HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007 04-09 CCP Regular Session AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Apri19, 2007
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the public. The packet ring binder is located at
the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary.
1. City Council Discussion of Agenda Items and Questions
2. Set Date and Time of Joint Meeting With Charter Commission
3. Miscellaneous
4. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits
5. Adj ourn
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: Apri14, 2007
SUSJECT: Set Date and Time of Joint Meeting With Charter Commission
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council discuss setting a date and time for a joint meeting with the
Charter Commission.
If the Council wishes to meet with the Charter Commission on Monday, April 23, 2007, and
replace its Study Session, then I recommend that a Council Member make a motion at the
Apri19, 2007, Regulax Session to add the item Set Date and Time of Joint Meeting With
Charter Commission to the agenda under Council Consideration Items to formally set that
meeting date.
If the Council wishes to meet with the Charter Commission at another time or set a special
meeting date, then the Council should consider providing direction to City Staff to correspond
with the Charter Commission to arrange for a�ailable dates and then report back to the Council
for further consideration.
Background:
Charter Commission Chair Stan Leino corresponded with me on January 25, 2007, that the
Charter Commission was interested in meeting with the City Council prior to the Charter
Commission's Apri125th meeting. In response, I informed Mr. Leino of the regular Council
meeting dates in February, March, and April and inquired if one of the dates would work out
during the Study Session timeframe of 6:00 to 6:45 p.m.
As a follow-up to the January 25, 2007, discussion, I e-mailed Mr. Leino on April 2, 2007, to
inquire of the Charter Commission's desire to meet in joint session with the City Council. Chair
Leino indicated that Monday, Apri123, 2007, 6:00 to 6:45 p.m. would work out.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City of Brooklyn Center
Apri19, 2007 AGENDA
1. Informal Open Forum With City Council 6:45 p.m.
provides an opportunity for the public to address the Council on items which are not on the
agenda. Open Forum will be limited to 15 minutes, it is not televised, and it may not be used
to make personal attacks, to air personality grievances, to make political endorsements, or for
political campaign purposes. Council Members will not enter into a dialogue with citizens.
Questions from the Council will be for clarification only. Open Forum will not be used as a
time for problem solving or reacting to the comments made but, rather, for hearing the citizen
for informational purposes only.
2. Invocation 7 p.m.
—Father Ed Vella, The Catholic Church of St. Alphonsus
3. Call to Order Regular Business Meeting
—The City Council requests that attendees turn off cell phones and pagers during the meeting.
A copy of the full City Council packet is a�ailable to the public. The packet ring binder is
located at the fror�t of the Council Chambers by the Secretary.
4. Roll Call
5. Pledge of Allegiance
6. Council Report
7. Approval of Agenda and Consent Agenda
—The following items are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by
one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so
requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered at
the end of Council Consideration Items.
a. Approval of Minutes
1. March 26, 2007 Study Session
2. March 26, 2007 Regular Session
3. March 26, 2007 Work Session
b. Licenses
c. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Area Babe
Ruth Program in Support of the 2007 Summer Fun Squad and Youth Sports
Programs
d. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donations of the Brooklyn Center Lions
Club in Support of the Earle Brown Days Paxade and Senior Golf Tournament and
i the Entertainment in the Parks Program
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- Apri19, 2007
8. Presentations/Proclamations
a. Kathleen Carmody, Watershed Management Commission Member
—Crreat Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Event
b. Proclamations Relating to Earth Day and Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup
Event
1. Proclamation Declaring April 21-28, 2007, as the Great Shingle Creek
Watershed Cleanup Week
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt proclamation.
2. Proclamation Declaring Apri121, 2007, as Earth Day in Brooklyn Center
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt proclamation.
c. Proclamation Declaring Apri19, 2007, as North Metro Stars Day in the City of
Brooklyn Center
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt proclamation.
9. Public Hearing
a. Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs and Delinquent
Weed Removal Costs
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to open the Public Hearing.
—Take public input.
—Motion to close the Public Hearing.
1. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs
for 5406 Logan Avenue North to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
2. Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal
Costs for 1201 57 Avenue to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
10. Planning Commission Items
None.
11. Council Consideration Items
a. Mayoral Appointment Financial Commission Member
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to ratify Mayoral nomination.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- Apri19, 2007
b. Resolution Supporting H.F. 1534 and S.F. 1046, the 1Vletro Need Local Government
Aid (LGA) Proposal that Targets Aid to Older and Fully Developed Metro Area
Cities, and Increases the LGA Appropriation to Assure the Viability of All LGA
Cities
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
c. Resolution Stating Opposition to Legislative Proposals that Remove or Change Cable
Television Authority of Local Government from Chapter 238 of Minnesota State
Law
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
d. Set Date and Time of City Council Work Session for Monday, April 16, 2007, at
6:00 p.m.
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to set date and time of City Council Work Session for Monday,
April 16, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in Council/Commission Conference Room,
Brooklyn Center City Hall.
e. Resolution Amending the City Council Code of Policies; Section 2.41 Capital
Improvements Fund and Infrastructure Construction Fund Expenditure Policy
•Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
f. An Ordinance Vacating an Easement Within Portions of Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 5,
Lakebreeze Addition, 4821 Twin Lake Avenue North
—This item was first read on February 26, 2007; published in the official newspaper
on March 8, 2007; and a Public Hearing was held on March 26, 2007, at which time
the ordinance was tabled to allow staff and the applicant to execute the replacement
easement.
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to table adoption of ordinance.
g. Resolution Cfianging Polling Location for Precinct 2
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
h. Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding a Contract, Improvement Project
2007-12, Storm Damage Repairs for Public Buildings
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -4- Apri19, 2007
act Im rovement Pro'ect Nos.
i. Resolution Accepting Bid and Awarding a Contr p
2007-05, 06, 07, and 08, Riverwood Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage, and
Utility Improvements
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
j. Resolution Accepting Bid and Authorizing the Purchase of One (1) 105-Foot 2000
GPM Aerial Pumper
•Requested Council Action:
—Motion to adopt resolution.
12. Adjournment
I
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
r
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
I
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Camille Worley, Deputy City Clerk
DATE: Apri19, 2007
SUBJECT: COiJNCILMEMBER O'CONNOR: Requested Change to Minutes
Councilmember O'Connor requested the following change to the Study Session minutes of
March 26, 2007:
Pa�e 2
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to increase the surcharge for failure to report
meter readings, while allowing for the appeal process
through a hearing officer.
(�i-1� indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
Councilmember O'Connor requested the following change to the Regular Session minutes of
March 26, 2007:
Pa�e 4
Councilmember O'Connor moved to reduce the assessment of 7124 Riverdale Road by $�999
$3,200, reflecting only street assessment charges for one unit.
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434
FAX (763) 569-3494
www. cityo fbrooklyncenter. org
1
G i S C� I�' ✓L
DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS
RESOLUTION STATING OPPOSITION TO CHANGE IN CABLE TELEVISION
AUTHORITY JOINT CABLE COMMISSION
Greg Moore, Executive Director of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission
discussed the proposed resolution and the requested action by the City Council.
Mr. Boganey indicated that the League of Minnesota Cities is not opposed to the proposed
resolution.
There was discussion on the proposed resolution and the proposed legislation.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to place the resolution on the next agenda.
REVISED WATER UTILITY SHUT-OFF POLICY
Mr. Boganey introduced the item and explained the current policy and the proposed revision to
the policy. He indicated that the proposed revision is to address those residents who are not
reporting meter readings, not for those residents who can not pay for the water bill.
There was discussion on why the policy was changed in the past and how the City should
proceed with the matter. It was indicated that an additional surcharge is currently being applied
to accounts who have not reported a water meter reading, however the fee could be increased to
gain attention of those residents who fail to report their meter readings.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM VVITH CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the 5tudy Session at
6:45 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
RECONVENE STUDY SESSION
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O' Connor seconded to reconvene the Study
Session at 6:51 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
The discussion continued on the Revised Water Utility Shut-Off Policy.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to increase the surchazge for failure to report
meter readings, t�e�n+;�,,,P j rit}t c 11t =p�F �]rnrP �i� ;na� while allowing for the appeal process
tl�rough a hearing officer.
Mr. Boganey indicated that he would return to the City Council with various options.
03/26/07 -2- DR.AFT
C� y S t n�-'G`� 'VL
9b. CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PRpJECT
NOS. 2007-OS AND 06, RIVERWOOD AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 7124 RIVERDALE RD, 7118
RIVERDALE RD, 7200 RIVERDALE RD, 7206 RIVERDALE RD AND 6842
WEST RIVER RD TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
1. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-48 AMENDING LEVY NOS. 16816 AND 16817
AND CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 2007-OS 06, RIVERWOOD AREA NEIGHBORHOOD
STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Mr. Boganey introduced the item and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom presented a PowerPoint presentation
summarizing the following: Background, City Council Code of Policies, 6842 West River Road,
7118 Riverdale Road, 7124 Riverdale Road, 7200 Riverdale Road, 7206 Riverdale Road, and
Recommended Council Action.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to open the Public
Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Eric Hjelmberg, 7124 Riverdale Road, stated he is satisfied with the proposal; however he does
not intend on subdividing the property. He stated objection to the indicated second access to his
properiy because there is no existing street included in the street project.
City �Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that typically the developer of the property would be
responsible for the costs associated with the street construction, if a street was to be constructed
for a second access to the property.
There was further discussion on the proposed assessment to 7124 Riverdale Road.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanunously.
Councilmember O'Connor moved to reduce the assessment of 7124 Riverdale Road by $3�00,
reflecting only street assessment charges for one unit.
Motion failed for lack of second.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-48 Amending Levy Nos. 16816 and 16817 and Certifying Special Assessments for
Improvement Project Nos. 2007-OS 06, R.iverwood Area Neighborhood Street and Storm
Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls.
Councilmember O' Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
03/26/07 -4- DRAFT
THE CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE PROCEED
INGS OF
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER 1N THE COUN
TY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
DY SESSION
STU
MARCH 26, 2007
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson
at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark
Yelich. Also present were City Manager Cnrt Boganey, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Todd Blomstrom, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
There was discussion on Item No. 7d. regaxding the removal of courtesy benches. Public Works
Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom indicated that the benches would be returned to the
original owners after removal.
There was discussion on Item No. 7c. City Manager Curt Boganey explained the purpose of the
proposed adjustment.
It was requested that Item No. 7c. be removed from the consent agenda and placed on the regular
agenda as Item No. l l d.
There was discussion on Item No. 9a. regarding the easement vacation. Mr. Boganey stated the
requested action is to hold the public hearing and table the adoption of the resolution.
MISCELLANEOUS
There was discussion on the LGA funding issue and if it should be supported by each Council
Member or supported by the City Council as a whole. Mr. Boganey indicated that both
individual and collective support is appropriate.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to reflect collective support by adoption of a
resolution. It was also indicated that each Council Member would express individual support if
they choose.
i
03/26/07 -1- DRAFT
DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS
RESOLUTION STATING OPPOSITION TO CHANGE IN CABLE TELEVISION
AUTHORTTY JOINT CABLE COMMISSION
Greg Moore, Executive Director of the Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission
discussed the proposed resolution and the requested action by the City Council.
Mr. Boganey indicated that the League of Minnesota Cities is not opposed to the proposed
resolution.
There was discussion on the proposed resolution and the proposed legislation.
It was the ma'ori consensus of the Ci Council to lace the resolution on the next a enda.
J �3' g
tY P
REVISED WATER UTILITY SHUT-OFF POLICY
Mr. Boganey introduced the item and explained the current policy and the proposed revision to
the policy. He indicated that the proposed revision is to address those residents who axe not
reporting meter readings, not for those residents who can not pay for the water bill.
There was discussion on why the policy was changed in the past and how the City should
proceed with the matter. It was indicated that an additional surcharge is currently being applied
to accounts who have not reported a water meter reading, however the fee could be increased to
gain attention of those residents who fail to report their meter readings.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Yelich moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Study Session at
6:45 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
RECONVENE STUDY SESSION
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to reconvene the Study
Session at 6:51 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
The discussion continued on the Revised Water Utility Shut-Off Policy.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to increase the surcharge for failure to report
meter readings, then continue with. shut-off proceedings while allowing for the appeal process
through a heaxing officer.
Mr. Boganey indicated that he would return to the City Council with various options.
03/26/07 -2- DR.AFT
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Ryan moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to close the Study Session
at 7:00 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
03/26/07 -3- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
MARCH 26, 2007
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1. INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
CALL TO ORDER INFORMAL OPEN FORUM,
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Informal Open Forum called to order by Mayor Tun
Willson at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark
Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Public Works Director%City Engineer
Todd Blomstrom, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie LeFevere,
and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
for the u ose of Informal Open Foru.m.
'llson o ened the meetin rp
Mayor Wi p g P
Mr. and Mrs. Heitke, 5418 Erving Avenue, inquired about rules regarding portable basketball
hoops and stated concern for basketball hoops that are being placed near the curbs where loud
noise, lights, and guns have been seen.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to �lose the Informal Open
Forum at 6:50 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
Mayor Willson offered a moment of silence as the Invocation.
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session called to order by Mayor Tim Willson
at 7:01 p
.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Tim Willson and Councilmembers Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan Ryan, and Mark
b 'c Works Director/City Engineer
Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Pu u
eFevere
Todd Blomstrom, Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Charlie L
i and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
I
03/26/07 -1- DRAFT
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmember Ryan reported attending the National League of Cities 2007 Congressional City
Conference March 10-14 in Washington, D.C. He reported that the conference provided
educational and networking opportunities along with established contact with elected
counterparts at the national level. He reported attending the Housing Commission meeting on
Ma.�ch 20.
Councilmember Lasman reported attending the Minnesota Department of Human R.ights
Regional meeting on March 20, which was very informative. She reported attending the National
Night Out and Crime Prevention meetings on March 21, where the awards ceremony and the
Crime Prevention Program sponsored Golf Tournament was discussed. She also reported
attending the Prayer Breakfast Committee meeting on March 20, and stated the Prayer Breakfast
will be held on Ma 12 2
y, 007, at the Earle Brown Heritage Center.
Councilmember Yelich stated he had nothing to report.
Councilmember O' Connor reported attending the Earle Brown Days Festival Committee meeting
and stated the festival will be June 21-23. She discussed the meeting and stated parade
applications are due by May 1.
Mayor Willson reported attending a Dangerous Dog Hearing on March 14. He also reported
attending the Riverwood Captains Watch meting on March 14. He reported attending iwo fourth
grade reading sessions at Evergreen Elementary on March 23.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to approve the Agenda and
Consent Agenda as amended, with the removal of Item No. 7c. from the Consent Agenda to
Council Consideration Item No. 11 d and the following consent items were approved:
7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. 1Vlarch 12, 2007 Study Session
2. March 12, 2007 Regular Session
3. March 12, 2007 Work Session
7b. LICENSES
SIGNHANGER
Amtech Lighting Services 6077 Lake Elmo Ave, Stillwater
Electro Neon Design 1680 99�' Lane NE, Blaine
Franz Reprographics 2781 Freeway Blvd, Brooklyn Center
Leroy Signs 6325 Welcome Ave N, Brooklyn Park
03/26/07 -2- DR.AFT
MECHA1vICAL
CO Carlson Air Cond Co 3449 2 Street N, Minneapolis
Dave's Heating Air 1601 37�' Ave NE, Columbia Heights
Harris Companies 909 Montreal Circle, St. Paul
LBP Mechanical 315 Royalston Ave N, Minneapolis
Quality Refrigeration 6237 Penn Ave So, #100, Richfield
RENTAL
Renewal
1300 72" Ave N Marinela Scott Selseth
7c. (FORMERLY CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 7D.) RESOLUTION NO.
2007-47 SETTING COURTESY BENCH INSPECTION AND PERMIT
FEES AND ESTABLISHING CORRIDORS PROHIBITING COURTESY
BENCHES FOR 2007-2008
Motion passed unanimously.
8. PRESENTATIONS
There were no presentations.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
9a. AN ORDIN•ANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT WITHIN PORTIONS OF LOT 4
AND LOT 5, BLOCK 5, LAKEBREEZE ADDITION, 4821 TWIN LAKE AVENUE
NORTH
City Manager Curt Boganey introduced the item and stated the purpose of the proposed
Ordinance. He stated the Ordinance should be tabled until the April 9, 2007, City Council
meeting when the proposed new easement will be available.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to open the Public
Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
No one wished to address the City Council.
Co
uncilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to close the Public
Hearing
Motion passed unanimously.
ved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to table the Ordinance
Councilmember O Connor mo
lock 5 L
akebreeze Addition, 4821
Vacating an Easement Within P
ortions of Lot 4 and Lot 5, B
Twin Lake Avenue North until Apri19, 2007.
imousl
Motion assed unan
P y
03/26/07 -3- DRAFT
9b. CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
NOS. 2007-OS AND 06, RIVERWOOD AREA NEIGHBORHOOD STREET AND
STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS FOR 7124 RIVERDALE RD, 7118
RIVERDALE RD, 7200 RIVERDALE RD, 7206 RIVERDALE RD AND 6842
WEST RIVER RD TO THE HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
L RESOLUTION NO. 2007-48 AMENDING LEVY NOS. 16816 AND 16817
AND CERTIFYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT NOS. 2007-OS 06, RIVERWOOD AREA NEIGHBORHOOD
STREET AND STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
Mr. Boganey introduced the item and stated the purpose of the proposed resolution.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Todd Blomstrom presented a PowerPoint presentation
suinmarizing the following: Background, City Council Code of Policies, 6842 West River Road,
7118 Riverdale Road, 7T24 R.iverdale Road, 7200 Riverdale Road, 7206 Riverdale Road, and
Recommended Council Action.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to open the Public
Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Eric Hjelmberg, 7124 Riverdale Road, stated he is satisfied with the proposal; however he does
not intend on subdividing the properiy. He stated objection to the indicated second access to his
property because there is no existing street included in the street project.
City Attorney Charlie LeFevere explained that typically the developer of the property would be
responsible for the costs associated with the street construction, if a street was to be constructed
for a second access to the property.
There was further discussion on the proposed assessment to 7124 Riverdale Road.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember O'Connor moved to reduce the assessment of 7124 Riverdale Road by $3,000,
reflecting only street assessment charges for one unit.
Motion failed far lack of second.
Councilmember �,asman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-48 Amending Levy Nos. 16816 and 16817 and Certifying Special Assessments for
Improvement Project Nos. 2007-OS 06, Riverwood Area Neighborhood Street and Storm
Drainage Improvements to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls.
assed.
Councilmember O Connor voted against the same. Motion p
03/26/07 -4- DR.AFT
10. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS
10a. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2007-002 SUBMITTED BY
BRETT HILDRETH. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO
SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY AT 5421 LYNDALE AVENUE NORTH AND
ALSO COMBINE SURPLUS HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY TO CREATE
THREE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS. THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT
ITS MARCH 15, 2007, MEETING.
Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren introduced the item and explained that along with
approval of Planning Commission Application Nos. 2007-002 and 2007-003, several conditions
were recommended by the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded approval of Planniiig
Commission Application No. 2007-002 subject to the following conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission:
1. The final plat is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject fo the provisions of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances.
3. Approval of this application is contingent upon approval of the lot width variance request
under Planning Commission Application No. 2007-003.
4. Prior to final plat approval, all encroachments into or over proposed lot lines shall be
removed and verified. The driveway encroachment over Lot 3 can continue provided an
appropriate cross access easement as approved by tlie City Attorney, is filed with the titles to
the properties at Hennepin County along with the final plat.
5. No building permits shall be issued for new dwellings until the plat has been given final
approval by the City Council and filed with Hennepin County.
Motion passed unanimously.
lOb. PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICATION NO. 2007-003 SUBMITTED BY
BRETT HILDRETH. REQUEST FOR A VARI.ANCE TO CREATE A SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT IN THE R-2 ZONING DISTRICT THAT IS LESS
THAN 60 FT. IN WIDTH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED
APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT ITS MARCH 15, 2007, MEETING
Councilmember O' Connor moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded approval of Planning
Commission Application No. 2007-003 subjecf to the following conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission:
1. The sta.ndards for a variance contained in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances are met.
2. The precedent of providing two of the three lot requirements (depth and area) is met in this
case.
3. No setback deficiencies will result from the proposed subdivision.
4. The proposal is considered reasonable and creates no unorthodox arrangements.
5. The proposal is not considered detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties.
6. To not grant the variance would be considered depriving the applicant of the reasonable use
of his land.
03/26/07 -5- DRAFT
Motion passed unanimously.
lOc. PLANNING COMIVIISSION APPLICATION NO. 2007-004 SUBMITTED BY
MEER, LLC. REQUEST FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE AND
BUILDING PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL SCHOOL
BUS GARAGE BUILDING AT 4435 68 AVENUE NORTH. THE PLANNING
COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION AT
ITS MARCH 15, 2007, MEETING.
Planning and Zoning Specialist Ron Warren introduced Planning Commission Application No.
2007-004 submitted by MEER, LLC requesting a Special Use Permit and Site and Building Plan
approval to construct an additional school bus garage building at 4435 68 Avenue North. He
indicated that the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Commission
Application Na 2007-003 subject to 17 conditions.
There was a discussion on the application where traffic and storm water management was
discussed.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded approval of Planning
Commission Application No. 2007-004 subject to the following conditions recommended by the
Planning Commission:
L The building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to
applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits.
2. Grading, drainage, utility and erosiori control plans are subject to review and approval by the
City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits.
3. A site performance agreement and supporting financia.l guarantee in an amount to be
determined based on cost estimates shall be submitted prior to the issuance of pertnits to
assure the completion of all site improvements.
4. Any outside trash disposal facilities and roof top or on ground mechanical equipment shall be
appropriately screened from view.
5. The building is to be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA
standards and sha�l be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5
of the City Ordinances.
6. An underground irrigation system shall be installed in all landscaped areas to facilitate site
maintenance.
7. Plan approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City
Ordinances.
8. B-612 curb and gutter shall be provided axound all parking and driving areas.
9. The applicant shall submit an as built survey of the property, improvements and utility
service lines to the City Engineering Department prior to the release of the performance
guaxantee.
10. All work performed and materials used for construction of the utilities shall conform to the
City of Brooklyn Center current standard specifications and details.
11. The plan shall be modified to provide:
a. concrete parking delineators/protectors along parking rows in the north parking axea.
b. Verification of existing landscaping on the landscape plan to provide a minimum of 425
landscape points per the Landscape Point System utilized by the Planning Commission
for evaluating landscape plans.
03/26/07 -6- DR.AFT
12. Appropriate erosion and sediment control devices shall be provided on site during
construction as approved by the City Engineering Department.
13. The applicant shall obtain and NPDES permit from the Minnesota PCA prior to disturbing
the'site.
14. The Special Use Permit is granted for the expansion of a school bus gaxage facility pursuant
to the City Zoning Ordinance and per the plans that have been approved.
15. The Special Use Permit is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations. Any
violation thereof could be grounds for revocation.
16. The property owner shall enter into an easement and agreement for maintenance and
inspection of utility and storm drainage systems prior to the issuance of building permits.
17. A proof of parking agreement acknowledges the need to install up to 306 parking spaces on
site shall be executed and filed with the title to the property prior to the issuance of permits.
Motion passed unanimously.
11. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
lla. RESOLUTION CONGRATULATING THE NORTH METRO STARS ON THEIR
PARTICIPATION IN THE MINNESOTA STATE HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE
STATE CLASS AA HOCKEY TOURNAMENT
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Yelich seconded to table the Resolution
Congratulating the North Metro Stars on Their Participation in the Minnesota State High School
League State Class AA Hockey Tournament until they are notified for attendance at the City
Council meeting to accept the resolution.
Motion passed unanimously.
llb. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 2O07 TO BE MINNESOTA
FOODSHARE MONTH
Mayor Willson read the Proclamation in its entirety.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt a Proclamation
Declaring March 2007 to be Minnesota FoodShare Month.
Motion passed unanimously.
llc. SET DATE AND TIME OF JOINT MEETING WITH BROOKLYN PARK CITY
COUNCIL FOR MONDAY, APRIL 30, 2007, AT 6:00 P.M.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to set date and time of joint
meeting with Brooklyn Park City Council for Monday, Apri130, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. in
Council/Commission Conference Room, Brooklyn Center City HaIL
Motion passed unanimously.
03/26/07 -7- DRAFT
lld. (FORMERLY CONSENT AGENDA ITEM NO. 7C.) RESOLUTION NO. 2007-49
APPROVING THE CONTRACT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR
SERVICES (LELS) LOCAL 86 AND THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER FOR
THE CALENDAR YEAR 2007
There was discussion on the proposed resolution where the number of Sergeants and Lieutenants
and distribution o� funds per month were discussed.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Ryan seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2007-49 Approving the Contract for Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Local 86
and the City of Brooklyn Center for the Calendar Year 2007.
Motion passed unanimously.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded adjournment of the
City Council meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
03/26/07 -8- DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
WORK SESSION
MARCH 26, 2007
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work Session called to
order by Mayor/President Tim Willson at 8:36 pm.
ROLL CALL
Mayor/President Tim Willson and Councilmembers/Commissioners Kay Lasman, Mary O'Connor, Dan
Ryan, and Mark Yelich. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, and Deputy City Clerk Camille
Worley.
COUNCIL SUGGESTED WORK SESSION ITEMS
Councilmember/Commissioner Yelich introduced a Resolution Modifying Language of Council Policy
Section 1.6 to Guide Ciry Staff on how to Incorporate Council Member Initiated Items into the Work
Session Agenda in an Orderly and Equitable Manner.
�There was discussion on the proposed resolution.
It was suggested that a five (5) minute presentation and 10 minute discussion be allowed per Council
Member and if more time is needed, the item be forwarded to a future Work Session.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to amend the proposed resolution, incorporating the above
suggestion.
City Manager Curt Boganey indicated that he would prepare amended language and place it on the next
Work Session agenda.
DEPARTMENT RESTRUCTURING PLAN
Mr. Boganey introduced the item and distributed additional information, illustrating the proposed changes.
He explained each proposed change including budget considerations.
There was discussion on the proposed changes where support was expressed.
MISCELLANEOUS
Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan alerted the City Council that the Housing Commission has expressed a
strong interest in looking at Point of Sale and issues af Code Enforcement, along with extending the
standards of rental properties.
03/26/07 -1- DRAFT
I
There was a discussion regarding the involvement of the Housing Commission with these issues.
Councilmember Ryan and Mr. Boganey were directed to draft language for Council review that could be
sent to the Housing Commission.
Mr. Boganey suggested that a special meeting dedicated to the I-694 Redevelopment Area Options Review
be scheduled for April 16, 2007.
The majority consensus of the City Council was to move forward with the suggested meeting. It was
requested that the meeting begin at 6:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember/Commissioner Lasman moved and Councilmember/Commissioner Ryan seconded
adjourrunent of the City CounciUEconomic Development Authority Work Session at 9:43 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
03/26/07 -2- DRAFT
r
City Council A.genda Item No. 7b
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: A ri14 2007
P
SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council approve the following list of licenses at its April 9, 2007,
meeting.
Background:
The following businesses/persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each business/person
has fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted
appropriate applications, and paid proper fees.
MECHANICAL
Air Corps LLC 3700 Annapolis Ln, Plymouth
Benck Mechanical, Inc. 628 230 Ave, Somerset, WI
Corporate Mechanical 5114 Hillsboro Ave, New Hope
Custom Refrigeration 664 Mendelssohn Ave N, Golden Valley
Excel Air S�stems 2075 Prosperity Road, Maplewood
Fireside Hearth Home 2700 Fairview Ave, Roseville
MOTOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIP
Brooicdale Ford 2500 Coun Road 10
tY
Brookdale Metro Mitsubishi 7235 Brooklyn Blvd
Brookdale Motors 6801 Brooklyn Blvd
RENTAL
Renewal
(There were no calls for service for the following)
3213 62" Ave N(Single Family) Rishiram Khaimraj
5322 72" Cir N(Single Family) Lenita Elon
5333 Brooklyn Blvd (Two Family, 1 Unit) Malyun Abdulle Ali
6109-11-13 Beard Ave N(Three Unit Townhome) James Bobbie Simons
6777 Humboldt Ave N(Single Family) Andrey Ryvlin
4700 Lakeview Ave N(Two Family, 1 Unit) Nancy bahlquist
5200 Drew Ave N(Single Family) Morris Matthews
1 5�' Degree Assault
10 LostlMissing Person
Initial
(There were no calls for service for the following)
2901 66 Ave N(Single Family) Amare Alemu
3224 67 Ave N(Single Family) Khaimraj Dasrath
5350 71 Circle (Single Family) Jamal LaChapelle
6343 Emerson Ave (Single Family) Michael Meyer
5737 Halifax Ave N(Single Family) Kendall Burke
6536 Orchard Ave N(Single Family) Doris Smith
4218 Winchester Lane (Single Family) Ronald Osborne
4904 Wingard Place (Single Family) Mercy Kilikpo
SIGNHANGER
Identigraphics 8660 Hwy 7, St. Bonifacious
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
i
City Council Agenda Item No. 7c
a.
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager j
FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities,
Recreation and Services
DATE: March 30, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn
Area Babe Ruth Program in Support of the 2007 Summer Fun Squad and
Youth Sports Programs
Recommendation: Staff recommends acceptance of this donation, and asks that it be
coded to the corresponding activity budget.
Background: The Brooklyn Area Babe Ruth Program has presented to the City a
donation of one thousand, five hundred dollars. ($1,500.00) They have designated that it
be used to support the 2007 Summer Fun Squad and Youth Sports Programs.
In total, 30 children participated in the 2006 Fun Squad program and another 255
participated in the Youth Sports program. We expect similar registration numbers for
2007.
Budget Issues: These revenues were not budgeted in the approved 2007 General Fund
budget. This generous donation will provide t-shirts for each of the program participants.
C: Fiscal Support Services
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE
BROOKLYN AREA BABE RUTH PROGRAM 1N SUPPORT OF THE 2007 SUMMER
FUN SQUAD AND YOUTH SPORTS PROGRAMS
Center Area Babe Ruth Pro am has resented to the City
EREAS the Brookl P
WH
Yn
and has desi nated
it be used to
e dred dollars $1 500.00 g
and fiv hun
ne thous
a donation of o
support the 2007 Sununer Fun Squad and Youth Sports programs, and
WHEREAS, the Ciiy Council is appreciative of this donation, and commends the
Brooklyn Area Babe Ruth Program for its civic efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
1. Acknowledges the donation with gratitude.
the corres ondin activi bud et.
ro riates the donation to tY g
2. A P g
pP P
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
Ci Clerk
t3'
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I�
City Council Agenda Item No. 7d
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities,
Recreation and Services
DATE: March 30, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donations of the Brooklyn
Center Lions Club in Support of the Earle Brown Days Parade and Senior
Golf Tournament and the Entertainment in the Parks Program
n: Staff recommends acce tance of these donations, and asks that they
Recommendatio p
be coded to the corresponding activity budgets.
Background: The Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City donations of
three thousand dollars, ($3,000.00) one thousand dollars, ($1,000.00) and three hundred
dollaxs. ($300.00) They have designated that they be used to support the Earle Brown
Days Parade, the Entertainment in the Parks Program and the Earle Brown Days Senior
Golf Tournament respectively.
As these activities are funded entirely through contributions, these donations will allow
for the continuation of these important events and programs.
Budget Issues: None noted
C: Fiscal Support Services
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATIONS OF THE
BROOKLYN CENTER LIONS CLUB 1N SUPPORT OF THE EARLE BROWN
DAYS PARADE AND SENIOR GOLF TOURNAMENT AND THE
ENTERTAlNMENT 1N THE PARKS PROGRAM
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Lions Club has presented to the City donations
of three thousand dollars, ($3,000.00) one thousand dollars, ($1,000.00) and three hundred dollars.
($300.00) and has designated that they be used to support the Earle Brown Days Parade, the
Entertainment in the Parks Program and the Earle Brown Days Senior Golf Tournament respectively;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of these donations, and commends the
Brooklyn Center Lions Club for its civic efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
l. Acknowledges the donations with gratitude.
2. Appropriates the donations to the corresponding activity budgets.
Anri19, 2007
Date Mayar
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereo£
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
City Council Agenda Item No. 8a
i
P
There are no materials for this item.
City Council Agenda Item No. 8b
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works 'f A�+
DATE: Apri12, 2007
SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring April 21-28, 2007 as the� Great Shingle Creek
Watershed Cleanup Week
Proclamation Declaring Apri121, 2007 as Earth Day in Brooklyn Center
Recommendation:
Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council consider adoption of
a proclamation declaring April 21-28, 2007 as the Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup
Week and a proclamation declaring Apri121, 2007 as Earth Day in Brooklyn Center.
Background:
Brooklyn Center and five other cities that make up the Shingle Creek Watershed will
celebrate Earth Day 2007 with the 6` annual "Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup".
Beginning Saturday, April 21st through Saturday, April 28` hundreds of volunteers from
Plymouth to the Mississippi River will line the banks of Shingle Creek, as well as city
parks, trails and streets, picking up everything from pop cans and auto parts to buiiding
materials and household appliances.
The "Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup" meets one of the public involvement and
participation reyuirements of the Federally mandated National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for Brooklyn Center. The event not only educates
persons that trash or other contaminants in the streets, parks, and shorelines eventually
end up in our lakes, rivers and streams but also provides opportunities for the public to
become involved in the protection of water quality. Watershed Commissioner Kathleen
Carmody is scheduled to give a brief presentation of the event at the regular session of
the Council on April 9th.
Many of the 33 groups affiliated with the Brooklyn Center Adopt-a-Park/Trail/Street
program will concentrate on a cleanup of their assigned sites during the week.
Information has aiso been distributed to all NeighborY�ood Watch Groups encouraging
v nt t e r. rou s and individuals not alread connected
them to participate m the e e his y a G p y
with a park, trail ar street will be assigned to a nearby park, creek, open space or parkway
to piek up trash and debris. On Saturday, April 21 st, Brooklyn Center City officials,
commissioners and employees will be distributing trash bags and cotton gloves as well as
coffee, juice and pastries at the Brooklyn Center Community Center to kick off the
offieial clean up. More than 300 volunteers are expected to participate in the week-long
event.
Counci! Resolution for Great Shengle Geek Watershed Cleanup and Earth Day
City af Brooklyn Center
The following proclamations are included for Council consideration:
Proclamation declaring April 21-28, 2007 as The Great Shingle Creek Watershed
Cleanup Week
Proclamation declaring April 21, 2007, as Earth Day in Brooklyn Center.
Budget Issues:
The Sons of the American Legion have indicated that they wish to provide a$200 monetary
contribution to cover the faod and beverage expenses for the Great Shingle Creek Watershed
event. Funding requirements for other event supplies is expected to be less than $150 and is
included in the 2007 Budget under the Public Works Park Division operating budget.
Council Resolution for Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup and Earth Day
Ciry of Brooklyn Center
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING APRIL 21-28, 2007
TO BE
THE GREAT SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED CLEANUP WEEK
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center is dedicated to preserving and protecting the water
resources in our watersheds; and
WHEREAS, litter and trash can be washed into our lakes, rivers, and streams, polluting the water
and clogging the City's storm water drainage system; and
WHEREAS, citizens can take an active rale in protecting water resources by picking up litter and
trash and keeping our streets parks, neighborhoods, and comrnunity clean; and
WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' annual
event "The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup" will take place April 21-28, 2007.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of
Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim:
1. Apri121-28, 2007 to be The Great Shingle Creek Watershed Cleanup Week.
2. The City Council hereby reaffirms its commitment to protecting and preserving our water
resources and encourages residents, businesses, and institutions to use The Great Shingle
Creek Watershed Cleanup Week 2007 to help prevent water pollution and preserve our
watersheds by participating in a Cleanup Event or by using this tirne to pick up trash and
clean up our homes, businesses, streets, neighborhoods, and community.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING APRIL 21, 2007 EARTH DAY IN BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, a sound natural environment is the foundation of a health society and a robust economy;
and
Vt�HEREAS, lacal communities can do much to reverse environmental degradation and contribute to
building a healthy society by addressing such issues as energy use, waste prevention, and sustainable
practices; and
WHEREAS, Earth Day 2007 offers an unprecedented opportunity to commit to building a healthy
planet and flourishing communities.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of
Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Council, do hereby proclaim;
1. Apri121, 2007 is Earth Day in Brooklyn Center.
2. The City of Brooklyn Center commits itself to undertaking programs and projects that
enhance the community's natural environment.
3. The City Council hereby reaffirms its commitment and encourages residents, businesses, and
institutions to use Earth Day 2007 to celebrate the Earth and to commit to building a
sustainable society by initiating or expanding existing programs which improve energy
efficiency, reduce or prevent waste, and promote recycling.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Council Agenda Item No. 8c
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk �a'l�
DATE: April 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Proclamation Declaring April 9, 2007, as North Metro Stars Day in the City of
Brooklyn Center
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council consider adoption of Proclamation Declaring Apri19, 2007,
as North Metro Stars Day in the City of Brooklyn Center.
Background:
At its March 12, 2007, Work Session the City Council discussed the accomplishments of the
North Metro Stars and directed Staff to compose a proclamation recognizing the achievement of
the North Metro Stars for their participation in the Minnesota State High School League State
Class AA hockey tournament.
Bud et Issues:
g
There are no budget issues to consider.
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING APRIL 9, 2007, AS NORTH METRO STARS DAY IN THE
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center takes great pride in providing first-class athletic
facilities, natural amenities and promoting a wide variety of recreational
opportunities; and
EREAS the Brookl n Center communi has a stron tradition of outstanding youth
WH y tY g
activities, programs and associations, that promote teamwork, competition and
personal development; and
rtuni to artici ate in the s ort o irls hockey
in the
WHEREAS, in order to ensure an oppo iy p p P .f g
r m the Ci o Brookl n
a ue hi h schools o y
Mannesota State Hagh School Le g, g .f tY .f
Center and the neighboring communities of Brooklyn Park, Columbia Heights,
Fridley and Osseo together formed a cooperative team so named the North Metro
Stars; and
WHEREAS, in the spirit of cooperation and hard work, players representing five different
high schools overcame rivalries, earned each other's trust and formed a common
bond promoting team before self,• and
WHEREAS, the North Metro Stars girls hockey team, proudly represented the City of
Brooklyn Center and their home communities with good sportsnzanship, hard
work and teamwork while placing second in the Minnesota State High School
League State Class AA hockey tournament; and
WHEREAS, on behalf of a community equally proud of their determination, sportsmanship,
team spirit and accomplishments.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, AS MAYOR OF
THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER, State of
hereb
Minnesota, with the consent and support of the Brooklyn Center City Councrl, do y
congratulate the North Metro Stars and coaches on a successful season.
Ap�il9, 2007
Date Mayor
Council Members
City Council Agenda Item No. 9a
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
DATE: Apri12, 2007
SUBJECT: Public Hearings on Proposed Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal
Costs and Delinquent Weed Removal Costs
Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs
for 1201 57 Avenue North to the Hennepin County Tax Rolls
Resolution Certifying Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs for
5406 Logan Avenue to the Hennepin County Tax rolls
Recommendation:
Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council conduct the continued public
hearings and approve the attached resolutions amending Levy No. 16811 for Diseased Tree Removal
Costs and Levy No. 16812 for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs to include two of three properties that
were previously removed from the levy rolls and certify the special assessments to the Hennepin County
Tax Rolls.
Background:
The City Council conducted public hearings on March 12, 2007 to consider certification of proposed
special assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs, Delinquent Weed Removal Costs, and Delinquent
Public Utility Service Accounts.
The proposed assessments for properties located at 1201 57` Avenue North and 4933 Brooklyn
Boulevard were removed from the Delinquent Weed Removal roll for further review and the properiy
located at 5406 Logan Avenue North was removed from the Diseased Tree Remova] roll far further
review.
Below is a summary of the findings for each property.
1. 4933 Brooklyn Boulevard
At the public hearing, the property owner indicated that the tall grass charges were incuned
by the previous property owner prior to the recent home sale in September 2006. Following
the Council meeting, the property owner contacted Stewart Title Company to discuss the
issue. Stewart Title Company has provided full payment to the City for the tall grass
changes. Tall grass charges for 4933 Brooklyn Boulevard are paid in full. No further
Council action is necessary for this property.
Special Assessment Hearings
2. 1201 57`" Avenue N r h
ot
At the Pubtic Hearing on March 12, 2007, Mr. Edward Doll requested that the City Council
rernove the proposed assessment for tall grass from the proposed special assessment roll far
further review by staff. Below is a summary of the tall grass issues that occurred at 1201
57`�' Avenue North during the 2006 growing season.
First Violation: The City's Inspector marked the property for tall grass/weeds on May 9,
2006. A notification was sent to Mr. Doll on May 9, 2006. The property was re-inspected
on May 19, 2006 and the grass had been cut. The attaehed Photograph No. 1 provides
documentation of the property condition of May 9, 2006.
Seeond Violation: 'The property was marked again for tall grass/weeds on June 7, 2006. A
$100 inspection fee was included in the notice. The attached Photograph No. 2 provides
documentation of the praperty condition on June 7, 2006. The property was inspected on
June 17, 2006 and the grass had been cut. Invoice #4558 was issued to the property owner
on June 6, 2006 for the inspection fee of $100. Upon receipt of the invoice the property
owner called the Public Works Depariment objecting to the charges. The property owner
indicated thaf the property was cut the day after it was marked and insisted it was not 8-
inches in height. After a lengthy discussion, staff agreed to void the invoice. The property
owner was advised that if the grass exceeded 8-inches in height at any time during the
remainder of the summer another notice would be sent and a$100 inspection fee would be
charged.
Third Violation: On August 24, 2006 the City Weed inspector again marked the property
for tall grass/weeds and a$100 inspection fee was included in the notice. The attached
Photograph No. 3 provides documentation of the praperty condition on August 24, 2006.
The property was inspected on September 04, 2006 and the grass was cut. Invoice #4770
was issued to the property owner on September 14, 2006 for the inspection fee of $100 and
as of this date, na payment has been made.
Assessment Calculation for Tall Grass/Weeds
In the event the city must send another notice at any time during the remaining season, a
$100 inspection service charge is added to the notice and an invoice for the charge is issued
to the property owner. Property owners are advised they will be charged a$30 special
assessment fee (per property), and a$10 capitalized interest charge if the inspection service
charge is not paid.
The proposed special assessment for 1201 57 Avenue North is $130.Q0, consisting of a$100.00
inspectian fee and a$30.00 assessment certification charge.
Special Assessment Hearings
3. 5406 Logan Avenue North
On July 12, 2006 a diseased elm tree was marked for removal at 5406 Logan Avenue.
Information was mailed to inform the property owner that City Ordinances relative to the
detection and control of tree diseases, Section 20-310 through Section 20-900 required the
removal of the tree. The tree was removed from the property on Septernber 1, 2006.
The property owner, William Talmadge, attended the public hearing for special assessments on
March 12, 2007. Mr. Talmadge requested that the City Council remove the proposed assessrnent
for his property from the assessment roll for further consideration by the Council. Mr. Talmadge
indicated that three other diseased trees were previously removed from his property by the City.
He stated that the tree removed from his property in 2006 was infected by Dutch Elm disease due
to the City's failure to sever roots during previous tree removal work on his property.
The City of Braoklyn Center removed the following trees from the property located at 5406
Logan Avenue North in response to the identification of tree disease conditions.
Year Size Removal Cost Comnletion Date Contractor
1989 18.8" $220.00 8/24/89 Northwood Ca
1993 21.3" $922.63 11/03/93 Outside Servies
1995 l 6.8" $319.00 10/20/95 Arbor Tree Service
Public Works staff contacted the Minnesota Department of Agriculture to request an independent
option regarding the probability that the tree removed in 2006 was infected by the trees that were
previously removed from the property after approximately 10 years or more. The Minnesota
Department of Agriculture recommended that the City contact the foilowing two sources: Mark
Stennes, Plant Pathologist with S& S Tree Service; and the. University of Minnesota Forestry
Resources Service. The following information was collected based �n the recommendation of
the Departrnent of Agriculture.
Mark Stennes, Plant Patholoeist and Board Certified Arborist: Mr. Stennes indicated that a 2Q06
Dutch Elm tree infection could not be derived by root grafting from other diseased trees that
were removed over 10 years ago. Mr. Stennes stated that the fungus that propagates Dutch Elm
disease does not stay dormant in the surrounding soil or roots of removed trees or within newly
infected elm trees for over I O years before manifesting in tree dieback. Mr. Stennes offered to
provide written testimony on a consulting basis to the City Council at their request.
Universitv of Minnesota Forestrv Resources Service: The U of M representative indicated that
11 years is the extreme limit of root transmission of disease for Oak trees and that elm trees have
a shorter window of time to allow propagation of disease from the root systems of removed
trees. The representative further stated that the tree would likely not have experienced budding
(leaf growth) in the spring or would have quickly dropped all of its leaves early in the spring if
Dutch Elm was transmitted to the tree by the root system. He indicated that Dutch Etm disease
that starts in the upper canopy and proceeds downward after early spring is typical of overland
transmission. Staff informed the U of M representative that the tree infection was first identified
on July 12`" in the upper canopy of the tree. The U of M representative indicated that root
transmission of the disease from an adjacent tree removed more than 10 years prior seemed to be
"very unlikely", especially if the leaf loss appeared in mid-summer.
The ro osed s ecial assessment for 5406 Lo an Avenue North is $1,204.88, consisting of the tree
P P P g
removal cost of $],144.88 and a$60.00 special assessment certification change.
Special Assessment Hearings
Conclusions and Budget Issues
1201 57' Avenue North:
The City incurs a significant cost for administrative work to address tall grass and weed camplaints from
Brooklyn Center residents. City costs include staff inspections, sending notices, follow-up inspections,
vehicle costs, coardinating the mowing contractor, and administering special assessments. For most
cases, the $100 fee does not cover the entire cost incurred by the city. In this case, the City has incurred
more than $100 in administrative costs to address the failure to prevent weeds and tall grass at 1201 57`
Avenue North. Staff recornmends that the City Council certify the inspection fee as a special assessment
to Hennepin County.
5406 Loean Avenue North:
The City of Brooklyn Center has conducted the diseased tree program for many years in an attempt to
minimize the impact of Dutch Elm. The City highly prefers that property owners remove their own
diseased trees located within their private property.
In cases where a property owner is unwilling to remove their private trees infected with disease, the City
assists in the tree removal process byremoving the tree and grinding the stump to minimize the further
spread of tree disease to adjacent properties.
'The tree removal for 5406 Logan Avenue is not a case where a diseased elm tree located within the public
right-of-way or a City park had a root system that was grafted to the elm trees lvcated within Mr.
