also be an option because it was developed prior to 1985 and without
alternate septic sites,the area would meet the criteria for not having to be part of the density
count.
3. Open Book vs. Local Board of Review
• Olson stated there was a brief discussion last year about considering a change to the Open Book .
process. If the city wants to pursue the Open Book process for 2011, it would be helpful to notify
residents at this year's Local Board of Appeal and Equalization.
• Council agreed to discuss further after the new City Administrator starts and that it may not be the
right time, politically,to make a change in the process for the Local Board of Review.
• The city has until December 1 to notify the county if they wish to change to the Open Book process.
• The Hennepin County Assessor has indicated that both formats have advantages.
• McMillan asked how the property assessments are coming in compared to prior years. Olson
indicated that there has been a decrease but not as much as last year. He will provide additional
information in the next Information Update.
4. Comments Regarding Information Updates
• None
Page 4 of 4