Talmadge's property. The property owner could have taken any additional steps in the past that he felt
were appropriate to manage the spread of tree disease to the remaining privately owned trees located
within his private property.
The City obtained two quotations for the 2006 tree removal at 5406 Logan Avenue. Both quotations were
provided to the property owner. After the property owner failed to select a preferred contractor, staff
proceeded to order the removal of the diseased tree by the lowest bid from Arbor Tree Service in the
amount of l, I44.88. Staff recommends that the City Council certify the special assessments for tree
removal charges.
Special Assessment Hearings
w'
t 4. r Y� 1 1 i,n,, S� t
+F I .f.
,�;c� 1 o
T`.:
s' A' t'
;y
'j
'y K
a .+�C 7 4
41� 1 y AYe� 1.. s '�'f` tf y` ♦�t'�� t
,w,_ h .,y`
�c� =i ry {r
7 x L� .j�� s
f „p ri ��.d �,.y,z'�. �c}� R
�Y' ir
i j E+ �c. jj T+, a��
i[ arF+ y
7`�
-e�.
e
..�n, x
t C>..
u
.f.. s,.' 1
h i.- i��
f
.f"�v�d c i
1
R
i k" T �}ti• 'n� i r^` ct�+� i' t
ti.,�.�, R a� J :,r" i 7 r ��'M•-
A n, j�, r-. o- '�r;�,'
'.3 �y .c r
�r
�yG, '�'"X'y�'n,�
1 y r
`k°` t K q} �i��� �tf �E�+k���� E M� tp_! t
'.fi' c 1''� e'1 'f •y.A I �i �t j?t'��i� .��?`.l�+_`,+A� �t lr+�
AY- �',4b a f�� '4�..' F 'je' i� 1' �k '�9� ,t y t.`.'f y� S A �:w. v
`L l f 1 ry 1 1 V���b '1 i
k 3. I f +1 T Y IK Y i s i S++ r� �,r
p;C �rr� {�i'� g� R,.,��'�¢;� '�ti� i r�� �+��SS s w ti b
F�, Y p r r• Q��� .9
r
h J� r r �t t t� r7L.
�3.. l��0� `e 1 �y'"� 1ilk" a� :j '`�'�`',r T X Y y �T ,.1b. ,;:,at...
k'�!� 'd�a i t b. y 't r n'�.��1'��{ +F t� s Y l +y r 'A ���i�
s '/F�� `rt r s o tC� i A !t �i+ yr `a.
'�w �_'n y rS�, �r:>.^�� s a. 1 1 �'i �tyt Y.��•, �';a:�
4 m ,�A �w q•'�✓ �4 �,��Iie� �4 ,r ;R:,�t��E���'�
r �C`, p 3 ti .'sk (f� t t�'fi !i`
�J ;a .7; Y t- yy,,,, Si +►i t g 4
J 4 :;�.�f t .y�� �YY+i"�!� 7P0 .�i;�.�'�' Y`R, *f f�
�',1yE��' f i'ii t 'j� ?h,
T�� >'9 g,�. a l x
't'�i'Cl''� r #iG' L _sil*!' ���1�. a
Photograph No. 1
1201 57� Avenue North
Tall Grass Inspection May 9, 2006
,�?F'ai d r ti i
a, rb �fi `�.�p y t 3
j
t k7 Y G�'
y �qk� 1J '4�tR w hF r `U"
)Lf� i_� �1'�
r k
`��s �'X �xr s' �t'
1y f
.;Ys t f
t
4 i
y
i3 .s �a- r
r k
tiM�.
���e r�,��
Y s 4 i. .�`w., C
f
9 u�-
T K i
S
�'��y��� i 4
Y� a �'J x' Ze
i
I .r i i
„w.,.+
r.
�j
1
s 1 t
y f hrt���_ ��i' A'
t
1� •'i�. Ql J!�� y
�i y
4 F A,
y
i; r 7Q
-0' �`J V' p
F: Y,!
A�w j i .�Y', t
f: r t .��1. 4 �'a i e r. F
4 e "S� �'�r�} ��r�i r.. y� r` '!,�'�.1� i x y
p c j34,{I r �r �f t a. /`t'<r i iA t 1 i� t'` ,ti'�' r1' �l�(( i 1 a i i
t '9� rk 6 t� r, 1 r :�T t
7F fi i e�' n 1✓,�R.S��*' �`3�'.q�i� �Cti�� �,'k�� `t�p�2� aa4+;� �i,� ;a x A,
l_ "!t'
ti A 1 F}.' ,�s i �„r�,f,�'u r
�p�� .���r. �j.�'T' t�� ���1
;y,. 7 �f tt .i,+1�.4'}^� r.;�
Z V�� y �'t �E K
a= i"""�
w.
r
A
s.�
,r M1
°r
.E II�
.-r:
.3- s
ry 1
��•i;L�r h ;r�
ti
4 b
�1ur���< t-�
y Ix r��
3i��
Photograph No. 2
1201 57 Avenue North
Tall Grass Inspection June 7, 2006
e¢ ?i�, r 1 T
l. S 1
�1 a r t j Y r
S �:t�''S �"�}�V
a V` k 4s �e. av
�ra ,Z, s 1C
a, �w� w' i
t
.t` a. A r,•
�ea r �y w w 9 J
W ��j� p
ra '�I;'
.1 R� `Il 9 i Y i� r, y� f
n !r �11r 4�.
n� y a:�.;- �f
i k�• 9� s Y ^a� d
r, .r: �z a� r
sz'k t t� t r�►,9r
ti y
�i '�I 1�-�
C� 4: i� 9 1 t
'w +rv f ya I �s
i b'+Nr.t� t�w•�
t r
e
r i:
:N 1' tii Fe
a.
L p 1
rp,.=..... l L�
l �k,,'
L
4; t t
4 F��. nr -ytFr
�1 i �1} 1 ir
p ,Yi� t� °J .'3 1 y
r'
E j_'�, r
_�4"�1' p
�'�K��.
:-:t... �a �.c. 2:�`�.. +i r. .�i,
i �y� �t t �'r' c
�-f �oos
g .5 y y
.J �'L_-� "y�� �F 'i, F �"j r4'
y�" I
t �-r
_r �..yW: l f�:.'� r t 't1y e�� j.� 3.. b, y g
�C
1
1
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
August 24, 2006
Mr. Wiltiam Talmadge
5406 Logan Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Subject: Notice to Abate Nuisance
PID 02-118-21-44-0025
Dear Mr. Talmadge:
The City of Brooklyn Center recently received your Diseased Tree Removal Agreement
form dated August 22, 2006. Based on our previous communication, I understand that you
believe the City should be liable for the tree removal cost due to previous occurrences of
Dutch Elm Disease an your property. Nevertheless, the tree must be removed to avoid the
further spread of Dutch Elm Disease to other properties. The City will authorize Arbor
Tree Service to remove the tree and invoice you for the cost specified on the agreement
form if you do not remove the diseased tree by August 31, 2006.
If you choose to not pay the invoice, the tree removal cost and a certification fee will be
added to a proposed special assessment levy for your property. The City will provide you
with written notification of your opportunity for a special assessment hearing before the
City Council. City staff will also provide you with information describing the process to
appeal or object to a proposed special assessment.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Todd A. Blomstrom, P.E.
Director of Public Works City Engineer
Attachment
cc: Curt Boganey, Interim City Manager
Charles LeFevere, City Attorney
6301 Shingle Creeh Parkway Recreation a.nd Community Center Phone T�D Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (76�) 569-3400
City Ha1l TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (?63) 569-3434
FAX (763) 569-3494
cvurzu.cit��ofbrooklvncenter.or�
August 1, 2006
City of Brooklyn Center
Attn: Joyce Guiseth
Fax No.: 763-569-3494
Re: 02-118-21-44-0025
5406 Logan Ave North
Tree No. 108
Dear Ms. Guiseth:
At this time I have not heard a reply back from you. Based on the fact that the
city contractor that took my other three trees down previously not take
reasonable, prudent and necessary steps to break the root grafts between these
trees, I am concluding that the city agrees with my assessment and will handle
the fourth tree at city expense. If evidence can be provided to me that the
appropriate steps were taken to disrupt the root grafts between these closely
positioned trees on my driveway at the above indicated address, I will reconsider
having an attorney send a summons and complaint to the city. {n fact, I am
requesting all documentation pertaining to what the city contractor did in regard
to the three other trees that were taken down as it relates to disruption of root
grafts. Failure to provide this requested information will be deemed to be further
evidence that the city of Brooklyn Center's tree contraetor did not properly take
down my first three trees as it relates to the spread of Dutch-elm disease for
trees as close together as these three trees were.
I wilt await your immediate reply and forwarding of the requested information.
Sincerely,
Bill Talmadge, CPCU, ARC
5406 Logan Ave North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Office: (952) 896-6619
952 855 664C AIUED INSURANCE 05 08 39 p rn D8-30-2006 1 i1
August 30, 2006
City of Brooklyn Center
Attn: Joyce Gulseth
Fax (763) 569-3494
Re: Property at 5406 Lagan Ave North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Ms. Guiseth:
I am in receipt of your recent cor�espondence pertaining to the three other frees f
had removed by the cih�'s contractor. The figures you have ineluded seem
awfully low for two of the trees in particular. These were ali full grown trees and
approximately 40-50 years old. I wouid appreciate you confirming that the
amounts fiar all three of the prior trees that were taken down.
I will await }rour reply.
Thank you,
Mr. Talmadge, 5406 Logan Ave North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
(�s�.�.�.F., r�r,�, a:� 3� q� P m� �13;/��
I a, S- l�l�i 9 3.� a�° C-m�z�
�'.��t �r�-u� �e, a� C� 9 a�'�
6301 Shingl� Creak Parkway
BROOSLYIV a�klyn Ccnter, Minnesota 55430-2199
CENTER 763-569-3340 Fa�c 763-561-0955
�I3,ll Y1L. �`I ��1. .L.ii.i
Date: August 28, 2406 Frnm: Joyre Gulseth
Ta: Willia►n Talmadge Phone: 763-569-3327
Company:
FAX: 952-896-664U No. of Pages: 1(inetuding thts sheet)
The fotiowing trees have been removed from your property at 5406 Logan Avenue North:
Year Slze Removat Cost CompleNon Date Contractar
1989 l$.$" $220.00 8/24/89 Nortbwaod Company
1993 21.3" $922.63 11/03/93 Outside Services
149� 16.8" $319.OQ 10/20/95 Arbor Design Tree Service
The cost of remov�l for each of these tree: was assessed tu your property taxes.
If you 6ave any further questians, my phone number is 763-569-3327.
Joyee Gulseth
City of Broaklyn Center
If� xIl psgts sren't received or if you've received this fax in err�r, plca►sc cnIl scniier at 763-SG9-3340. The
'tnformaaon contnined in this mrssage is for the uuended use of the person to whom it is sent and m�ay be
eonf'idet�tial in nature. ltny dis�cminarion, distrzbution ar copying of the attached mcsxagc is strictly prohibited
without reccivcr's canstnt,
TOTAL P.01
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
August 17, 2006
William Patricia Talmadge
5406 Logan Avenue North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear William and Patricia:
Enclosed are quates obtained from Arbor Design Tree Service, Inc. and S& S Tree And
Horticultural Specialists for the removal of a diseased elm tree from your property at 5406 Logan
Avenue in Brooklyn Center.
Also enelosed are two copies of a"Notice to Abate Nuisance and 3hade Tree Removal" for each of
the quotes provided by the two companies.
After reviewing this information and selecting one of the proposals, please do the following:
1. CHECK THE APPROPRIATE OPTION ON THE ENCLOSED AGREEMENT.
2. RETURN ONE SIGNED AND COMPLETED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY OF
BR�OKLYN CENTER, ATTN: ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430. Retain one copy of the agreement far yoursel£
If you do not return an agreement form to us within seven days, the City will proceed to remove the
tree from your property at the cost of the lower quote provided by Arbor Design Tree Service.
If you have any questions, please call the City Tree Program at 763-569-3495.
Sincerely,
Todd A. Blomstrom, P.E.
Director of Public Works
Enclosures
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 (763) 569-3400
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569-3300 FAX (763) 569-3434
FAX (?63) 569-3494
tntnu-.ct.t��ofhrook?��nceriter.org
Notice to Abate Nuisance and Diseased Tree Removal Agreement
City of Brooklyn Genter Date 8/1?/06
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway PTD 02-118-21-44-0025
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Address 5406 LOGAN AVE N
Telephone 569-3495
This is to inform you that the property identified above has been found to have a tree(s) or
stump(s) classified as a public nuisance in accordance with Gity Ordinances. If you are not the
owner or manager of this property, please advise us immediately. The following are the
tree(s) and stump(s) sa identified, and the cost of removal.
BOULEVARD REMOVE
TREE NO. VARIETY SIZE OR PRIVATE STUMP COST
108 ELM 299 PRNATE REMOVE $1,144.88
INSTRUCTIONS: Check the option, and sign below.
�ptlOri 1: I authorize Arbor Design Tree Service, Inc. to remove the specified tree(s)/stump(s), and I�� n Q
understand I will be invoiced for the price listed above after the removal is camplete.
��tlOri 2: I suthorize Arbor Design Tree Service, Inc. to remove the specified tree(s)/stump(s), and I�
l� n
understand that the amount listed above plus additional fees will be a special assessment .on
my property taxes under the provisions�f Chapter 429, Minnesota Statutes.
3: X ey r' e cI15Gtl5 /o'h tcJ/ T�C�c� S/c�n ,t ��'�r^
P �y�'r!.
r�v1'►o Va `ft'e� $�ve`� p rl�? n $roe n l�e.���� f.�
I AM THE OWNER OF THE ABOVE DESCRIB�D PROPERTY, 44UTHORIZED TO BIND �'�o�ls►
SAID PROPERT AGREE TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED BY THE OPTION I HAVE
Y-r`�ee� f
SELECTED. I����� TO PAY THE SPECIFIED COSTS IF REMOVED BY THE CITY'S #/o�'�✓
CONTRACTOR, ACCORDING TO THE SPECIFICATIONS ON FILE AT THE CITY /9 Q3 /99�
ENGINEER'S OFFICE. I ACKNOWLEUGE RECEPT.OF THIS lYOTICE.
r
r �/�/o�
.�l
uthorized Me Date
qs�.�_��1v-��i9
Phone (day� Phone (night)
For Otfice Use Chdv:
Received Opt Ent Asmnt Pend Listlt
g �.�o(�
WII,LIAM PATRICIA TALMADGE
5406 LOGAN AVE N
BROOKLYN CENTER MN 55430
ARBOR DESIGN TREE SERVICE INC.
P.O. Box 290298 Brooklyn Center, MN 55429
VISA Phone: 763-560-0666 Fax: 763-561-9698 AMERICAN
E-mail: arbordesignincCaol.com E7�RE55
Don Lawrence, Owner
GENERAL CONTR.ACT and WORKING AGREEMENT
Date... V.. �....1.
We, The Arbor Design Tree Service, Inc., agree that we are fully insured and respansible for any damages due to our
negligence that might occur while working for you. All work will be paid for upon completion of wark unless otherwise
specified.
We agree to
.....................................�..0.�............5 t 1 L yb ...i0... ..�.h............._...
........�.....�,..0..�...-r _.........,.....�..L..�,,� �Q...r..�...... ...V...�...................
c�.�..�................�..�.�t....t....�.........
�...�..°�....-:,�:.--r....�.�.
.............................�-..1-�,.....�...�� .......�:::�;..�..�...�:,,..�,,..................1..�:ti..�...�;...,,...............�.�,:�...4....
...........1�..,.�...�,..�
...1..!^`�'...........V�,�..1..`-�::...................... �.'.............-k:..>...(�..
Narne ...1�.I.t�l ��'!'1. T �:l'�'1.�.� Total Amount af Contract ...�i..��...�. �:.UC�
Address �a.....�..�.a..�.��:.!� Tax
Telephone.....�.�.�..�.-��G."..C�.�QI...�.J Amount Due on Completion $....I.
Location ..;�.U. l_U fl��...Zip
�e........�............ v�i �I �i
Confirmation Date
F�reman Name
Address..................
}�e
erving FOr CC Number
ArQ Exp Date
er 50 1 Supervisor
v
Customer Signature
1-, �a� b �g�� TREE MAINTENANCE PROPOSAL
CUSTOMER SERVICE OWLIT! 8 1
�j r a SAFETY Yy d�e Ttee Gre IaAustry f�+�
�,��`�„l.�,1'� �a�.uoa HORTICULTURAL
SOCIETYJ`
www.sstree.com
Main Office 651-451-8907
South West Suburbs 952-888-4306
TREE AND HORTICULTURAL SPECIALISTS St Paul Suburbs 651-690-5248
SYLVESTER 3 SONS EStABUSHED 19�6 Mpis 8� Suburbs 612-872-3901
North 8 East Suburbs 651-738-9241
"Nobody Knows Trees Turf Better" North West Suburbs 763-559-9027
OFFICE HOURS: M-F 8:00 am 5:00 pm F� 651-451-1787
�tt}�.?�pS�� August 17, 2006
Sam Vetter Cu�M vET0o5 Job Name: Vetter D60817
53Q1 Shingle Creek Parkway Work Site: 54� Logan Ave No
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Brooklyn Center, MN
Proposal By: Steve Bursiie
Mobile 763l639-8651
Home 763/589-3380
Below are the prices for the care of your trees
item plant Service Description Cost
1 Eim (American) Removal �1595.00
Removal of large marked elm front yard. Piease make note
of squirelis nests in canopy. Please rope limbs over
undertying trees, homeowner does not vYant damage to
them. We wiil do the best be can to protect them. Debark
stump= n/c
SubtotaL• $1, 595. 00
Tax: $103.88
TotaL• $1, 698.86
Salesperson Recommendations:
(Aeria/ Bucket) -(COMPLETE HAULING OF ALL DEBRIS) -(Log loader)
S& S Tree arxi Horticutt��Specia�sts ties'minilny_m of 3 for tree work and E for treatment woMc.
k.
r t
P AR Tree Work is done i accordance wfth AN51A300 standards
v L
C.O.D., Visa, Masfef�ard or 4isEover� Ex iration Date
P
The following information was provided from Mr. Talmadge
i
July 17, 2006
City of Brooklyn Center
Attn; Joyce Gulseth
Fax No.: 763-569-3494
Re: 02-118-21-44-0025
5406 Logan Ave North
Tree No. 108
Dear Ms. Gulseth:
This will now make 4 diseased trees removed by the cify in the past 18 years. All
the trees in question were on the south side of our property, approximately 15-20
feet from each other, in a line, just to the immediate south of our driveway. In
reviewing the city of Brooklyn Center's brochure °How to Identify and Manage�
Dutch Elm Disease", page 15-16 discussed Disruption of root grafts. It states
as folfows: "Large elms within 25 to 50 feet of each other are likely to have
root grafts. Breaking root grafts between infected trees and adjacent
healthy trees is an important means to prevent movement of the fungus
into the heaith trees. Root grafts should also be disrupted between the
healthy tree adjacent to a diseased tree and the next healthy tree. !t may
even be desirable to sever grafts between very valuable trees before DED is
observed in the vicinity, as a proactive measure.
Root graft disruption should be completed before the infected trees are
removed. Otherwise, the transpirational pull from healthy trees will rapidly
draw in the cantents of diseased tree's root system when the vascular
tension on the root of the diseased tree is released by severing the stem".
Further, on page 12 at the bottom of the brochure, it states that "Root graft
spread of DED is a very significant cause of tree death in urban areas
where elms are closely spaced".
Joyce, I think it's reasonable to say that when the city of Brooklyn Center
co�rdinated the removal of the first three diseased trees, and because they were
not boulevard trees, they never did anything regarding the root system. They only
took the trees down to the level of the grass and thaYs it. These three trees wee
2
removed via special assessments to my property and coordinated by the city of
Brookiyn Center. The city of Brookiyn Center failed to properly and adequately
remove the three diseased trees. I have personaily and recentiy seen the
remainder of tree roots in the area of the three previously removed trees. Again
these trees were all 15-20 feet apart.
I am therefore requiring the city to remove tree 108 at city expense and not be
billed as an assessment to my property based on the failure of how the first #hree
trees were removed. This is all I am asking for. This is a reasonable request and
I am requesting this directly at this tim�e. I further think iYs reasonable to request
reimbursement for the costs that I wa assessed for the removal of the 2" and
3� diseased trees. However, if the city cooperates with me in this request, I witl
not pursue any efforts to obtain compe sation for the 2" and 3�' diseased trees.
We are long-time Brooklyn Center resid nts who maintain our property and take
pride of ownership in where we live. We xpect the city to step up to the plate
and do the right thing based on the failur s I have documented in the past.
Failure to comply will result in conciliatio court action against the city for the full
limits allowed in that venue or district cou action by our attorney:
Thank you for your cooperation.
Bill Talmadge, CPCU, ARC n
5406 Logan Ave North
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Office: (952) 896-6619
F—�6�2
s.
n Dutch Elm D�sease
and Its Cantroi
r 9
a
F i 3-" Y d
�i y s,........:.
e
Brian Olson
Piant �isease �ragnost�c�an Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Fact Sheets
are also availabie on our website at:
Sharon von Broembsen nttp://www.osuextra.com
E�ension Plant Pathologist
Tom Royer
Extension Entomologist FU1198� Tf8f1S11i1S310/1 b�/ B@@'�@S
Dutch elm disease (QED) is the most destructive shade �n tha United States the fungus can be spread from
tree disease in North America, and has become one of the diseased to healihy elms by two elm bark beetles: the Euro-
most widely known and destructive tree diseases in the woAd. Pean elm bark bestle {Scolytus multistriatus) and the nativs
AA speaes af elms native to North Amenca are susceptibie to elm bark beebe (Hylurgopinus rufipes) (Figure 3). TMe Euro-
DED, but it is most damaging to the Amencan elm. The Pean elm bark beetles are by far the more common vectors in
American elm was one of the most widely-planted shade trees ��ahoma because fhey are so highly compefitive, and thus
in the United States due to its unique vase-shaped growth they usually displace the native elm bartc beettas.
fonn and its ability to grow under a avida range of conditions. Like the DED fungus, the European elm bark beetle was
Dutch elm disease, as the name implies, was firsi de- �ntraduced into the U.S. from Europe. This beetle was fitst
scribed in the Nethertands in 1919. It spread rapidly in Europe reported near Baston, Massachusetts in 1909 and has s�read
and by 1934 was found in most European countnas. DED was over an even greater area than the disease iiself. The
first found in the United States in Ohio in 1930 and around the European eIm bartc beetle was first reported in Okfahoma in
port of New York in 1933. Okfahoma's first confirmed case ot
DED was found in 196f. The disease is common in the Attadcs made by the beetles are for either feeding or
eastem half of Oklahama and has been found as far west as breeding. BeeNes feed pnmarily in one to four year ok! twig
Woodward County. Controlling Dutch elm disease is very crotches of healthy elms. Feeding injury is most eommon in
difficult and is best achieved with a community-wide presgrarn, twig crotChes of the outer portions of the tree crown. Beetles
breed in dying or dead elm trees and logs with intact bark.
Healthy elm trees are readily attacked for feeding, but are
Cause and Symptoms rarely selected for breeding purposes.
Dutch elm disease is caused by the fungus Ophiostoma �e���ering larvae complete theirdevelopment in early
ulmi. The tungus invades and grows in the water-conducting spring and emerge from the wood as adults in late spring.
vessels oi elms, inducing fhe host tree to produce material Adutt elm bark beetlesfeed during the entire growing season
which, together with the fungus, plug the vessels and prevent of the elrn.
water uptake. This barrisr causes the tree to wilt and die. European etm bark beetle emergence begins in April and
Tha first evidence of DED is a wilting or `Ylagging" in one continues through October. Two to three generations can
r
o more of the upper branehes (Figure 1). Leaves on affected o�ur in Oklahoma, with the overwintering generation emerg-
branches tum dull green to yellow and curl, then become dry, �r►9 in �ate Apnl, the first generation emerging in June, and the
brittle and tum brovm. Some trees die several weeks after second generation emerging in late August to eariy Septem-
becoming irifected, while others wilt slowl and survive for a ber. Tha second generation is the lar est in terms of numbers
Y 9
year or more. Peeling the bark from wilted branch�s reveals but the overvvintenng and first generations are the most
light to dark brown streaks or blue to ra discoioration of the �mportarrt in disease transmission because their eme ence
9 Y �9
wood beneath the bark. tn cross section, this vascular �urs when elm trees are most susceptible ta the disease.
discoloration appears as abrown ring in the outer sapwood of Soon after adult elm bark beetles emerge, ihey search for
the wilting and dying branches (Figure 2). feeding and breeding sites. This activiry continues throughout
To posifivety Identify DED, specimens trom actively the entire growing season of the elm. Tremendous increases
wilting branches with definite vascular discoloration are �n the number of elm bark beetles ean occur in recently kiAed,
needed (the fungus cannot be isolated from dead, dried cut, or damaged elm tre2s.
branches). Branchsamplesfromtreesbelievedtobeinfected Reservoirs of the fungus develop irt brood gallenes
with DED should be about 1 inch in diameter and five to ten established in DED-infected wood. Adult beetles that emerge
inches long. Samples shoufd be taken to your local County from these gallenes will be carrying fungus spores inside and
E�dension Office, and thay wifl send them to the Piant Disease outside their bodies, and can introduce them into healthy elms
Diagnostie Laboratory. when they feed. In this way the DED fungus may be moved
4
Division of Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Oklahoma State University
i6>
r'
.4 �i
r w 1�1 t 3..
,rY
p
Figure 2. Varfation in vascular discolaration indicative ot
DED, healthy twig on right (courtesy American Phyto-
pathological Society).
Figure 1. EaHysymptom (fiagging) of Dutch Elm Disease. e�m material each year can suppress the disease to minor
propoKions within a community. Othercontrol techniques are
pruning o# ea�ly iMections, insecticide and fungicide app(ica-
long distances any time during the entire active period of the tions, and planting resistant vaneties of trees.
adult elm bark beetle.
The highest disease incidence results irom beetles that Sanitation
emerge and feed dunng spnng and early summec At this Sanitation includes early detection, isolation, removal,
time, the long vesseis of the spnngwood, which are respon- and disposal of all weakened, dying, and dead elm trees with
sible for conducting materials inside the tree, are open and intact bark. This practice removes elm bark beetle breeding
functioning. 5pores of the DED fungus introduced into these sites and sources of the DED fungus. Failure of sanitation will
springwood vessels are carried rapidly to other parts of the lead to higher beetle populations and more dead trees.
tree. Vessels produced later in the summer are shorter and Dead and dying elms need to be removed because a
smaller in diameter and restrict movement of the fungus. This section of an elm branch the size of a fireplace log, 22 1/2 by
may delay the death o1 the tree. 3 1/2 inches, can produce up to 1,800 beetles. Left to stand,
a complete tree could produce hundreds of thousands of
FUt1t�al TI'811SItlIS31011 TF1�OU9�1 ROOt beetles. If this tree were infeeted with the DED fungus, eaeh
ra fa'ft8 emerging beetle carrying fungal s�res could inoculate healthy
trees during feeding. However, eady detection and proper
Root grafts (roots naturally fused together) occur be- tree disposaf pravents beetles firom spreading the pathogen.
tween elms of the same speeies grawing near one another Sanitation, in addition to eliminating the beetle population,
(Figure 4). The prevalence of root grafts is influenced by the eliminates a potential reservoir for the pathogen.
proximity of the trees and soil conditions. The fungus spreads Proper disposal of eim matenal includes destruction of
from diseased to healthy trees through ihese grafts. The developing beetles and making the wood an unsuitable envi-
extent of spread through root grafts varies, but it is considered ronment for the elm bark beetle. This is the final important
to be important, especially where large infected trees are phase i� a successful sanitation program. Buming and
within 35 to 50 feet of healthy elms. burying are effective means of disposal, but are not productive
from a wood utilization standpoirrt. Chipping is a goad
C011tl'OI aftemative to buming or burying since chipped wood cannot
support beetle development. Never lose sight of the pnmary
the primary emphasis in a community-wide DED control concem of wood disposal—the prompt elimination of beetles
program is preventive action. The basic elements are: and beetle breeding materiaL
1. DETECTION. 7he systematic inspection of every elm in
a �o�cro� area ror me early Symptoms of �E�. prevention of Root Graft Spread
2. fSOLATION. The disruption oi root grafts between
infected and healihy trees. The DED fungus commonly spreads from infected elms
3. REMOVAL. The prompt elimination of all dead and dying to nearby healthy elms of the same species through naturally
elm material with intact bark from the control area. graSted root systems. This spread can be prevented by
4. DISPOSAL The destruetion (bum, bury, chip, ordebark) mechanically trenching in areas where root grafts are likely to
of elm matenal with tight bark. occur between infeeted and healthy elms. Root graft barriers
These sanitatian measures are the key to successful or trenches should completely encircle diseased trees when
management of the disease. Sanitation of dead and dying elms are present on all sides.
7602-2 y
��r.�-�.� �-�u-��
r
.�.�-r."`^`�"'`'�
"'W -+��"r r ��e' w7"
J r V$
.4� ���)i�"�' a �M��', r f
y
"�v i
i
r
y.
��I �.!!"J`
i J
t k
�yr
#4
I
,.+"Yr�.�. �K..,.? r..
.,,.,a,.'°�"".`.w+^'^ fi R i II I I
;`".�,q°.�3e�'�L" �'k�,'_� f
1 Figure 3. European Eim Bark Beetle (top) and Native Elm F�gure 4. Root graft between diseased and healthy etms
Bark Beetle (bottom). Both adults are about 1/8 inch long {courte�y American Phytopathologlcal Society).
i ��h-t (courtesy Dr. M.E. Ascerno).
f/`1
R trench, 36-40 inches deep, between diseased and Fungicides
healthy trees immediately disrupts root grafts between these
adjacent trees. A vibratory plow or mechanical trenching Infection of healthy elms by the DED fungus may be
machine is the easiest wayto trench, but its use may be limited prevented by fungicides which are labeled for this use. To be
in rocky soils or where underground utilities are present. After effective, these chemicals nesd to be injected directly into the
the trench is dug, refill it, and immediately remove the dis- tree. Fungicide injections are not recommended fortrees with
eased elm trees. more than five percent DED symptoms orfortrees infected via
root grafts. While fungicide injections have been effective in
Pruning Diseased Trees prot�t�ng �ai�abie healmy elms in communities with inten-
sive DED control programs, the injection process itsetf can
Early infections can be removed from elm trees b run- cause irrev r i
y p e s ble dama e to trees. Remember, sanitation is
in A minimum of 8-1
9
9 0 eet of streak-free wood no v
ascular the key to DED conttol.
discoloration) below obviously infected branches must be
removed. The entire circumference of the branch must be Resistant Varieties
examined to be certain that the fungus has been removed.
Afthough elm species vary greatly in their susceptibility to
Insecticides DED, none is immune. The Americart elrn, our most valuable
native elm tree, is one of the most severely affected. The
Another phase of the preventative program is control of Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) and the Chinese or lacebark elm
the elm bark beetles by spraying with a properly labeled (Ulmus parvifolia) are the most disease resistant of the elm
insecticide. A thoroughly applied spray will hopefully kill or species. Lacebark elm is a disease-resistant tree that is well
prevent beetle feeding, and thus prevent infection by the DED adapted to most of Ok{ahoma. Siberian elm is not recom-
fungus. A preventative spray approach to conirol the beetles mended as a shade tree because it is subject to winter injury,
includes treatment in late fall afterthe leaves have fallen. This elm leaf beetle attack, and it can support bark beetle popula-
helps control th� last brood of adults that would be entering the tions. The Urban and Sapporo Autumn Bold elms are disease
trees to lay eggs for overwintering. Also, a treatment in early rasistant hybrids which have been developed, but are not yet
spring before bud swell, (late March to early April if possible) widely available and do not have the size or growih form of the
will help kill emerging overwintenng aduft brood members that Amencan elm. Two American elms, `Valley Forge' and 'New
would likely feed on susceptible trees. One should consider Harmony', have promise as DED-resistant trees. These
following this treatment witt� another spray (mid-May to eaAy vaneties have shown resistance to the disease in the NE
I
June All bark surf
aces must be com Ietel
p y covered with United States; however, it is not known how these trees will
spray (especialty smaller branches and twigs in the crown) to perform in Oklahoma. These efms will not be availab�e at
prevent bark beetle feeding or breeding. To effectively reduce nurseries for saveral years.
bark beetle numbers, a thorough sanitation program shauld be
followed, common root systems disrupted, and insecticide
sprays utilized when needed.
7602-3
The Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Bringing the University to You!
The Cooperative Extension Service is the largest, It provides practical, probiem-oriented education
most successful informal educational organization in for peopie of all ages. It is designated to take the
the world. It is a nationwide system funded and knowledgeoftheuniversirytothosepersonswho
guided by a partnership of federal, state, and local do not or cannot participate in the formal class-
govemments that delivers information to help people room instruction of the university.
help themselves through the land-grant universiry
system. It utilizes research tram university, government,
and other sources to help people make their own
Extension carries out programs in the broad calega decisions.
ries of agriculture, natural resources and environ- �ore than a million volunteers help multiply the
ment; home economics; 4-H and other youth; and impact of the Extension professional staff.
communiry resource development. E�ctension staff
members live and work among the people they serve tt dispenses no funds to the public.
to help stimulate and educate Amer�cans to plan
ahead and cope with their problems. It is not a regulatory agency, but it does inform
pevple of regufations and of their options in
Some characterist�s of the Cooperative Extension meeting them.
system are:
Local programs are developed and carried out in
The federal, state, and local govemments coop- full recognition of national problems and goals.
eratively share in its financial support and pro- The Extension staff educates people through
gram direction.
personal contacts, meetings, demonstrations,
It is administered by the land-grant university as and ihe mass media.
designated by the state legislature through an
Extension director. Extension has the built-in flexibility to adjust its
programs and subject matter to meet new needs.
Extension programs are nonpolitical, objective, Activities shift from year to year as citizen groups
and based on factual information. and Extension workers clase to the problems
advise changes.
Oklahoma State Unrversity, in compHance wrth Title VI and VII of the Clvil Fights Art of 1984, Ezecutnre Order 77246 as amentletl, Title {X ot the Etlucation AmendmeMS of 1972. Ame�cans wrtr
DisabilHles Act ot 7990, and other tederal laws antl regulatbns, tloes not tllscnminate on the Dasis ot race, mlor, national orgin, sex, age, religlan. tlisab�lity, or status as a veterae in any o1 as
pol�des, pracl�ces or procedures. This Includes but is not limded to admissions, empbymerrt, tinancial a�U, antl etlucet�onal sernces.
Issued in f urtherance M Cooperatwe Extensbn work, acts of May 8 end June 30, 1914, in cooperation wdh the U.S. Department ot Agr�utture, Sam E. Cud, Dieector ot OMat�ma C000eratnre
EMension Service, Oklahoma State Unrversiry, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Thts publication is prirrted antl issued Ey Oklahoma State Unroersity as aulhorized bythe Dean of the Diviswn ot Aoricuttuea
Sdences and Nawral qesources and has Geen prepareif and� distritsuted at a cost of 20 cerns pe� oopy. 0304
7��-4
Dutch Elrn Disease Yage 1 oi 1
Root G rafts
Dutch elm disease also may be transmitted among adjacent trees by root grafts. Elm
trees that grow in ciose proximity may have roots that contact and form a biological
union with roots of adjacent trees. The graft is completely functional water, nutrients
and, unfortunately, the DED fungus can be transmitted through it. It is through grafted
roots that Ophiostoma ulmi can infect an elm tree without the European elm bark beetle
vector. Mature elms within 30 feet of each other are at greatest risk of root grafts.
Because Arnerican eim often has been planted in dense raws as a street tree, root graft
transmission can be very important in spreading the disease.
Trees infected through root grafts often wilt rapidly along the side where infection occurs,
with leaf flagging first showing on suckers and lower branches. However, symptoms can
be variable and include a more generalized yellowing. Root graft transmission also may
show delayed symptoms, with the tree dying the following spring. This often occurs when
root graft transmission takes place in late summer. Under these circumstances,
movement of the fungus and production of symptoms are slowed by decreasing tree
growth in late season,
i
htt ://www.ext.colostate.edu/ ubs/insect/05506.html 9/2/2006
P P
i
infection. The cycle is repeated when beetles ,I ',�r
seek out diseased and dying wood to breed in r
�ughout the growing season, completing two or 4� r
r
more generations per year. They have the potential ;�r At
to rapidly build up high populations.
�r
'a
Adult native eIm bark beetles tunnel into the bark on
�ny.h yys�''�, r .'h�
the lower stems of healthy elms to overwinter. In
r t�
spring they emerge to feed in the inner bark of elm �j•>
,n�r,,
branches and small stems before beginning their
breeding cycle. They repeat their life cycle as
previously described. They can transmit the DED
fungus to healthy trees during the construction of
overwintering sites in fall, or, more commonly,
during feeding in spring.
Once the DED fungus is introduced into the upper
crown of healthy elms by bark beetles, it slowly
moves downward, killing the branch as it goes.
Disease progression may occur rapidly, killing
the tree by the end of the growing season, or may
progress gradually over a period of two or more
years. It is also possible that the tree may recover.
The success and rate of progression wiChin the tree Y
nds on tree size, time and location of infection 1
y:
�e tree, climatic conditions, and response of the
r�
F
host tree. a
Figure 6. Where elms are closely spaced, the Dutch elm
Spread through grafted coots. Roots of the disease fungus may move down a row of trees thraugh
same or closely related tree species growing near grafted roocs. Removing trees without breaking rooc grafts
may not keep the fungus from moving into adjacent Erees.
each other often cross each other in the soil and �P�,oro �ounesy of Dr. Jose�h O'Brien, USDA Fores� Servire,
eventually fuse (become grafted) to each other. The sr. P�ur, MrvJ
DED fungus can move from infected trees to adja-
cent trees through these grafted roots. Infections 6
that occur through root grafts can spread very
rapidly throughout the tree, as the fungus is carried
upward in the sapstream. Root graft spread of
DED is a ver� si nificant cause of tree death in
urban areas where elms are closely spaced
(fi�ure 61.__
C%'
12 13
i
i
Managing Dutch Elm Disease
residues when burning or handling the treated wood.
Many cammunities have regulations on the removal
D is managed by interrupting the disease cycle. of diseased elms and storage of elm firewood; make
The most effective means of breaking the cycle is sure your activities comply with local regulations.
early and thorough sanitation to limit the population
of the insects that transmit the fungus from tree to Insecticides to kill insect vectors. In areas where
tree. Other useful means of affecting the disease the native elm bark beetle is the principal vector,
cycle include using insecticides to kill the insect sanitation may be augmented by applying a regis-
vector; breaking root grafts between trees, injecting tered insecticide to the lower stem of healthy elms
individual trees with fungieides to prevent or halt the in late summer to early fall (i.e., at the first sign of
fungus, pruning out early infections, and planting autumn leaf color change) to kill adult beetles as
DED tolerant or resistant elm cultivars or other tree they prepaze overwintering sites. In areas where the
species. smaller European elm bark beetle is common, spring
feeding in twig crotches can be prevented by
Sanitation to reduce insect vectors. Man
Y spraying the crowns of elm trees with a registered
communities have been able to maintain a healthy insecticide. However, this may not be a preferred
population of mature elms through a vigilant treatment method beeause of the difficulty in getting
program of identification and removal of diseased thorough coverage of all susceptible twig tissue, the
elms and systematic gruning of weakened, dying or risk of insecticide drift and exposure, and high
dead branches. Sanitation by prompt removal of expense. 'i
diseased trees or branches reduces breeding sites
for elm bark beetles and eliminates the source of Insecticide registrations and recommendations are
the DED fungus. To be completely effective in frequently updated, and may vary considerably
interrupting the spread of the disease by elm bark between states. Cooperative Extension Services at
�les, stems and branches of DED infected trees land grant colleges and certified arbvrists ate able to
st be de-barked, destroyed, or utilized before the provide current insecticide recommendations.
bark beetles emerge. During th�e growing season, l
removal should be completed within 2 to 3 weeks Disruption of raot grafts. Large elms within 25
of detection. During the dormant season, removal l' to 50 feet of each ather aze likely to have root grafts.
should be completed before April, when over- Breaking root grafts between infected trees and
wintering beetles may begin to emerge. i: adjacent healthy trees is an important means to
prevent movement of the fungus into the healthy
Wood from infected trees can be destroyed by trees. Root grafts should also be disrupted between
chipping, burning or burying. Wood may be the healthy tree adjacent to a diseased tree and the
retained for use as firewood or sawlogs if it is de- next healthy tree. It may even be desirable to sever
barked or covered from April 15'� to October 15'� grafts between very valuable trees before DED is
with 4 to 6 mil plastic. The edges of the cover must observed in the vicinity, as a proactive measure.
be buried or sealed to the ground. If it is impossible
to destroy all elm wood before the beetles emerge, i� Root graft disr�ption should be completed before the
the wood can be sprayed with a registered insecti- infected trees are removed. Otherwise the transpi-
cide until disposal is possible. If insecticides aze rational pull from healthy trees will rapidly draw in
used, consider potential exposure to chernical j the contents of diseased tree's root system when the
J
14 15
�--E v``�
y I��
='j� a e;:
I
vascular tension on the roots of the diseased tree is A;
eased by severing the stem. Root graft disruption I
n be accomplished by use of a vibratory plow or
any trenching machine equipped with the longest
blade available (preferably five feet long, but at least
three feet long). Biocidal soil fumigants may also be
used to kill root grafts if no other alternatives are
available. However, these chemieals are generally
restricted use pesticides and may only be applied by
professional pesticide applicators. In addition,
biocidal chemicals may not be effective if soil
temperatures are below 50 F. Figure 7. Macroinjection of fungicide into the root flare of an
elm tree.
Injecting elms with fungicide. Certain fungicides (Pho�o courtesy of Mark Siennes, certrfied nrborest, St. Paul, MN)
when properly injected, are effective in protecting
elm trees from infection via beetle transmission.
This treatment is expensive and must be repeated
every one to three seasons, thus it is appropriate only Harmful effects of fungicide injection have
for high value or historically important trees. The sometimes been reporfed and include occasianal
treatment itself also may pose risks to the health of leaf "scorching" or loss. Elms generally recover I
the tree. from this damage. Also, drilling injection holes
results in wounding which, if repeated annually,
In order to be effective, the fungicide must be may eventually result in signi�cant discoloration
present at adequate concentration at alt potential and decay. Following fungicide injection with
nts of infeetion. Thus the dosage and means of a flush of clean water can reduce damage to the
lication are critical to success. The injection of cambium. Some chemicals are able to protect
chemical into root flares in large volumes of water trees for up to three seasons, thus minimizing the
(macroinjection) provides thorough distribution of frequency of treatments.
chemical in the crown (figure 7). Microinjection
(injection of small volumes of concentrated Several fungicides are registered for injection to pre-
chemical) is aiso an option, although its efficacy vent DED infection. These chemicals vary in dura-
compared to macroinjection has not been thoroughly tion of protective effects, means of application, risk
researched. Preferably, injections should be done of damage to the tree, documentation of effective-
soon after the eartiest leaves have fully expanded, ness, and cost. Certified arborists or Cooperative
but may be done from then to the end of the growing Extension Services at land grant colleges are able
season. Label rates of concentration for chemical to provide current recommendations on product
application are updated to reflect the most recent availability and effectiveness.
findings on effectiveness; always follow the current
labeL
17
;h
Member introduced the following resolution and moved
its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING LEVY NO. 16812 AND CERTIFYING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR DELINQUENT WEED REMOVAL COSTS TO THE
HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS, Special Assessments for Delinquent Weed Removal Costs were certified
by the City Council on March 12, 2007, with the exceptiorr of one property located at 1241
57�' Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, it was the majority consensus of the City Council to remove the property
at 1201 57th Avenue North from the assessment list so that further review could take place; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received additional information with respect to the
proposed special assessment for diseased tree removal costs for 1201 57` Avenue North; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to proper notice duly given as required by law, the Council has
met and heard and passed upon all objections to the proposed amended Special Assessment Levy No.
16812.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. The following special assessment is hereby added to Levy No. 16812:
Address Levv 16812 PID#
1201 57` Avenue North $130.00 O1-118-21-32-0105
2. The special assessments as adopted and confirmed shall be payable with ad
valorem taxes in 2008, in one annual installment with interest thereon at six
(6) percent per annum and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from
May 1, 2007 through December 31, 2008.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the
certification of the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the
assessment, to the City Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is
paid on or before April 30, 2007. After Apri130, 2007, he or she may pay the
total special assessment, plus interest. Interest will accumulate from May l,
2007, through the date of payment. Such payment must be made by the
close-of-business November 29, 2007, or interest will be charged through
December 31 of the succeeding year.
RESOLUTION NO.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this
assessment to the County Auditor to be extended on the praper tax lists of the
county, and such assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same
manner as other municipal taxes.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the followin voted a ainst the same:
g g
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-51
ClTY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AMENDED SPECIRL ASSESSMENT CERTIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLL
APRIL 9, 2007
WEED DESTRUCTION 2006
UNICIPAL CODE N�. 22 Levy runs one (1) year
PROPERTY ASSESSED OWNER
LEVY PROPERTY Address Name
NO. IDENTIFfCATION NO. AMOUNT Legal Description
16812 �01-118-21-12-0033 $230.00 (60Q7 LYNDALE AVE N �ERROL EDWARDS
16812 �01-118-21-23-0019 $140.00 �5701 EMERSON AVE N �KEVIN SAUNDERS
16812 �01-118-21-23-0029 $140.00 �5743 EMERSON AVE N '�MARINA BONILLA
16812 �01-118-21-24-0023 $130.00 �5809 CQLFAX AVE N �VIGTOR PAMELA ALPACA
16812 �01-118-21-24-0032 $140.00 �5856 DUPONT AVE N �CHAD LEMM
16812 (01-118-21-24-Q066 $175.00 �816 57TH AVE N �RICKY WASHINGTQN
16812 �01-118-21-24-0072 $140.00 �5848 ALDRICH AVE N �PAUL SCULLY
16812 �01-118-21-31-0071 $130.00 �5535 COLFAX AVE N �JOEL HIMMEL
16812 �01-118-21-32-0067 $140.00 �5606 HUMBOLDT AVE N �GRANT THELEN 8� ANNA KfNZER
16812 �01-118-21-32-0090 $252.50 �5546 EMERSON AVE N �ROBERTA FLOYD
16$12 �01-118-21-32-0105 $140.00 �1201 57TH AVE N �EDWARD DOLL
16812 �01-118-21-33-Q121 $130.00 �5307 EMERSON AVE N �AIMEE ROYLE CHRISTdPHER FORD
16812 �01-118-21-34-0049 $175.00 �5447 BRYANT AVE N �FEDERAL NATIONAL MTGE ASSOC
16812 �01-118-21-43-0110 $297.50 �401 BELLVUE LA �KEVIN THOMAS
16812 �02-118-21-23-0009 $230.00 �5836 XERXES AVE N �JERRY MANOVICH
16812 �02-118-21-41-OQ02 $240.00 (5527 HUMBOLDT AVE N �TODD DIANNE VANSLYKE
16812 �02-118-21-41-0019 $130.00 (5606 IRVING AVE N �US BANK NATL ASSOC TRUSTEE
16812 �02-118-21-43-0060 $152.50 �5331 MORGAN AVE N �JACK BONIFACE
16812 �02-118-21-44-0022 $252.50 �5403 KNOX AVE N �JaVAlL BREWER SHANELL MEEHAN
16812 �02-11&21-44-0111 $130.00 �5350 JAMES AVE N �LOR PAO VUE
16812 �02-118-21-44-0118 $365.00 (5344 IRVING AVE N �TIMOTHY RICHMOND
16812 �03-118-21-13-0036 $197.50 �5821 EWING AVE N �DERRYL R�BERTA JENKINS
16812 �03-118-21-13-0039 $286.25 �5801 EWWG AVE N �CHRISTINA AKINOLA
16812 (03-118-21-21-0009 $275.00 �5913 ADMIRAL LANE �JOEL HANSON/ROSITA ACOSTA
16812 �03-118-21-21-0033 $152.50 �6007 PEARSON DR {JULIE TREML
16812 �03-118-21-21-0114 '$175.00 �41Q0 61ST AVE N WUILBERTH CIPRIANO
16812 �03-118-21-29-0132 $286.25 �3813 61ST AVE N AAATHA LAO
16812 �03-118-21-31-0062 $140A0 �5530 HAUFAX AVE N �TORY THELEN
16812 �03-118-21-43-0041 $767.50 �5406 SAILOR LA �DION BROWN
16812 �03-118-21-43-0048 $186.25 �5313 NORTHPORT DR �ERIC OLLESTAD
16812 �10-118-21-21-0055 $600.00 �4001 52ND AVE N �ROBERT HARTFIEL
16812 �10-118-21-32-0027 $252.50 �4746 LAKEVIEW AVE N �LEONARD MARTIN
16812 �10-118-21-32-0061 $488.75 �4806 TWIN LAKE AVE �ABDULKAREEM A-HAMEED
16812 �25-119-21-33-0015 $275.00 �1112 EMERSON LA �NATHANIEL DEBAR/CHRISTIANA MCCROWNSEY
16812 �25-119-21-33-0065 $141.25 �7001 FREMONT AVE N f THERESA MCNEIL
16812 (25-119-21-34-0007 $310.00 �800 69TH AVE N �MELBA EVANSON
16812 �25-119-21-34-0008 $197.50 (720 69TH AVE N �DAVID EVANSON
16812 �26-119-21-41-0039 $130.00 1701 72ND AVE N �AGUSTIN YESENIA VERGARA
16812 �26-119-21-43-0007 I $140.00 I6900 MORGAN AVE N �CARL OSTERLUND/DANNIELLE BRITTS
16812 �26-119-21-43-0040 $140.00 �7037 LOGAN AVE N �WALTER STILL
16812 �26-119-21-43-01Q5 $140.00 �6900 OLIVER AVE N �GENARO JESSICA VASQUEZ
16812 �27-119-21-31-0056 $487.50 f 7101 FRANCE AVE N �STHIANE NETTA SIPRASEUTH
16812 �27-119-21-32-0022 $353.75 �4501 WOODBINE LA �MONSURU AJASA
16812 �27-119-21-32-0093 $140.00 �7130 KYLE AVE N �BRETT CORBITT
6812 f 27-119-21-33-0100 $152.50 �6901 BROOKLYN BLVD �BROOKLYN CENTER LLC
16812 (28-119-21-44-0003 $140.00 �4806 69TH AVE N �MASON WHITE
16812 �28-119-21-44-0054 I $140.00 I6901 QUAIL AVE N IMARV{N STEVENSlOUVIA MILLER
16812 �33-119-21-11-0079 $140.00 �6701 QUAIL AVE N �JQNATHAN THOMAS
16812 �33-119-21-14-0002 $365.00 �6530 ORCHARD AVE N �CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS
RESOLUTION 2007-51
CITY OF BROOKLYN GENTER
AMENDED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFIED ASSESSMENT ROLL
APRIL 9, 2007
WEED DESTRUCTION 2006
UNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs one (1) year
PRQPERTY ASSESSED OWNER
LEVI' PROPERTY Address Name
NO. IDENTIFICATION NO. AMOUNT Legal Description
16812 �33-119-21-41-0012 $252.50 �4700 ELEANOR LA �EUZABETH BENNETT
16812 �33-119-21-41-0024 $376.25 �6442 ORCHARD AVE N �LUIS VILLANVEVA
16812 �33-119-21-41-0058 $241.25 �6342 PERRY AVE N �DAVID CAROLINE LEAVITT
16812 �34-119-21-12-0041 $186.25 �3701 69TH AVE N �JOANNE WERNER
16812 �34-119-21-13-0014 $208.75 �6606 CHOWEN AVE N �WILLIAM SUSAN SPENCE
16812 �34-119-21-13-0071 $175.00 �6518 CHOWEN AVE N (T J WACONIA
16812 �34-119-21-21-0015 $387.50 �6700 GRIMES AVE N �HOME LOAN CORP
16812 �34-119-21-42-0004 $130.00 �6325 BROOKLYN BLVD �EMMANUEL JEAN
16812 (34-119-21-43-0026 $152.50 �341? 62ND AVE N �MTGE ELECTRONIC REG SYS INC/SHADYLN COX
16812 �34-119-21-43-0036 $140.00 �3507 62ND AVE N �OVETTA MOORE
16812 �35-119-21-13-0006 $140.00 �2101 FREEWAY BLVD �1975 ROBERT STREET PARTNERS
16812 �36-119-21-12-0001 $365.00 IS OF 6858 WILLOW LANE �ZEV OMAN
16812 �36-119-21-12-0002 1 $130.00 �6856 WEST RIVER RD �ZEV OMAN
16812 �36-119-21-12-0038 $635.00 �EAST OF 701 69TH AVE N �DAVID EVANSON
16812 I36-119-21-24-0039 $275.00 �6606 DUPONT AVE N �RICHARD SANDRA OLDENBURG
16812 I36-119-21-31-0032 $140.00 �1001 65TH AVE N �LEE NARKA WUANTI
�TOTAL $14,995.00
I
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING LEVY NO. 16811 AND CERTIFYING SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS FOR DISEASED TREE REMOVAL COSTS TO THE HENNEPIN
COUNTY TAX ROLLS
WHEREAS, Special Assessments for Diseased Tree Removal Costs were certified by the
City Council on March 12, 2007, with the exception of one property located at 5406 Logan Avenue
North; and
WHEREAS, it was the majority consensus of the City Council to remove the property at
5406 Logan Avenue North from the assessment list so that further review could take place; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received additional information with respect to the
proposed special assessment for diseased tree removal costs for 5406 Logan Avenue North; and
WHEREAS ursuant to ro er notice dul iven as re uired b law the Council has met
,P P P Yg 9 Y
and heard and passed upon all obj ections to the proposed amended Special Assessment Levy No. 16811.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. The following special assessment for diseased tree removal is hereby added to Levy
No. 1 G81 L•
Address Lew #16811 PID#
5406 Logan Avenue North $1,204.88 02-118-21-44-0025
2. The special assessment as adopted and confirmed shall be payable in equal annual
installments with interest thereon at six (6) percent per annum, extending over a
period of five years. The first of the installments shall be payable with ad valorem
taxes in 2008, and shall bear interest on the entire assessment from May l, 2007
through December 31, 2008. To each subsequent installrnent when due shall be
added interest for one year on all unpaid installments.
3. The owner of any property so assessed may at any time prior to the certification of
the assessment to the County Auditor pay the whole of the assessment, to the City
Treasurer, without interest, if the entire assessment is paid on or before April 30,
200?. After April 30, 2007, he or she may pay the total special assessment, plus
interest. Interest will accumulate from May l, 2007, through the date of payment.
Such payment must be made by the close-of-business November 29, 2007, or interest
will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding year. If the owner wishes to
pay off the balance at some point in the future, such payment must be made before
November 15 or interest will be charged through December 31 of the succeeding
year.
RESOLUTION NO.
4. The City Clerk shall forthwith transmit a certified duplicate of this assessment to the
County Auditor to be extended on the proper tax lists of the county, and such
assessments shall be collected and paid over in the same manner as other municipal
taaces.
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoingxesolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
RESOLUTION N0. 2007-50
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
AMENDED SPECIAL ASSESSMENT CERTIFIED LEVY ROLL
APRIL 9, 2007
TREE REMOVAL 2006
�UNICIPAL CODE NO. 22 Levy runs five (5) years
I I PROPERTY ASSESSED I OWNER
LEVY I PROPERTY f Address I Name
NO. I IDENTIFICATION NO. I AMOUNT I Leqal Descnption I
16811 I01-118-21-24-Q063 I$2,083.50 15712 BRYANT AVE N ITENG THAO SHOUA VANG
16811 �01-118-21-31-0071 I$1,045.13 15535 COLFAX AVE N IJOEL HIMMEL
16811 �01-118-21-33-0018 $334.25 5309 GIRARD AVE N IJACK TINA NEVALA
16811 �02-118-21-14-0029 I$1,258.13 5815 JAMES AVE N JEFFREY 8 ANNETTE HANSON
16811 02-118-21-41-0032 I $912.00 (5525 IRVING AVE N RICHARD GORDON/ANNA NATYSIN
16811 02-118-21-41-0113 I$1,843.88 I5540 KNOX AVE N �ALAN KRISTINA CANEFF
16811 102-118-21-44-0025 I$1,204.88 I5406 LOGAN AVE N IWILLIAM PATRICIATALMADGE
1681 i �03-118-21-12-0019 $1,093.05 �6007 BROOKLYN BIVD �JOSEPHINE GUY PIERRE JR
16811 �03-118-21-21-0114 I$1,231.50 I4100 61ST AVE N IWUlLBERTH CIPRIANO
16811 �10-118-21-14-0040 I $453.44 14912 ABBOTT AVE N �ANDREW 8� ALISON PUST
16811 �27-119-21-31-0056 I$1,286.70 �7101 FRANCE AVE N ISTHIANE 8� NETTA StPRASEUTH
16811 �27-119-21-43-0101 I$1,122.87 �6913 PALMER LAK DR W �JOSEPH REEVES ALBERTHA KIAHON
16811 �33-119-21-11-0075 $3,255.00 �6725 QUAIL AVE N IANDREW MICHELLE HEETER
16811 �33-119-21-13-0039 $1,817.25 15231 WINCHESTER LA IJAMES SHERYL RANSOM
16811 �33-119-21-42-0077 $912.38 15306 ELEANOR LA IMARK CHERYL PETERSEN
16811 �33-119-21-43-0088 $468.00 15331 63RD AVE N �STACY CARLSON
16811 �34-119-21-33•0047 $1,977.00 I6231 LEE AVE N �RICKY GRANDSBERRY CHANTAE GILLS
16811 134-119-21-34-0043 I $2,829.Q0 �4206 62ND AVE N (TIMOTHY CARMELA WARREN
16811 �36-119-21-32-0050 f $1,870.50 I6400 GIRARD AVE N �JAMES BURTON 8� ANGELA WUENSCH
16811 �36-119-21-34-0039 I $1,109.03 �6138 DUPONT AVE N IDAVID DAHLGREN
I I I I
$28,107.49 f
i
City Council Agenda Item No. 10
No Planning Commission Items are scheduled for
this City Council meeting.
City Council Agenda Item No. lla
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, Gity Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson Cit Clerk
Y
DATE: April 3, 2007
SUBJECT: Mayoral Appointment Financial Commission Member
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council ratify the Mayoral nomination of Todd Boster, 7105
Riverdale Road, to the Financial Commission with term expiring December 31, 2008.
Background:
The Financial Commission is composed of a chairperson and six members. There are tl�ree
vacancies on the Commission.
11 and Communi Center and on the
Notice of vacancy on the Commission was posted at City Ha ty
City's web site and aired on Cable Channel 16 beginning January 3, 2006, and continues to air
since there are still vacancies. Announcement was made in several editions of the Brooklyn
Center Sun-Post in 2006 and in City Watch resident newsletter.
A letter was sent to those persons who previously had submitted an application for appointment
to a Brooklyn Center advisory commission informing them of the vacancy and requesting that
they call the City Clerk if they are interested in applying for the Commission. They were given
the choice of either submitting a new application or having their application previously
submitted considered. Notices were also sent to current advisory commission members.
Attached for City Council Members only is a copy of the application received:
Todd Boster 7105 Riverdale Road
A letter was sent to the applicant notifying him that .his application for appointment would be
considered at the April 9, 2007, City Council meeting.
As requested by the City Council, the City Advisory Commission Bylaws and City Council
Resolution Establishing the Financial Commission Duties and Responsibilities are not included
in the materials but can be found on the City's web site at www.citvofbrooklvncenter.or� and
clicking on Mayor/ Council/ Commissions/ Charter, then Advisory Commissions. The
membership roster is also available at this site or in the City Council Reference Book.
Other attachments include:
1) Memorandum from Mayor Willson indicating his nomination.
2) Procedures for filling commission vacancies adopted by the City Council on
March 27, 1995.
3) Geographical distribution of current members and applicants.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Councilmembers Lasman, O'Connor, Ryan, and Yelich
FROM: Tim Willson, Mayor
�,t�1-rt L-C:
DATE: Apri13, 2007
SUBJECT: Financial Commission Appointment
Recommendation:
I request ratification from Council Members for the nomination of Todd Boster, 7105 Riverdale
Road, to the Financial Commission with term expiring December 31, 2008.
Background:
The Financial Commission has three vacancies and an application was received from a resident
interested in serving on the Commission.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
j
I
City of Brooklyn Center
Procedures for Filling Commission/Task Force Vacancies
Adopted by Council3/27/95
The following process for filling commission/task force vacancies was approved by the City Council
at its March 27, 1995, meeting and incorporated into each City Advisory Commission resolution
defining duties and responsibilities:
Vacancies in the Commission shall be filled by Mayoral appointment with majority consent
of the City Council. The procedure for filling Commission vacancies is as follows:
l. Notices of vacancies shall be posted for 30 days before any official City
Council action is taken;
2. Vacancies shall be announced in the City's official newspaper;
3. Notices of vacancies shall be sent to all members of standing advisory
commissions;
4. Applications for Commission membership must be obtained in the City
Clerk's office and must be submitted in writing to the City Clerk;
5. The City Clerk shall forward copies of the applications to the Mayor and City
Council;
6. The Mayor shall identify and include the nominee's application form in the
City Council agenda materials for the City Council meeting at which the
nominee is presented; and
7. The City Council, by majority vote, may approve an appointment at the City
Council meeting at which the nominee is presented.
City of Brooklyn Center
1 mmission
Financia Co
Geographical Distribution
(Chairperson and Six Members)
Current Members
Apri13, 2007
Neighborhoods Current Members
Southeast Mark Nemec
Susan Shogren Smith
Northeast Todd Boster
Northwest Gene Maze
West Central
Central Rex Newman
Southwest
Three vacancies.
i
Ci Council A enda Item No. llb
�Y g
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
i
TO: Mayor Willson and Councilmembers Lasman, O'Connor, Ryan, and Yelich
FROM: Curt Boganey, City M
DATE: Apri13, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Supporfing H.F. 1534 and S.F. 1046, the Metro Need Local
Government Aid (LGA) Proposal that Targets Aid to Older and Fully Developed
Metro Area Cities, and Increases the LGA Appropriation to Assure the Viability
of All LGA Cities
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution Supporting H.F. 1534 and
S.F. 1046, the Metro Need Local Government Aid (LGA) Proposal that Targets Aid to Older and
Fully Developed Metro Area Cities, and Increases the LGA Appropriation to Assure the
Viability of All LGA Cities.
Background:
At the last study session the Council consensus was that our legislative officials should be
encouraged individually and collectively to support improvements to LGA funding for Cities.
Metro Cities has put forth a resolution to support the Metro Need LGA proposal through a
partnership effort with North Metro Mayors Association, Association of Small Cities, AFSCME,
and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul.
As a member of North Metro Mayors Association and Metro Cities, it would seem appropriate
that the City Council would endorse the enclosed resolution. While it is unlikely that the final
legislation adopted will reflect the language of the subject bills, these bills do reflect policies that
would provide the greatest benefit to Brooklyn Center.
Regardless of the final bill language, the key issue facing the Council is support of significant
improvements in the LGA program.
Budget Issues:
Approval of these bills would substantially improve future LGA funding for the City of
Brooklyn Center.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING H.F. 1534 AND S.F. 1046, THE METRO NEED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID (LGA) PROPOSAL THAT TARGETS AID TO OLDER
AND FULLY DEVELOPED METRO AREA CITIES, AND INCREASES THE LGA
APPROPRIATION TO ASSURE THE VIABILITY OF ALL LGA CITIES
WHEREAS, the Legislature adopted the current Local Government Aid (LGA) prograin
in 1993 to address rising property taxes, and to assure that cities across the state maintained the ability to
adequately provide public services for their citizens; and
WI�REAS, the Local Government Aid program was significantly modified during the
state's budget deficit in 2003 to help balance the state budget, resulting in significant losses in LGA for
cities across the state, and particularly to older and fully developed cities in the metropolitan area; and
WHEREAS, LGA aid cuts have been restored to many greater Minnesota cities, but not
to cities in the metropolitan area, resulting in significant LGA distributional disparities; and
WHEREAS, the LGA program recognizes, through the existence of supplemental aids,
that the formula does not fully address the needs of all cities; and
WHEREAS, many older and fully developed metro area cities have unique needs such as
aging infrastructure and housing stock, aging populations, and diminished city revenues, making it more
difficult to provide adequate levels of public service and
WHEREAS, the "Metro Need" supplemental aid proposal (HF 1534/SF 1046) would
i target aid, through the use of socio-economic criteria, to older and fully developed metro area cities
whose iieeds are not adequately addressed by the LGA formula; and
WHEREAS, the Metro Need supplemental aid also increased the LGA appropriation so
as to assure the viability of all LGA cities.
NOW, THEREFORE, �3E IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that the City of Brooklyn Center supports HF 1534/SF 1046, the Metro Need LGA
proposal that targets aid to older and fully developed metro area cities, and increases the LGA
appropriation to assure the viability of all LGA cities.
Abri19. 2007
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City Council Agenda Item No. 1lc
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Ma or Willson and Councilmembers Lasman, 0'Connor, Ryan, and Yelich
Y
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana
DATE: Apri13, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Stating Opposition to Legislative Proposals that Remove or Change
Cable Television Authority of Local Government from Chapter 238 of Minnesota
State Law
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution Stating Opposition to
Legislative Proposals that Remove or Change Cable Television Authority of Local Government
from Chapter 238 of Minnesota State Law.
Background:
Greg Moore, Executive Director of Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission,
attended the Maxch 26, 2007, City Council Work Session to discuss the proposed resolution and
answer Council questions. After review and discussion of the proposed resolution, the City
Council directed City Staff to place the resolution on the next Council agenda for consideration.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
Member introduced the following resolution and
moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION STATING OPPOSITION TO LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
THAT REMOVE OR CHANGE CABLE TELEVISION AUTHORITY OF
LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM CHAPTER 238 OF MINNESOTA STATE
LAW
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Brooklyn Center is the official
governing body elected to preserve and protect the best welfare and interest of the City and its
citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City of Brooklyn Center (herein "City"), in combination with its
neighboring communities and in conformance with Minnesota laws created a joint powers entity
in 1971 to serve on behalf of the City and its other member cities as a franchising authority for
cable services, which joint powers entity is known as Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications
Commission (herein "NWSCCC"); and
WHEREAS, the City understands that considerable effort has been made in the
State of Minnesota, and at a national level, to change asld alter the legislative authority of local
goverrunents rights with respect to continuing the right of local governmeilts to franchise cable
services, build-out requirements, public, educational, and governmental access channels and
funding and franchise fees; and
V�'HEREAS, many communities throughout the couzltry, including the City, have
zxpended substantial suins to negotiate franchises that ensure that local needs are inet, including
the development of local community programs and televised public meetings of community
interest and therefore, the City is concerned that proposals to eliminate franchising at the local
level would eliminate the ability of the City to:
Cablecast City meetings;
Replace aging cable television equipment;
Provide the award-winning local newscasts and community programming
covering our franchise area;
Offer public access facilities to allow citizens to produce local, community-
oriented and diverse programming services,
Ensure that all citizens of the con�ununity are offered access to cable television
regardless of their income status or location; and
WHEREAS, the City believes that all citizens and all areas of cities should have
the same access to cable service regardless of the economic condition of any of its citizens or the
economic condition of any of a city's neighborhoods, and cable services and community
programming need to be responsive to differing community interests and needs and local
RESOLUTION NO.
governments, i7ot state or federal agencies, axe in the best position to determine differing local
needs and interests; and
WHEREAS, the City disagrees with the claims of the telecom industry that they
should be allowed to provide video services to only the neighborhoods that they determine to be
desirable and that local franchising processes and community channels asZd other community
service requireinents are a burden for new providers; aiid
WHEREAS, Minnesota is recognized throughout the country for its leadership
because it is one of the few states with a state-wide cable franchising process established by the
Minnesota Cable Act, Chapter 238, providing uniform provisions and requirements applicable to
all pi:oviders of cable services that must be followed by local governments; and
WHEREAS, there is no significant evidence to suggest that tlie Minnesota
Legislatt�re needs to change the Minnesota law to accommodate the teleconununication
providers or others seelcing to provide competitive cable services inasmuch as it has not been
demonstrated that the existing law is a burden, if reasonably applied, to any form of new entrant,
including the telecommunication providers; and
WHEREAS, the City in conjunction with other members of the NWSCCC
st�enuously objects to any proposals or policy recommendations that may be made by legislative
committees or other special interest groups such as the telecom industry which would seek to
alfer provisions from Chapter 238 of Minnesota State Law changing local franchising authority.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Minnesota, that:
1. The City hereby vigorously opposes any state or federal legislation that wiil
reduce the right of local governments to approve and administer franchised cable
services; to charge reasonable franchise fees for the use of the ri�ht-of-way; to
establish benefit requirements including public, educational, and governmental
access channels, including funding, facilities, aizd equipment for sucl� channels;
and to require dedicated capacity or institutional networlc systems for educational
and governmental purposes.
2. The City respectfully requests �hat the Minnesota Legislature not remove or
change provisions of Chapter 238 related to local franchising of cable service in
Minnesota State Law.
3. The City pledges to work together with the Minnesota Legislature and other
interest groups to support policies if is believed will continue to protect the rights
available to the City.
4. The City will support efforts directed against legislative change to ensure that a11
i persons residing in the City will have unfettered access to all fornls of information
RESOLUTION NO.
resources in the broadest range of rights and interests to ensure that those that use
public rights-of-way and benefit from the tise of public rights-of-way are
continued to be obligated to provide compensation in the fonn of franchise fees,
public, educational, and governmental access funding, and other support services
as well as on�oing community needs requirements notwithstanding technological
changes ar advancements.
5. The City wiil submit this Resolution to the Minnesota Legislature and such other
persons as the City believes are in a position to affect legal changes relating to the
matters outlined herein.
Anri19, 2007
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereo£
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
�`r�r��s�s� �`���r� �a6�e Ccr�m��ri���° ��rn�is.�ia�
���o w���
�s�z�
��z��� s��s���
F��n�ry: l� ���}7
��JR� �����Y
��fiY C}F B�.�3t�:�.L`��'N �ENTER
�3�}I ���`iLE �REE� I"�tW�.
BR.C}C1K.�.Y� G�N`I'ER., h�N SS4�{�
�..E, R�st�i�on tc� �'[i�esc�� L,e�isla��ue R��a�cding ��.bie ��zvice Frar�ehi�ing
Dear B���ney:
���ve a�ch� draft Resolutit�n far yo� fit� place c�n t�e ag�nd� af ycr�z �ity Cc�tu�ci�
�i? h
�c� t�c��, as ��on as p€�ssibie. T"his Resolutic�n �s ir�te�cte� t� prc�v�de r�ppc�sitzor� tr� �ny
n
caI franchis�n aut�ority in h��inriess��a.
that wt�ld c�� e lo
•�e r� sa�
tegisla�� p�
frc�zn
th� st�zd oi�t af cahie
e c�t�cat
be����` th�t this l���siative session �nay b
�t �s r�ur
t�
the teleco�n indus�c°y has heavz}y lcsbbiec� va�iou� sta
1� '���.tion. I�ur%n,g past y Y
tegislatur�s �arou�c�ut �e cc3ur�3ry �c� alsc� Con�r�ss t� ��n�e �a�s �d ta c�ange lacal
fr�n�hi�� a.uthority a�€aci requir�me�s.
Iz� cs�rtier tc� en�ur� tha� y€�ur City, and all c�f the Cities cc�mprising �h� ���C+��,
cc
1ai�e�n in ��es�ta that w€�u1
d al��r
cuz�'en�
���.nar.�.� their c�nceern� regarding potential Ie��s d Resalu�icrn ac�c� t�d. and s���
ns
�t i� m
c�s� i�nn ortant ta have t�e aitach� F
c�t�l� la�, Cha��+�r 238,
�i��k to �'SG�� scr �re ca� pr��ide tl��em tio local �egislator�.
E�l�s� l�t us kr�t��v �hen you� �ity Council has adc��t�d this Resol��ra�, Kix�d1� fi�sh
u� with a�c�r�i:fied c:c�py of the Resc�luti�u. We �ili c€>ardir��te �vi� al� crf �h� cc�rrnmmua.-a.ities t�f th�
��C�C az�d ci�liv�� tl�� itesalufions t€� state legislatc�rs.
�f yc�u ha�� an� questions ��vitli regard to the R.�solu�c��, �l�.se do nc�� h�sitat� tc� gi,ve zane
a �al� at 7�63-533-8196:
Ver}r t;r�1y �our�,
Gregc�zy Ivttu�re
E�ecu�iv� I?ire�tc�r
I
rvs�t C'sal�en V ailey Maplc Grtr�� ?�Tew Hopt +()sseo Pl}•mauth Itobbinsdsle
�'at�k C
�toc>kktyz� f�rsir,r a B�oc�kt}�n at�
�ity Council Agenda Item No. 1ld
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Ma or Willson and Councilmember La n' Connor R an an
y s sma O y, d Yelich
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Mana
DATE: Apri13, 2007
SUBJECT: Set Date and Time of City Council Work Session for Monday, April 16, 2007, at
6:00 p.m.
Recommendation:
I would recommend setting Monday, April 16, 2007, at 6:00 p.m. as a City Council Work
Session to be held in the Council Chambers.
Background:
At its March 26, 2007, Work Session the City Council agreed setting Monday, April 16, 2007, at
6:00 p.m. as a City Council Work Session to review the I-694 redevelopment area options.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
I
City Council Agenda Item No. lle
i
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Willson and Councilmembers Lasman, O Connor, Ryan, and Yelich
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag�
DATE: April 3, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Amending the City Council Code of Policies; Section 2.41 Capital
Improvements Fund and Infrastructure Construction Fund Expenditure Policy
Recommendation:
I recommend that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution Amending the City Council
Code of Policies; Section 2.41 Capital Improvements Fund and Infrastructure Construction Fund
Expenditure Policy.
Background:
The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a planning document that presents a fifteen-year
overview of scheduled capital projects to address the City's goals for maintaining public
infrastructure. The City Council Code of Policies refers to the five year Capital Improvement
Program in Section 2.41 Capital Improvements Fund and Infrastructure Construction Fund
Expenditure Policy. To accurately reflect the fifteen year timeframe for the Capital
Improvement Program, a resolution amending the City Council Code of Policies has been drafted
for review and consideration by the City Council.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
I
i
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICIES;
SECTION 2.41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FiJND AND
INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION FUND EXPENDITURE POLICY
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2006, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2006-46
establishing a City Council Code of Policies; and
WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend Section 2.41 of its Code of
Policies to accurately reflect the timeframe for the Capital Improvement Program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota; that Section 2.41, Capital Improvements Fund and Infrastructure
Construction Fund Expenditure Policy, of the City Council Code of Policies be and hereby is
amended as follows:
5. Spending Limitation/Fund Balance Requirement
The objective as described �e in Section 1 and previously defined in City
Council Resolution No. 68-246 requires the capital improvements fund and
infrastructure construction fund to be a permanent source of funding for planned
major expenditures. As such, the following criteria is established to comply with
that intent:
1. Planned Expenditures: If the proposed capital expenditure is in excess of
$300,000, it must have been included in the €x�e fifteen-year Capital
Improvement Program for at least two years:
2. Additionally, the €x�e fifteen-year Capital Improvement Program must be
approved by the City Council at a public hearing on an annual basis.
Apri19. 2007
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
City Council Agenda Item No. 1lf
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
DATE: April 4, 2007
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Vacating an Easement within Portions of Lot 4 and Lot 5,
Block 5, Lakebreeze Addition, 4821 Twin Lake Avenue North
Recommendation:
Public Works staff recommends that the Brookl}nt Center City Council table
consideration of the proposed ordinance until the April 23, 2007 City Council meeting.
Background:
The City Council conducted a Public Hearing on March 26, 2007 to consider the vacation of
an existing easement located over the property at 4821 Twin Lake Avenue North. This
easement vacation would allow redevelopment of the site and construction of a twin home
building structure. The applicant is required to dedicate a new drainage and utility easement
over the existing sanitary sewer lacated within the property to allow access for operation and
maintenance activities in the future.
At this time, the applicant has not provided sufficient property title documents to the City
Attorney to allow completion of the new easement. Staff is recomrnending that the City
Council not proceed with the proposed easement vacation ordinance until the new easement
document is complete and acceptable to the City Attomey.
Easement Vacation Aetion 4821 Twin Lake Avenue
City of Brooklyn Genter
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 26th day of March, 2007, at 7 p.rn.
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway, to
consider an ordinance vacating a portion of easement within Lot 4 and Lot 5, Block 5, Lakebreeze
Addition, 4821 Twin Lake Avenue North.
Auxiliary aids for persons with disabilities are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please contact the City Clerk at 763-569-3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN EASEMENT WITHIN PORTIONS OF LOT 4
AND LOT 5, BLOCK 5, LAKEBREEZE ADDITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Easement as described in Subsections 1.1 is hereby vacated:
Subsection l.l. That part of easement recorded as Document No. 3290059,
Hennepin County:
Beginning at a point 12.50 feet west of the southeast corner of Lot 4, Block 5,
Lakebreeze Addition, thence westerly 21.17 feet along the south line of said
lot, thence northwesterly to a point that is 47.33 feet west of the northeast
corner thereof, thence easterly a distance of 22.23 feet along the north line of
said lot, thence southeasterly to the point of beginning; and
Beginning at a point 25 feet west of the soatheast corner of Lot 5, Block 5,
Lakebreeze Addition on the south line of said lot, thence 22.23 feet westerly
along said lot line, thence northerly to a point on the north line of the south
one-half of said lot and 46.25 feet westerly of the east line thereof, thence
easterly 15 feet along the north line of the south one-half of said lot, thence
southeasterly to the point of beginning;
Which lies North of a line 8 feet North of and parallel to the South line of
said Lot 4 and which lies South of the North line of the South Half of said
Lot 5.
Section 2. Notwithstanding the legal description provided above, it is the express
intent of the City not to vacate any street, utility,. drainage or walkway easements
located within the North one-half of Lot 5, Block 5 Lakebreeze Addition or within
the that portion of land lying South of a line located 8 feet north of and parallel to the
South line of Lot 4, Block 5, Lakebreeze Addition.
ORDINANCE NO.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective after adoption and thirty days following
its legal publication and after recording of a new 25 foot wide drainage and utility
easement over the alignment of the sanitary sewer located within portions of Lot 4
and Lot 5, Block 5, Lakebreeze Addition.
Adopted this day of 2007.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication
Effective Date
(Strikeouts indicate matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.j
OAH123 10/IIS�ALCfJNSTRUCTtON
AD [�ANCE SURVEYINC ENGINEERINC CO. LEGAL DESCRIP'[70N OF PART OF EXISTING EASEMEM TO BE VACATED:
5300 S. Hwy. No.101 Minnetonka. MN SS3d5 Phone (952)47479(d Fax f952) 47F9267
Tha� pnn of thc PoNowing dcscribed ryarcels�
suRVevFOa: GLOBAL CONSTRUCTION
Beginning al a puinl 12.50 PoeL west uf the southeast comer of Lu1 4, Bluck 5. Lakehrteze
AdJition, thence wes�edy 2�.1'I feet aiong �he south line of said bt, thrnce iwnhwaterly to a
SURVEYED: July, 200fi DRAFTED: July (2, 200R poinl Iha1 ic 47.33 ket west uf tLe nueheest coma them�f, thmce wstmly a distance of 2233
REV ISED: Decembtt 12, 2W6 to udd easement per doc. nu. 72R5377 feet along the nonh line of said Irn, thrnce wut6wsmrly m the �int of beginning; and
REV lSED: Jenuery 24. Z007 �o add exis�inp anA proposcd essemrn� deuription.
REV fSF.D: Februwry 6. 2(107 to prn�rose vx<xting all o( eristing easement on pro�erty and tteating Beginning et a puiM 25 feet west of the suutheast cumtt uf Lut 5. Biwk 5, Lakelmeze
new one at City's rcquesL Addition on �be south ii� otsaid lot, theMt 22.J3 feN wrsterly alonR uid fot firu thrnm
REVISED: Februnry 6, 2fN�7 to corteet ly�ro in Iegal u(vxexted easement, Somh.'rot Nort6 and to nonherly to a poin[ on the �wrth line of the south one-half of s»id lot m�d 46.25 fed westerly o(
providc c�ryry shuwing imly pn�.sat �o vxente and �o co.rect the kgxis to be vacx�rd�xnd pru�sed tfie eaz� line thercoC, Ihrnce nsterly I S fen aiong the north line uf �he wWh one-balf o(said
tu go w the Nunh line uf �he South Hal Ibf Lo� 5. lot, �hence southeuterly to the �qiM o( beginniog.
LF.GAL OESCRIPTION: which lies north u(a line 8 leet north of and parallel �u ehe Soulh line o( said La 4 and w6ich Iin
T6a� pan o( LM 4 lying Nohh of �he Suo�h X&e� �hem�f AND �he Souih half aFLut 5, Bluck 5, South of �he Nonh line of the SoutA HalCof said La 5.
I Irnne�in f'ouney. MinnesMx.
Ll'GAL DESCRiPT10N OF EXl571NG EASEMENT:
Beginning st e point 12.50 ke� west of �hdwuthcas� comer of Lot 4. Block 5. Lakebreeze
Addi�ion, tbrnce westerly 21.17 f t r�ong the south line of sxid bt, thence nonhwesrerly to x
piin� ihel is 47.33 ftt1 west of the nunMees� cumer �bertti(, ihmce tasterly a disronce uf 2233 feel
�long the 1rorth line o( sxid 1u1, thrnce southeasledy �o the poim of beyinning; and
Beginning at e puint 25 feet west uf tlx southeasl coma uf LW 5. Block S, LakeArceze Additiun uo
the south line of said lot, thence 22.33 (ee1 wes�ttly abng said la li� t6rnce northedy ro a poiM
un the nonh line of the suuth one-hei(of eaid lo� and Cfi.25 Ra westerly of the eest line tbereut, i
i
�hence caslerly I S fett along tlx north Iine of the souiM1 one-belf of said �01. �heoce southeasterly �o I
the �roint of beginning. ase o-
i 1 —e�oo— I
LEGAL DESCR[PTION OF PROPOSED EASEMENL i
Heginnin� a1 a point on the North linc vf �he Soulh IlalFof La 5. Block S. Lakebrer�e Addition, I I
aaid p�int being 46.25 feet westerly kom the nurtheas� coma uf seid South Heif end the point u(
lreginning uPa line Aereinefltt rc(ered lo as Line "A": Ihrnce suutheasterly al�mg seid Line "A" in a g' 1,,, nn�
sheighlline ro a point on w line A ftN nunh of end pxrallel m the south line of f id Lot 4 which lies A u[ L ne
29.93 feN westerly fmm, ec measured ak�ng sud parallel line, from the inlerseaion of said p�nllel 4 I��i l �n S E I
line with �he exs� line of said Lrn 4 nnd said Line "A" there terminxting; thena easterly niong suid yd
pnrxllel line to an intersecfiun with e line 25 feN mnthnslaly uf and psrallel ro said Line "A"; 1 t'. I f D4
�hecee mHlhwesterly az�d parallel with said Line "A" ro an inlersection with the north lioe of said N 89'01'27" W I s
S.wth Hrlf; �hrncr wateriy alung saiJ mMh line ro �he print uf Fcginning. I �--154.24-- y f 1 �e
T en.rn�.0
LIMITATIONS d NOTES: 1\ C m�� "i
i. Showing the Irngth xnd direaion o(boundxry lina o(the �bove legxl deamp�ion. The scqrc 1�
t LOl
1
uf wr services due� mA i�rclude de�ertninmg whM you uwn, which is e legel m�her. Pleoe check F
rc
the legal descriptiun wi16 yuur mords or consul� wuh cumpHrnt legal counsel, if necessary, to 1 FE
myke surc fixt it is curten, and thx� xny mxtters uf reeurd, such as eusm�rnts, thxt yuu wish shuwn 1 pfs+o'aFC 1
un l6e survey, 6avc been shown. y 1� ����T�NC owEtunc A�A
2. Showin6 the bcation of existing unprovemrnb we deemed importanL 1'; \�.�•J� r BE Ep i
Setting new munammts ur vmfying old rra�uments to mark the comers uf the property. ��ii�
4. Showing olevations on Iix site et selected Iucations m give some indication oCthc lopography U o L io
uf �he site The elerations shown relate exdy to the benchmxrk �rcovided on this curvry. Use that qq W �f v �40. a
Irenchmark and check at least une other fwture shown on �he mep whm ddmnining uthm 9�\' z I
ei�Vx��a,s ro� �n�s s�«. i LOT aa� �awo
57ANDARDSYMBOLS k CONVFNTIONS: 1 N w
Denoles 1 r1" ID pipe with plactic plug bearing State Littnse Numbtt 92J5. set, wless r� �(a 6
otherwiserwted. 1
T �aer v [wmrt ra I
,Jy me�xn mom�
n� ro t v.e.�m
T heceby certify [hnt this plan, specifica�ian, npon or 3urvey was prepared by me or i C I
under my dvecl supervision and thut 1 em x licensed Professional Enpneer nnd r1°0 °a06 m�im �n
Professional Surveyor wdee the laws of the State of Minnesota.
22t e --119.38— _1 1
y ..—i 5 89'02'20" E �Y�' -L= -,�zso-. t
am H. Parker P.E. l4 P.S. No. 9235 I
1 W
a
I l °em° Fy
i e�dM
b r LOl W
I �i i .I I
GRAPHIC SCALE I I o
M 0 10 70 b
i
rf f._�.._.__-�
a
��c. �ro. o�aoz3
City Council Agenda Item No. 11g
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk S�� �lnti�.��0'b�„
DATE: Apri13, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Changing Polling Location for Precinct 2
Recommendation:
I would recommend that the City Council consider adoption of Resolution Changing Polling Location
for Precinct 2.
Background:
At its March 12, 2007, Work Session, the City Council discussed the recommendation by City Staff to
change the polling location for Precinct 2 from Earle Brown Elementary School to Brooklyn Center
High School. There are several access issues which have brought forth this recommendation to change
locations.
1. there is not sufficient or adequate parking to accommodate voters;
2. the distance from the parking lot to the front doors of the school is too far for the elderly vaters;
3. the driveway circle in front of the school is not available for use as a drop-off during school
hours; and
4. on-street parking is not available on either side of the street in front of the school.
In January 2007 I met with ISD No. 286 Superintendent Keith Lester regarding changing the polling
location from the elementary school to the high school. I toured the lobby area of the Rossi Auditorium
and the school board meeting room which is adjacent to the lobby. The area would be sufficient in size
and meet the accessibility requirements of Minn. Stat. 204B.16, Subd. 5 to hold elections for Precinct 2.
The parking lot is very large, has several handicapped parking spaces, and readily accessible just off the
east entrance doors to the auditorium. I've attached a letter from Supt. Lester indicating that students
and staff will be alerted to the reserved voter parking off the east side of the auditorium and signs stating
"reserved for voter parking" would be placed in the parking lot. Mr. Lester has informed that there
would still be adequate student and staff parking available even with this area designated for voter
parking. There are two sets of doors to the auditorium lobby, which would allow the election judges to
see if there were voters who needed to vote curbside. The auditorium lobby is secure from the students
and classrooms, thereby providing safety for the students and the voters would not interfere with
classrooms, teachers, or students.
The requirements to change a polling location are that the governing body of the City shall adopt a
resolution designating the polling place for the precinct. A notice must be sent to every affected
household with at least one registered voter in the precinct stating the location of the new polling place
and must be sent at least 25 days before the next election.
If the change is approved, an article informing affected voters will appear in the City Watch resident
newsletter and in the Brooklvn Center Sun-Post.
Budget Issues:
There are no budget issues to consider.
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION CHANGING POLLING LOCATION FOR PRECINCT 2
WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. 204B.16, subd. 1 requires the governing body of a
municipality to designate polling places for each election precinct; and
WHEREAS, the current polling place for Precinct 2, located at Earle Brown
Elementary School, 1500 59th Avenue North, has insufficient parking to accommodate voters
and is not easily accessible by elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities due to the
distance from the parking lot to the polling place entrance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous to change the location of the polling
place to Brooklyn Center High School, 6500 Humboldt Avenue North, which meets all legal
requirements and reduces the walking distance and provides sufficient parking for voters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the polling location for Precinct 2 be changed to Brooklyn
Center High School, 6500 Humboldt Avenue North.
Abri19, 2007
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereo£
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
��tOOKLYN CEl�TT'ER Il\TD��'ENDEIOT'T
ScxooL Dis�rl.ucT 1lTo. 2�6
Brookl Ceates Schools
6500 Humboldt Avenue North Phone: (763) 561-2120
Yn
Brookl Center
MN 55430-1897 Fax:(763)560-2647
Yn
"AN EQUAL OPPORTUNTTY EMPLOYER"
Expect The �est!
March 23, 2007
Ms. Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Dear Sharon,
Brooklyn Center ISD #286 has changed its combined polling place for School District
elections from Earle Brown Elementary School, 1500 59` Ave. N., to Brooklyn Center
High School, 6500 Humboldt Ave. N. We encourage the movement of City elections to
the high school location as welL
The students and staff will be alerted to the reserved voter parking off the east side of the
auditorium, and signs stating "reserved for voter parking" will also be placed in the
parking lot.
If you have any questions regarding the polling place location, please call me at 763-561=
2120 Ext. 1000.
Sincerely,
�I
i-> r L
Keith E. Lester
Superintendent of Schools
City Council Agenda Item No. l l h
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
DATE: April 5, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Quotations and Awarding a Contract, Improvement
Project 200?-12, Stortn Damage Repairs for Public Buildings
Recommendation:
Public Works staff recommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council accept the lowest
responsible quotation and award a contract to Lindstrom Restoration Company for
Improvement Project No. 2007-12, Storm Damage Repairs for Public Buildings
Backgraund:
In September 2005, a severe storm event resulted in minor hail damage to a majority of the
City's municipal buildings. Staff has been working with Allied Adjusters representing the
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to solicit quotations from contractors to repair
the storm damage. A majority of the damaged items consist of roofing materials and roof
mounted air conditioning units. Allied Adjusters has indicated that this repair work would be
covered by the City's insurance policy, subject to the current deductible.
Quotations for the storm damage repair work were collected from two qualified contractors.
A tabulation of the quotations for the repair work is provided on the attached summary page.
Lindstrom Restoratian provided the lowest quotation for all work included with the project.
A representative from Allied Adjusters has indicated that Lindstrom is a reliable contractor
and recommends that the City proceed with the repairs.
The repair work would take place over the spring and sumr�er of 2007. Allied Adjusters
would provide general supervision of the Contractor and approve final pay requests from the
Contractor to the City. The representative from Allied Adjusters indicated that they would
coordinate insurance payments to the City with the conesponding pay requests from the
Contractor.
Budget Issues:
The total contract amount for the building repairs as provided from Lindstrom Restoration
Company is $136,9] 1.39. The City would incur a cost of $2,500 for the insurance deductible
for this event. Staff recommends that the insurance deductible cost should be coded to the
General Government Buildings Business Unit which provides funding for building
maintenance costs.
Storm Damage Repairs for Public Buildings
City� of Brookly�r Center
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RES�LUTION ACCEPTING QUOTATIONS AND AWARDING A
CONTRACT, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2007-12, STORM DAMAGE
REPAIRS FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS
WHEREAS, a severe stortn event in September 2005 resulted in hail and wind
damage to various City buildings; and
WHEREAS, quotations for the repair of building damage were solicited froin
qualified contractors, said quotations being summarized on the Tabulation of Construction
Quotation attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, it appears that Lindstrom Restoration Services is the lowest responsible
bidder for the proposed work.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized to enter into a contract
with Lindstrom Restoration Services of Plymouth, Minnesota in the name of
the City of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project No. 2007-12, Storm
Damage Repairs for Public Buildings, according to the plans and
specifications therefore approved by the City Council and on file in the
office of the City Engineer.
2. The estimated project cost is $135,911.39. The estimated project revenues
are $133,411.39 in insurance reimbursement and $2,500 from the General
Government Buildings Business �Unit (41940).
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereo£
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
Tabulation of Construction Quotations
City ProJect No. 200.7-12
Clty of Brooklyn Center
Unit Bid Unit Bid
Giertsen Lindstrom
Location Restoration Spec. Restoration
7 Garden City Park $4,947.55 $4,521.97
8 Fire House Park $5,447.66 $4,843.43
9 Freeway f'ark $14,176.82 $9,984.96
#10 Happy Holiow $4,313.01 f $3,368.13
#15 Pump House #5 j $3,084.73 $2,852.77
#16 Pump House #7 $6,172.95 I $5,283.16
#17 Pump House #8 $8,416.41 i $6,996.45
#22 Evergreen Park $11,590.88 $9,716.55
#23 WCP Bldg. $4,544.24 $3,676.95
#25 Orchard Lane i $1,152.99 $951.45
#29 Club House $1,826.66 $1,496.40
#30 Pump House #4 $1,726.98 $1,524.84
#31 Pump House #6 $8,909.38 $7,419.24
#32 Pump House #9 $5,717.52 $5,544.57
#33 Pump House #10 $6,072.93 $5,360.23
#35 Lift Station #2 $7,175.52 $6,470.40
#38 East Fire Station $1,590.98 $1,382.28
#49 Lions Park $11,457.44 $8,588.86
#50 Central Park $11,427.72 $9,940.03
#51 West Fire Station $16,636.47 $14,055.75
#55 Golf Course Storage Bldg. $5,878.24 $4,425.39
#56 Bellvue Park $5,778.75 $5,310.08
#57 CPA Shelter $7,954.09 $6,573.55
#70 Northport Park $2,423.89 $1,949.59
#80 Lift Station #1 j $4,443.42 $3,674.36
Total $162,867.23 $135,911.39
City Council �genda Item No. lli
i
COUNCIL ITEM MEMORAN UM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom Directar of Public Works Cit En ineer
Y g
DATE: April 4, 2007
SUBJECT: Resolution Acce tin Bid and Awardin a ontract Im rovement Pro'ect
P g g C P J
Nos. 2007-05, 06, 07, and 08, Riverwood Area Neigl�borhood Street, Storm
Draina e and Utilit Im rovements
g, Y P
Recomrnendation:
Public Works staff reeommends that the Brooklyn Center City Council accept the lowest
responsible bid and award a contract to C.W. Houle, Ine. far Improvement Project Nos.
2007-05, 06, 07, 08, Riverwood Area Neighborhood Street, Storm Drainage and Utility
Improvements based on the bid results provided below.
Background:
Bids for the Riverwood Area Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvements contract were
received and opened on April 4, 2007. The project bids included alternate bid items for two
underground storm water treatment structures within the project area. The bidding results
tabulated below include the alternate bid items. A copy of the full bid tabulation in attached
ta this memorandum.
Bidder Bid Amount as Submitted Corrected Total
C.W. Houle, Inc. 3,627,302.12
Northdale Construction Co. 3,888,352.18
Arcon Construction Co. 3,942,228.36
La Tour Constructian, Inc. 4,255,521.63 4,255,650.43
S.R. Weidema, Inc. 4,283,446.45
Park Construction �o. 4,385,784.55
Barbarossa Sons, Inc. 4,5&0,142.15
Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. 4,581,987.50
Three Rivers Construetion Co. 5,180,238.91
Of the nine (9) bids received, the lowest bid of $3,627,302.12 was submitted by C.W. Houle,
Inc. of Shoreview, Minnesota. Staff contacted six city representatives and engineering
consultants to obtain references for C.W. Houle. All individuals provided positive comments
regarding the past performance and professionalism of C.W. Houle. A review of these
Riverwood Area Neighborhood Contract Award
City of Brooktyn Center
references and list of subcontractors provided by C.W. Houle indicates that they have the
ex erience, e ui ment and ca acit to ualif as the lowest res onsible bidder for the
P 9 P P Y q Y P
Riverwaod Area Neighborhood Project.
Budget Issues:
The engineer's estimate for the project is $4,387,000, which falls within the mid range of the
bids received for the project. Many sources indicate that there is a shortage of contract wark
ntract iddin has become ver
currently available for the 2007 construction season. Co b g y
competitive this spring. The lowest bid from C.W. Houle is approximately 17 percent below
the engineer's estimate for the project.
Riverwood Area Neighborhaod Contract Award
C.ity af Brooklvn Center
Member introduced the follawing resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AWARDING A C�NTRACT,
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NOS. 2007-05, 06, 07, AND 08, RIVERWOOD AREA
NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, STORM DRAINAGE, AND UTILITY
IMPROVEMENTS
WHEREAS, pursuant to an advertisement for bids far Improvement Project Nos. 2007-
O5, 06, 07, and 08, bids were received, opened, and tabulated by the City Clerk and Engineer on
the 4 day of April, 2Q07. Said bids were as follows:
Bidder Bid Amount as Submitted Corrected Total
C.W. Houle, Inc. 3,627,302.12
Northdale Construction Co. 3,888,352.18
Arcon Construction Co. 3,942,228.36
La Tour Conswction, Inc. 4,255,521.63 4,255,650.43
S.R. Weidema, Inc. 4,283,446.45
Park Construction Co. 4,385,784.55
Barbarossa Sons, Inc. 4,580,142.15
Forest Lake Contracting, Inc. 4,581,987.50
Three Rivers Construction Co. 5,180,238.91
WHEREAS, it appears that C.W. Houle, Inc. is the lowest responsible bidder.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Ciry of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota, that:
1. The Mayor and City Manager are hereby authorized and directed to enter into a
contract with C. W. Houle, Inc. of Shoreview, Minnesota in the name of the City
of Brooklyn Center, for Improvement Project Nos. 2007-05, 06, 07, and 08,
according to the plans and specifications therefore approved by the City Council
and on file in the office of the City Engineer.
2. The estimated project costs and revenues are as follows:
COSTS Engineer's Estimate As Amended Per Low Bid
Contract $4,387,830.00 3,627,302.12
Contingency (10%) 215,000.00 215.000.00
Subtotal Construction Cost $4,602,830.00 3,842,302.12
Admin/Legal/Engr. 231,000.00 231,000.00
Reforestation 28.000.00 28.000.00
Total Estimated Project Cost $4,861,830.00 4,101,302.12
RE L TI N NO.
SO U O
REVENUES Engineer's Estimate As Amended Per Low Bid
Street Assessment 597,176.00 597,176.00
Storm Drainage Assessment 177,407.00 177,407.00
WaterUtilityFund 803,281.00 581,949.30
Sanitary Sewer Utility 586,713.00 352,290.40
Storm Drainage Utility Fund $1,209,052.00 $1,146,446.07
Street Construction Fund $1,450,884.00 $1,214,075.25
EBHC Maintenance 6,800.00 2,902.60
Street Light Utility 30.517.00 29,055.50
Total Estimated Revenue $4,861,830.00 $4,101,302.12
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
i
City Council Agenda Item No. l l j
pN�EF r ooklyn Center Fire Departrr�ent
��YN
o
Office of the Fire Chief
m,
RFpEP
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Ron Boman, Fire Chief
DATE: April 4, 2007
RE: Resolution to Accept Bid to Replace Ladder 4
RECOMMENDATION
On April 2, 2007, bids were opened for replacement of Ladder 4. A bid from
Pierce/Clarey's Safety Equipment was the only bid received. The bid was for
$689,944, less trade-in value of our 1980 American LaFrance for $5,000, for a
total price to the city of $684,944. I recommend the city accept this bid and
approve the purchase of the 105-foot aerial for the city. Due to the low trade-in,
the City of Brooklyn Center has reserved the right to sell the ladder up until
delivery.
BACKGROUND:
At the council work session on March 19, 2007, approval was given to advertise
and take bids to replace the 1980 American LaFrance aerial. A set of
specifications detailing the type of unit the fire department needed was compiled
and put out for bid. In addition, the city advertised it would accept a 105-foot
aerial that was currently in production if it met or exceeded the specifications.
The bid from Pierce/Clarey's Safety Equipment proposed a delivery date of June
29, 2007 for a 105-foot, 2000 gallon-per-minute (gpm) aerial pumper that is
currently in their production. This unit will serve the City of Brooklyn Center for
the next 25 years.
BUDGET ISSUES:
Currently the ladder replacement fund has $636,071. Our replacement funding
is at $1,910 per month, which will provide for an additional $11,460, or a total
balance of $647,531 at the time of delivery. The replacement fund will have a
deficit of $37,413 which will be covered by Relief Association funds not needed
for the replacement of Engine 6.
CONCWSION:
I believe it is in the best interest of the City to accept the bid from
Pierce/Clarey's Safety Equipment for $684,944 for purchase of a new 105-foot
2000 (gpm) aerial/pumper. This unit meets all the current NFPA and OSHA
standards for firefighter safety that our current unit does not. In addition, the
City will save an additional $181,000 replacing this unit now, rather than waiting
to 2010.
6645 Humboldt Ave North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
Telephone (763) 503-3160 Fax (763) 561-0717
Emergency Fire 9-1-1
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING BID AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF
ONE (1) 105-FOOT 2000 GPM AERIAL PUMPER
WHEREAS, the following bid was received for the purchase of one (1) 105-foot
2000 GPM aerial pumper:
Pierce/Clarey's Safety Equipment, Inc. $689,944
Trade-in 5,000
NET PURCHASE PRICE �684_944
WHEREAS, approximately $647,531 will have accumulated in the Central
Garage Budget for the purchase of one (1) 105-foot 2000 GPM aerial pumper by the time of
deliver in June of 2007; and
Y
i WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Fire Relief Association has previously provided
sufficient funds to cover the additional cost of $37,413; and
WHEREAS, Pierce/Clarey's Safety Equipment, Inc. has met all bid
et E ui ment be awarded the bid
specifications, and it is recominended that Pierce/Clarey s Saf y q p
for the aerial pumper.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that the bid of Pierce/Clarey's Safety Equipment, Inc. is hereby
OS-foot 2000 G
PM aerial urn er in the net amount of
accepted and the purchase of one (1) 1 P P
$684,944 is hereby approved.
Anri19. 2007
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following �oted against the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
I
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION
April 9, 2007
Immediately Following Regular City Council and EDA Meetings Which Start at 7:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
A copy of the full City Council packet is available to the publia The packet ring binder is
located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary.
ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Watershed Commission Major Plan Amendment Update 30 Minutes
Commissioner Carmody
2. Revised Water Utility Shut-Off Policy 15 Minutes
3. Council Suggested Work Session Items 15 Minutes
4. 57�' and LoganDevelopment Agreement 20 Minutes
Pending List for Future Work Sessions
Anril 16, 2007
1. I-694 Redevelopment Area Options Review
Apri123, 2007
1. Social Service Presentations City Manager
a. Five Cities Transportation
b. Northwest Hennepin Human Services
c. North Hennepin Mediation Services
d. Project Peace
e. Reach for Resources
2. Youth Commission City Council
3. Residential home inspection point-of-sale ordinance
4. Consider ordinance limiting ratio of non-porous to porous surface area with new
construction
5. EBHC Water Tower Repairs City Manager
Date Undetermined
1. Review Council Travel Policy Budget Work Session
2. City Manager performance review format and procedure City Manager
3. Farmers Market City Council
4. 2011 Brooklyn Center Celebration City Council
r t�' .�`t�'
S g nti f Y s C y9
q x r i
�3, r i y F�.r� i
l F 66• i% e y �z r1� t �i 3
i 'S
�2 R s�� a 9
�w y��j
Q f �y,s+
i i Z
h ���y� a
y .5 x z n i w
r r�i��.. s a��
5 E �y N
f '�Y �"a 3� T"�� Y ��y
r .s r
t.. f�• �'n.i.�� s a t�
t f a fi y 3' �.c�� �n .3 a �S. i
ro`�i h�M��' l 1 ?k` 3'��l d F d
_:"��ry ��5��
s %z ,.z `y- x.v z `��a y��
�y
f,aca �f
a x s v �y j �t
a. r� �r
t� ,u s: t�
�,Y�2� ,�������Y ����n 3:
s. t 5 y
a
a' s r,� r a ��'�r�.
-s �D .C'�� ��r
y f 5 �f a� x•.
"s 9.c 'si 's 3
,i� y t �'�s't )'�f+�� ,3 f E K�' f,
3� s s 3' c ..t l a
r s�
�a 4 W
�t� r
:5 x l� s �,�.\�,�r 2��
s
i ss �+r s r r Y 2
�a r'�
C
�a a �y �C,
j R e 4 3 s
�z.�
�a F `5 .5 5
3
3 4� y v' 1
g
X C C �";=v�� °i
�`��3`� ti M �t
p i�'- �x���� a�����2
k �i�c
e
p A
�e��5 �Se
t..� �.+�i 2� A i i�' 6
i. .Y a y. Y r 3. y T��.
a �f�
r
c y �x I�
E a r 3'c �3� t�2 '�c�� x"�������
e gx:; i
s 1' r i
s y i
7 A 4 �4' �'��?f "le« a^ 'y�
Y�: a.
t� '���v� K j
z �y.�
y s
r, s -s 3.,
z� N ,a
3l f J t t
`�s_ �3� e 3,��'�� s ��`"�'.��"��tiv���-
e
w'�'
i F 'r
t �S' �3� s d j G �F'�
"t�'
y
f `a�. fr
7 q
4 S r�� ..F a.� W f�� s�
Yr� y �'`s�
a.� ,�E.
r l 1
w r s J z� �z'�
,ifi :;.6 °'�5l`
s y
t,.
t., A
a ;ti,Y F s�
a�'
i
a
4
3
f '"�e p y
b ��,��5 ��l X. f �p� �C.`�+�� fS D5
S
t �.�r i
x
b �f�., �`a� y ��3:�� f���_
g v
Y �p
E z�� ri ,�.i s x
r y ti �.r ���a�z f
ts„
.r z aa �y ��Z
a �`��4
f s a
F v c f ✓�^,r�✓�� i �,��'''q�^�.
�1� x,v� ��g `��a Y��4���'��r��� �i �.i
f e a. �,'s z r s° A �'�n.� �u
5v J� me �``'n�F�� 3
s �"k T- F ti
x
r F- i�i��:; l�/,Z ��S i/T�����r a.�
�r �i D r� z+. E� s �3 J I n t i�
r
r
x .�t�� �y� ,a� G� �i
y ��r'�,;�
:a. s�
t r�
l� 3 r,
k:� ,..�4'
�u
�r
s�, e .'..�.s��. .�.�:..,.,..<cs.
zt �'�cc�:�:���.ku:..,,�:,
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: Apri15, 2007
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag����
SUBJECT: Watershed Major Plan Amendment
COUNCIL ACTION D
REQUIRE
Kathleen Carmody, the City representative on the two watershed management
commissions has asked for an opportunity to provide the City Council with an update
regarding Major Plan Amendment that is under consideration at this time.
While commissioner Carmody is not bound by actions of the City Council, I am sure she
would be interested in any feedback the council would like to offer regarding the
proposed amendment.
BACKGROUND
As background for this issue I have enclosed a copy of the proposed plan amendment as
it was presented in September of 2006. I have also enclosed a copy of the letter sent to
the commission with the Council Comments regarding the plan as presented. Since that
time comments have been received and I assume proposed changes have been
considered.
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
G:\CityManager\WORKSESSION.MEM.watershed.doc
Office of the City Manager
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community Cornelius L. Boganey
City Manager
November 16, 2006 p`�
U
Mr. Craig Cooper, Chair Ms. Tina Carstens, Chair Ms. Judie Anderson
Shingle Creek Watershed West Mississippi Watershed Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Comrnission Management Cominission West Mississippi Watershed
5201 Russell Avenue North 3622 104th Avenue North Management Coxnmissions
Minneapolis, MN 55430 Brooklyn �ark, MN 55443 Pi��F �br°�°k
Dear Mr. Caoper, Ms. Carstens, and Ms. Anderson:
Whereas, the commissions will be holding public hearings and receiving comment on a Major Plan Amendment
hed Mana. ement Commissions' Second Generation
issi i Waters g
est lvliss
osed to the Shin le Creek and W pp
ro g
P P
Watershed Management Plan. The City Council for the City of Brooklyn Center has directed that the o owulg
concerns be presented for your consideration.
Brookl Center b
elieves th
at Total Estima.ted Cost for Commission, City assessments, described on
The City of yn
page 42 of the report, will necessitate an increase in annual City assessments that will ex uld not be b tted
W e b e l i e v e t h a t a l an s h o
s a eement. P
approved for assessments in the current �oint power oval from the Cities in
that anticipates an increase in the assessments above the Cap without receivmg appr
advance. Alternatively, we believe the commissions should reduce the scope of the plan so that that the City
assessments will not require authoriza.tion to exceed the limits of the Joint Powers Agreement.
Secondly, the City of Brooklyn Center believes the primary justification of the Capital Projects Plan is to provide
funding for capital needs that will effectively respond to TMDL Implementation Plans. Because the required
T1VIDLs have yet to be completed, we believe Capital Projects should not be funded where the 1�VIDL
Implementation Plans have not been completed. This assures that the limited resources available for Capita.l
Proj ects will be used in a manner that best meets the requirements of the watershed as a whole.
Sincerely,
Gi�•�
Cornelius L. oganey
City Manager
cc: Mayor Myrna Kragness, Brooklyn Center Mayor Steve Lampi, Brookl �Park
Mayor Steven Boynton, Champlin Mayor ReNae Bowman, Cry
fenson M
a le Grove Mayor RT Rybak, Minneapolis
Mayor Mark Stef p
Mayor Martin E Opem Sr., New Hope Mayor 7ohn PW Hall, Osseo
Mayor Judy Johnson, Plymouth Mayor Mike Holtz, Robbirisdale
Recreation and Community Center Phone TDD Number
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway (763) 569-3400
Brooklyn Center, MN 55430-2199 F'�q�' 763 569-3434
City Hall TDD Number (763) 569-3300
FAX (763) 569-3494
w w w.cityof6rooklyncenter.org
S�11C1G �reek Watershed Management Commission
r
tSSt.
V�
�.^�t j i-i.n�.t+a�.int w.. si;1�
n 1
3235 Fembrook Lane N• Plymouth, MN 55447
Tel: 763.553.1144 Fax: 763.553.9326
Email: iudie aniass.biz Website: www.shinglecreek.org
September 20, 2006
Cities and Review Agencies:
Enclosed please find for your review and comment a Major Plan Amendment proposed to the Shingle
Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' Second Generation Waterslzed
Managenzent Plan. The Commissions will take public comment on this Major Plan Amendment
unti14:30 p.m. Monday, November 20, 2006.
The purpose of this Major Plan Amendment is to adopt:
A Water Quality Plan that includes specific water quality goals for the lakes, streams, and
wetlands in the watershed and set o£management acUons,to r�aanage aand_unproye,those___�
resources;
A revised �apita) Improvemeni Program; and
A revised Gosx Share Policy that provides that 25 percenx;,of the cost of'qualifying capital prajects r
would be funded by the county ad valorem tax lery across all property in the watershed, with tha
balance of project costs paid for by cities.
The attached Notice of Major Plan Amendment provides more detail about the proposed changes to the
Second Generation Plan.
A public hearing will be held on this proposed Major Plan �Amendment either Wednesday, December 20,
2006 at 7:00 pm or Thursday, January 11, 2007 at the Commissions' regular meeting time of 12:45 p.m.
The Coinmissions will determine the date at their October 12, 2006 meeting. A notice of public hearing
will be sent to you when that hearing has been scheduled.
Please submit questions and comments ��iy November 17, 2006 tov 7udie Anderson at JASS, 3235�
Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447, or iudie(�a,iass.biz We appreciate your review and look forward
to your comments.
Sincerely,
�2a �ioo�� �v�,a Gq�-st�vt,5
Craig Cooper, Chair Tina Carstens, Chair
City of Minneapolis Commissioner City of Brooklyn Park Commissioner
Shingle Creek WMC West Mississippi WMC
Cc: Commissioners
TAC Members
J:�Shingle CreeklManagementPlanWtajor Plan Amendment_2006�L.-conveying Major Plan Amendment.doc
r...��..�..._..."f�:. 1':�,......,�.�.... �...w. �.._a.........��..._,.: .d\..,....... ar.r ..e..
Brooklyn Center •&ooklyn Park Champlin Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdaie
Notice of Major Plan Amendment
Shingle Creek and �'�'est R'Iississippi ��4'atershed PZanagement Commissions
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi ��'atershed l��anagement Commissions propose to amend their
joint Second GeneratioTZ Alarzageme�zt Plan to adopt a TdTater Oualiry Plan and an amended Capital
Improvement Plan. The CIP includes an amended Cost Share Policy that provides for a portion of the
cost of qualifying projects to be funded from the Hennepin County ad valorem taa le��� across all real
property in the t��atershed. This Plan Amendment also proposes revisions to clarify the conditions under
which no plan amendment ��,�ould be needed to accommodate minor changes to the CIP. These revisions
to the Plan are shown as additions (underlined) or deletions (stril:e outs) to Sections 7 and 9 and
Appendix G of the Manaaement Plan. The T��ater Oualit�j Plan would be adopted in its entirety as a new
Appendix I to the Management Plan.
F�Vater Quality Plan�
T'he T�Tater Oualit}� Plan was prepared by the Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee. The Plan
establishes numerical water quality goals for the lakes and streams in the t�a�o watersheds, and a plan for
the completion of functions and values assessments on high- priority wetlands. The Plan also includes
recommendations for management activities to e�:pand monitoring, prepare resource management plans,
increase public education and outreach activities, and construct capital improvernents.
There are numerous water resources in the ���atersheds that have been included on the state 303(d) list of
Impaired R�aters, including impairments to Shingle Creek and Bass Creek, and impairments to 13 of the
16 lal:es in the watersheds. T'he Plan assumes that as TMDLs are completed for these water resources, the
TMDL Implementation Plans will refine water qualiiy goals and management activities by water
resource, and the Capital Improvement Program will need to be revised to incorporate additional projects
identified in the TNIDLs.
The Major Plan Amendment would adopt the Water Qualiry Plan as new Appendix I of the Seco�2d
Gene�•ation Managenie�zt Plan.
Capital Improvement Program (CTP)_="
The Commissions propose to revise the CIP to incorporate projects to be constructed by the member
cities to improve the water resources in the ���atershed. Some of these projects have been identified in the
draft TMDLs as priorities for implementation. The Technical Advisory Committee developed a Cost
Share Policy for capital improvements, and a precess for soliciting, prioritizing, and scoring potential
projects. Projects for an Interim C1P (2007-2009) were solicited from cities and scored, resulting in a
proposed Interim CIP 2007-2009.
The CIP revision requires three changes to the Management Plan:
1. Incorporation of a Cost Share Policy providing that projects that meet certain requirements would
be eligi�le for 2� percent cost participativn from the county property tax levied on all real
properiy in the watershed, up to a maximum of $250,000 per project. The Commission intends to
use as a working guideline a maximum annual levy of $�OQ,000.
2. Revision of the CIP incorporating specific projects for the years 2007-2009.
3. Revision of the plan amendment procedure to clarify the co�ditions ur�der which no plan
amendment would be needed to accommodate minor changes to the CIP.
J:\5hin�le Creek\CIPslMajor Plan .�unendment�eptember packetlNotice of n4ajor Plan Amendment.doc
-1-
Cost Share Policv
The Cost Share Policy provides that projects that meet certain scoring thresholds are eligible to be funded
25 percent from the county property tax le��ied on al] real property within the watershed, up to a
maximum of $250,000 per project. Another 25 percent of the cost �a�ould be apportioned to the city or
cities benefiting from the improvement, and 50 percent apportioned based on contributing area..
Participating ciries are free to negotiate an altemate apportionment if desired. The Commission intends to
use as a working guideline a maximum anrival le�ry of $500,000. The Plan Amendment would adopt the
Cost Share Policy as additional language in Section 7 of the Management Plan, and as described and
shown as a funding option on the CIP in Appendix G.
Revised CIP
Following development of a process to solicit, score, and prioritize capita.l projects, the SCWI��
Commissions in early 2006 solicited potential capital projects for an Interim CIP. The Interim CIP is
intended to provide a means for the Commission to complete projects that have already been identified by
cities as priorities, prior to the completion of lal:e and stream TMDLs. The lake TMDLs are eapected to
be fmalized in 2007 and the stream 'TR�IDLs in 2008, provid'uzg cities with additional information to
develop projects for inclusion on a later CIP. The Plan Amendment would adopt the revised CIP as
shown in Appendix G.
The Interim CIP is not a definitive list of all the projects or needs in the watershed over that planning
period. It simply reflects those projects that cities chose to submit and which met qualifying criteria.
Projects scoring at least 45 points based on these criteria were advanced to the CIP. These criteria and
scoring were as follows:
1. Does the proposed project result from a regulatory mandate? 0 or 10 points
2. Does the project meet multiple TMDL mandates? 0, 10 for one, 20 for tvvo or more
Do all the cities responsible for paying for the 75 percent balance of the cost of the project agree
to go forvvard with the project? 0 or 10
4. Is the project in the city's or cities' CIP(s)? 0 or 20
5. Does the project have multiple benefits? 5 points each up to 30 total
Improve water quality.
Prevent floading.
Prevent or correct erosion.
Promote groundwater recharge.
Protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat
Improve or create water recreation facilities.
Plan Amendment Clarification
The Management Plan sets forth the procedures for amending the Plan. This proposed major plan
amendment would refine those procedures to specify the types of modifications to the CIP that �uould
requ,ire a minor plan amendment, and those that v��ould not require any plan amendrnent. Changing the
CIP to move a project to a different year would not require any plan amendment. Revising a cost estimate
would not require a plan amendment as long as the re��ised cost results in a Commission share that is no
more than 25 percent greater than as shown in the CIP, as adjusted by the Construction Cost Index
published by the Ei�gineer•ing Ne��s Record. If a revised cost estimate suggests the Commission's share
may be greater than 25 percent more than as estimated in the CIP, then a minor plan amendment would be
required. This Plan Amendment would adopt tbe clarifying language as shown in Section 9 of the
Management Plan.
J:�Shinole Creek\CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendment\September packef�Notice of Maior Plan Amendment.doc
-2-
SffiNGLE CREEK �'VATERSHED 1l�ANAGEh�NT COMIYIISSION
RESOLUTTON NO. 2006-03
Commencing the Re��iew Process of an Amendment
to the Second Generation ��F'atershed �lZanagement PIan
for the Shingle Creek �'�'atershed Management Commi�sion
Adopting the ��4'ater Quafity Plan
and Revised Capitai Improvement Program
VFTHEREAS, the Shingle Creek ��v�atersbed Management C�mmission, ��ith advice and
assist�nce from its Technical Advisory Committee of represent�xives from its member cities and
from the Metropolitan Council, sta.te review agencies, and the Board of VJater and Soil
Resources, has developed a Vdater Quality Plan, v��hich includes establishment of numerical lalce
and stream water quality poals; a�etland functions and values analysis process and schedule; and
an associated management plan and Capital Improvement Program; and
�T+�R.EAS, the Commission's approved Second Generation Watershed Mana.Dement
Plan included general water quality goals and policies and specified that more detail ��ould be
developed in a later RTater Quality Plan that u�ould be adopted as a Major Plan Amendment to the
Management Plan; and
Q4'�ItEAS, as part of the VJater Quality Plan the COIIlIIl15510Il prepared a revised
Capital Improvement Program and Cost Share Policy that the Commission intends to use to
finance capital projects providing agreement can be reached with the affected cities; and
V4�REAS, the Comm.ission proposes that its completed �Tater Quality Plan be adopted
as Appendix I to its Second Generation Vdatershed AZanagement Plan, and that the Capital
Improvement Proaram in Secti�n 7 and Appendix G and the Plan Amendment Process in Section
9 of the Second Generation Plan be revised, and submits this AZajor Plan Amendment for
consideration by various reviewing agencies; and
«�R.EAS, under A2innesota Statutes Section 103B.231, Sutid. 1 l, it is provided that
all Major Plan A.mendments to the �Jatershed Management Plan shall be submitted to the towns,
cities, couniy, A4etropolitan Council, the state review agencies, and the Board of VJater and Soil
Resources f�r review in the same extent and manner as required for the adopt�on of the
Mana.aement Plan; and
��4'H�REAS, the revie�a� process commences with the submission of the Plan
Amendment to the nine member cities and the entities listed above, and said units of government
have 60 days for comment
NO�P, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as folloR�s:
A Second Generation R'atershed R�lanagement Plan Nlajor Plan Amendment adopting tl�e
Vdater Quality Plan and a re��ised Capital Improvement Pro� has been prepared and shall be
submitted to the nine member cities and entities listed above. $aid aDencies shall have 60 days
after submission to ret their comments to the Shingle Cree� Watershed Mana-aement
RESOLtrr�oN 2006-03 Zoo�-o3_Pt� :��a�en�oc
Commission. The comrnents shall be addressed to Ms. Judie Anderson, JASS, 3235 Fernbrook
Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447.
Chair
ATTEST:
��J
Recording Secretary
i
i
RbSOLUTION �006-03 20D6-D3 P2an,�uvendmentDOC
Q4'EST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED 11�AI�AGEII�NT COMI�'II.SSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-03
Commencing the Re��ie�� Process of an Amendment
to the Second Generation ��F'atershed l�2anagement Plan
for the ��4'est Mississippi ��'afershed 1lZanagement Commission
Adopting the ��F'ater Quality Plan
and Revised Capital Improvement Program
��REAS, the �,Test AZississippi �+Tatersbed A�anagement Commission, with advice
and assista.nce from its Techn.ical Advisory Committee of representatives fi its member cities
and from t6e Metropolitan Council, state re��iev�� a.gencies, and the Board of �Tater and Soil
Resources, has developed a��ater Qualit�� Plan, ��hich i.ncludes establislunent of numerical lake
and s� water quality goals; a��etland functions and values analysis proaess and schedule; and
an associated management plan and Capital Impro��ement Program; and
�F'HEREAS, the Commissi�n's approved Second Generation V��atershed Management
Plan included general water quality goals and policies and specified that more detail would be
developed in a later �Jater Quality Plan that would be adopted as a Ma�or Plan Amendment to the
Mana.gement Plan; and
p�rHEREAS, as part of the ��ater Quality Plan the Commission prepared a revised
Capital Tmprovement Pro�am and Cost Share Policy that t6e Commission intends to use to
finance capita.]. projects pro��iding aD eement can be reached �ith the affected �ities; and
�Ti�R.EAS, the Commission proposes that its completed Vdater Quality Plan be adopted
as Appendix I to its Second Generation V�Tatershed I�Zanabement Plan, and that the Capital
Improvement Program in Section 7 and Append.ix G and the Plan Amendment Process in Section
9 of the 5econd Generation Plan be revised, and submits this AZajor Plan Amendment for
consideration by various reviev��ing agencies; and
�T�R.EAS, under R2innesota Statutes Section 103B.231, Subd. 11, it is provided that
all Major Plan Amendments to the Watershed Management Plan shall be submitted to the towns,
cities, county, Metropolitan Council, the state review agencies, and the Board of VJater and Soil
Resources for review in the same ek-tent and manner as required for the adopti�n of the
Mana.gement Plan; and
AS the review rocess commences v��ith the submission of the Plan
VF�RE p
Amendment to the five member cities and the entities listed above, and said units of government
have 60 days for comment
NO��', THEREFORE, B� IT RESOLVED as follou�s:
A Second Generation DJatershed I��anagement Plan I��Iajor Plan A.mendment adopting the
��ater Quality Plan and a revised Capital Improvement Proaram has been prepared and shall be
subm.itted to the fi�e member cities and entities listed above. Said a.aencies shall have 60 days
after submission to ret�un tbeu comments to tl�e �Jest NI'ississippi Watershed Management
RESOLUI"ION ZQ�6-�3 J:t�Shine}e Crcel:\CIPsV�iajor Plan Amendmra�t�5eptcmbar pacl:et120D6-03 Plan Amen�n:
Commission. The comments shall be addressed to A�Ls. Judie A.nderson, JASS, 3235 Fernbrook
Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447.
(.CX.�..f�o
Chair
ATTEST:
-��-e.�rv
Recording Secretary
RE50LUTION 2006-0� J:�Shing]e Crrl:lCIPsV�iajor Plan Amcndmen�lSopYember pacl:eT13D�6-03_Plan .Amcndm:a
Section 7 Capital
improvements Program and Work Pfan
INTRODUCTION
The Capital Improvements Program (CIP) and Work Plan identify resource management studies and
improvement projects that the SCWM WMC should consider completing during the ten-year planning
period. The CIP and Work Plan are subject to annual review and revision. Including a study or project
in the CIP indicates the Commission is serious about its completion; however, it does not mean the
Commission has ordered or will order the study or project.
The projects included in the CIP and Work Plan are considered by the Commissioners to be of high
priority during the most recent planning effort. The proposed studies and capital improvements are
subject to annual review by the Commissioners, at which time each proposed study or project wil] be
reconsidered and additional ones added or deleted by amendment. This first review should occur prior
to budget discussions associated with year 2004 expenditures.
PRIORITIES AND STRATEGIES
The ClP and Work Plan were developed based on the following priorities and strategies for Plan
implementation:
Priorities:
1) Control flooding
2) Improve public information and education
3) Protect wetlands
4) Improve water quality in lakes, streams, and rivers
5) Improve fish and wildlife habitat
6) Restore wetlands
7) Research and encourage development strategies that minimize impervious surface and
encourage infiltration
8) Research and encourage innovative and sustainable maintenance and improvement practices
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Managemenl Commissions Page 7-1
Second Genera6on Watershed Managemenl Pian �Se�tember 2006
Section 7— Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
Strate ies:
g
a The Co
mmissions will continue to control eak runoff rates at ana ement sector boundaries
m
P
and city boundaries, requiring development and redevelopment of certain sizes to adhere to a
stormwater management plan that provides rate control and water quality improvements and
adding an infiltration requirement. The watershed model will be maintained and the creek's
I I d0 year profile will be reevaluated.
b) The Commissions' more active education and public outreach program will provide regulaz
information to cities and ]ocal media for distribution, useful information on the Commis$ions'
web site, opportunities for, and more interaction with schools.
c) The Cornmissions' education and public outreach program will meet minimum requirements
for NPDES Phase II and the Commissions will help facilitate other NPDES activities, such as
facilitating training in good housekeeping methods for city staff, as requested.
d) Over the first five years of the Second Generation Plan the Commissions will prioritize water
resources and develop management plans for those resources by priority or as opportunity
provides. These plans will include goals for maintaining or improving water quality based on
practical use and impiementation strategies that may include maintenance or capital
improvements.
e) The Commissions will promote Shingle Creek and other streams and rivers as greenways,
emphasizing streambank improvements and habitat restoration where possible.
fl The Commissions will prioritize wetlands for preservation and wetlands for potential
restoration. Buffers will be required adjacent to v✓etlands and watercourses as development or
redevelo ment occurs. Cities that are the LGUs for WCA will erform functions and values
P
P
analyses on their wetlands in accordance with Commission standards. For those cities where
the Commissions are the LGU, the Commissions' engineer wit) perform those analyses at the
city's cost.
g) The Commissions will create a Construction/Matching Grant Fund that will be used to: match
grants for resources management projects or capital improvements; construct capital
improvements that are of high watershed priority, are demonstration projects, or have otherwise
been designated by the Commissions for const�vction by the Commissions; and as match or
"seed money" to encourage local improvements.
�j Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-2
Second Generation Watershed Mana9ement Plan �September 2006
i
Section 7— Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
PROJECT COSTS AND FUNDING SOURCES
•Work Plan
Appendix G presents the general Work Plan for the current planning period. In general, in 2003 the
Commissions would evaluate baseline data for all the pr,j�nary water resources in the watersheds;
prioritize those resources and classify them as necessary; and review the status of the water quality
monitoring program and make changes. This Water Quality Plan would provide the basis for fut�tre
water resource management plans. One of the recommendations of this Plan would be a revised CIP
with recommended studies and projects for each resource in priority order. Included in that Plan would
be the identification of watershed significant wetlands, establishing a priority order listing from which
cities can begin preparing functions and values analyses. Also in 2003 would be the completion of the
Chloride TMDL and identification of management strategies for consideration and implementation
In 2004, the Water Quality Plan would be supplemented with a Practical Use and Goals Plan that
would specify numerical goals for various water quality parameters. Also in 2004 would be the
development of a Shin�le Creek Corridor Plan. The creek would be evaluated for conveyance,
streambank erosion, habitat, land cover, and greenway potentiaL
Starting in 2005, a series of management plans for individual or classes of resources would be
developed based on the priority order established in the Water Quality Plan and the CII'.
CIP and Budget
The Second Generation Plan CIP and budget includes the establishment of a Construction and
Matching Grant Fund. This fund would be used by the Commissions to match grants for various
Commission or member ci activities; rovide matchin rants to cities to accom ]ish specific
tY P g P
projects of watershed significance; or to directly construct projects of watershed significance or
demonstration projects.
A summary of currently proposed CIP projects along with approximate annual funding needs is
presented in Appendix G. Many listed elements will require feasibility studies in order to explore
altematives and provide the detail necessary for the member cities and the Commissions to approve the
project. It is very important to note the estimated costs are very approximate and should be used for
nlannine vurooses on]v.
I The primary source of func3s to accomplish these projects and programs is member cities. Many of the
member cities have in place a Storm Sewet Utility'under the authority of Minnesota Statutes Chapter
444 and use those proceeds to pay annual WMO assessments. Some of the cities do not currently have
a Storm Sewer Utility and pay these costs from their General Funds or from some other local funds.
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-3
Second Generefion Watershed Management Plan �Se,ptember 2006
I
Section 7— Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
The annual cost of the administrative and o�erating_pro�rams Af the WMOs is about $]_70_per capita, Deleted: price to the cities of
or about $4.40 per household per year.
implemen[ing the C� as we11 es
'rDeleted: coscs
The Commissions have several options_for capital projects �financing_ Under the authority�rovided by_ _,-�I Formattea: Fonc: iZ pt
Minn Stat 103B?51 Section VIll, Subd. 5, the Commissions have the authority to certify for payment �I �rmatted: Font 12 pt
by the county all or part of the cost of an approved capital improvement. The JPA provides that if
cities are unable to come to a cost sharing agreement, then the Commission may order the project by
fundin�l 00 percent of the ro _ect cost from the Henne m Coun ad valorem tax le Fo�mattea: Font: iz pt
---P----
Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Projects may also be 100 percent_funded by cities. _The JPAprovides two alternates:_projects may be_,, -���matted: Fonc: iz �c
funded through a neootiated cost share between cities having land in the affected subwatershed. Or,
projects may be funded by apportioning the cost of the project across all the cities in the watershed
usin� the same 50°:0 land area 50% tax capacity formula as the general assessments to cities. The
]atter may be amended ,by the Commission if it is clear that one or more of the cities receive a special
benefit from the project.
In 2005 the Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee developed a Cost Share Policy as an
alternate to the ca ita7 ro'ect fundin mechanisms rovided in the JPA as described above. It is the
P P J g P
intent of the Commissions to finance capital projects according to this policy, if agreement can be
reached v✓ith the affected cities. The policy provides as follows:
For any capital project. 00 percent funding from the ad valorem ta� lery or from all cities based on Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25
the funding formula is and ���ould continue to be options to consider. Howe��er, the Cost Share Policy
apportions the cost heti��een the �-atershed as a��,-hole; the area thai receives direct benefit; and the
contributing/indirect benefiting area.
For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission-adopted or approved TMDL or r-ormatted Indent: Left: 0.25"
management plan:
l. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project, to a maximum share of
$2�0,000.
2. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method spread across all
taxpayers ���ithin the watershed.
3. The Commission should use a maximum annual le��y of $500,000 as a working guideline. rrormattea: eu��ets and Numberinq J
4. The cities` share should be 75 percent of the cost of the project. This would be apportioned to the
cities as follows, or in some other manner acceptable to them:
a. The area directly benefiting from the project should be apportioned 25 percent of the cost
of the project. This v,�ould be apportioned to cities based on, for example, proportion of
lake or stream frontage.
b. Fifty percent of the cost of the project should be apportioned based on contributing/
benefiting area. The basis of this apportionment would likely be unique to each project.
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-4
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �September 2006
Section 7- Ca ital Im rovements Pro ram and Work Plan
P P 9
5. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their Pormaited: Bullets and Numbering
share, for example through special assessments, storm drainage utility, general ta�c levy, or
watershed management ta�c district.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the estimated one-time cost of various tax levy levels based on the 2006 net
ta�c capacity of land within the two watersheds.
Table 1
Calculating the Impact of Various Levy Amounts on Average Properties
Shingle Creek V�'atershed
Additional Tax Formatted Table
Tax Capacity $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Le��}� Levy Le���
�$150.00Ohome �I,SOU $2.74 I $5.49 $]0.98
�$250,000 home I $2,500 $4.58 I $9.15 I $18,31
�$350,000 home $3.500 $6.41 $12.82 $25.63
�$500,000 apt �6_250 I �11.44 $22.85 $45.77
�$�OO,OOO Gl $9,2�0 $16.94 $33.57 $67.74
I��,000,000 C/1 I 9,250 I $35.24 $70.49 $140.98
�$250,000 /$136,545,631 0.00183 of tar, capacit�� I
$SOO,OUO $136,548,63 0.00366 of tax capacit��
$],000.000 /$136.545,631 I O.U0732 of ta�: capacity I
*2006 Net Ta3: Capacit�� in the Shingle Creek watershed as estimated by city assessors
Table 2
Calculating the Impact of Various Levy Amounts on Average Properties
West Mississippi Watershed
Additional Tax
Tax Capaciry $100,000 $250,000 $500,000
Levy Lev�� Levy
�$ISO,OOOhome $I,500 $2.�4 $6.34 $12.69
�$2�0,000 home $2,500 $4.23 $10.58 $21.15
�$350,000 home $3,500 $5.92 $14.50 $29.61
�$SU0,000 apt $6,250 $J 0.57 $26.44 �52.88
�$SU0,000GI $9,250 $]5.65 $39.13 $78.26
�$1,000,000 C/I $19,250 I $32.56 $81.43 $162.86
�$250,000 /$59,118 0.00423 of tax capacity
�$500.000 /$59, l 18,278* OA0846 of tax capacity
�$100,000 /$59, 18,278* O.00I 69 of tax capaciry
*2006 Net Tax Capacity in the 1�'est Mississippi ��atershed as estimated by city assessors
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and Wesi Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-5
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �September 2006
Section 7— Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
Also included in Appendix G are the estimated annual budget and member assessments for the ten-year
planning period based on the programs and projects in the plan as proposed. Those budgets and the
CIP would be annualiy reviewed and adjustments made based on current conditions and management
plans.
The Commission may also pursue additional financial resources that would reduce the reliance on
member city assessments or allow additional work to be completed at little or no additional local cost.
These sources may include grants, donations, in-kind services, or participation by other govemmental
units. The Commissions have had recent success in obtaining outside grant dollars.
Information regarding municipalities' and other agencies' capital improvement programs can be found
in Section 4.
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7-B
Second Generation Watershed Management P�an �September 2006
Section 9
Amendments
INTRODUCTION
This Watershed Management Plan provides direction for SCWM WMC activities through the
year 2012. The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Commissions may initiate
amendments to the Plan at any time. The Commissions intend that the Plan provide a flexible
framework for managing the watersheds.
AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
All amendments to the Plan except minor amendments shal] adhere to the full review and process
set forth in Minnesota Statutes 103B.231, Subdivisions 7, 8 and 9, as they now exist or as
subsequently amended. The SCWM WMC shall adopt the proposed plan amendments upon
their approval by the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) in accordance with Minnesota
Statutes103B.231, Subdivision 9, as amended.
The amendment procedure for minor plan amendments, as defined in Minnesota Rules
8410.0020, Subpart 0, and 8410.0140, Subpart 3, shall be in accordance with Minnesota Rules
8410.0140, Subpart 2(A, B and C), as such rules now exist or as subsequently amended.
Amendments to the approved capital improvement program may be considered to be minor plan
amendinents if the following conditions set forth in Minnesota Rules 8410.O140, Subp. 3 are
met:
The original plan set forth the capital improvements but not to the degree needed to meet
the definition of "capital improvement program" as provided in Minnesota Statutes,
section I O�B.205, subdivision 3; and
2. The affected county or counties have approved the capital improvement in its revised,
more detailed form.
The following examples of other minor plan amendments are given in Minnesota Rules
8410.0020, Subp. l0:
"...recodification of the plan, revision of a procedure meant to streamline
administration of the plan, clarification of the intent of a policy, the inclusion of
additional data not requiring interpretation, or any other action that will not
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 9-1
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �September 20D6_�
Section 9 Amendments
adversely affect a local unit of government or diminish a water management
organization's ability to achieve itsplan's goals or implementation program:'
In addition, a minor plan amendment will be required for the following situation:
1. When a capital pr.oject is listed in the approved Capital Improvement Program and the Formatted: Builets and Numbering
Commission's share of an updated cost estimate is greater than I25�percent of the _,-�I ae�eted: o
Commission s share shown on the CIP, as adjusted by the Construction Cost Index
published by the Engineering News Record.
Neither a minor nor a general plan amendment ��ill be required for the following situations:
1. lf projects listed in the approved C1P are implemented in a different year than shown.
2. When a capital project is listed in the approved Capital Improvement Program and the
Commission's share of an updated cost estimate is within 25�percent of the oeieted: o
Commission`s share shown on the CIP, as adjusted by the Construction Cost Index
published by the Engineering News Record.
Unless the entire document is re rinted all amendments ado ted b the SCWM Board f
P
P Y
WMC o
Commissioners must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the Plan, each page of
which must include:
l. On draft amendments being considered, show deleted text as stricken and new text
underlined.
2. Be renumbered as appropriate.
3. Include the effective date of the amendment.
FUTURE AMENDMENTS
Several mandatory amendments are anticipated for metro olitan area watersheds in addition to
P
the amendments that will occur as a result of management plan implementation. A brief
amendment description is provided in Table 9-1 to advise the member cities of these
requirements and to stimulate stakeholder dialogue prior to their anticipated inclusion in the
Plan. This list is not a comprehensive summary of mandated revisions or amendments that might
be contemplated by the Commission.
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Cresk and West Mississippi Watershed Managemerri Commissiort Page 9-2
Second GeneraQon Watershed Management Plan �September2DDS_�
Section 9 Amendments
Table 9-1
Future Amendments to the SCWM WMC Management Plan
Approximate Sponsoring Description
Year A�ency
Annual SCWM WMC Detailed capital improvements as they are planned and
subsequently ordered by the Commissioners.
As necessary SCWM VrTMC Various amendments based for example on new
legisiative requirements or policy initiatives, or
technoloQical advances.
2003 EPA/MPCA NPDES permitting for stormw�ater discharges will affect
the metropolitan area The SCVJM WMC will provide
assistance in the areas of education and outreach, and
other areas as reauested by the member cities.
2003 SCWM WMC Upon completion of the chloride TMDL the Commission
will likeh� nromulQate new rules reQardinQ chloride use.
2004 SCWM WMC, MDH Upon completion of inember cities' wellhead protection
p]ans, the Commission may need to revise its rules
regarding infiltration so they are consistent with the cities'
Drinking Water Supply Management Areas and
management tools.
2004 Metropolitan Council/ The Council is preparing a metropolitan area plan that
BWSR recommends target pollution loads for watersheds in the
metropolitan area. The Counci] has been providing grant
monies to metropolitan WMOs in an effort to facilitate
watershed outlet monitoring to support development of
target pollution loads. BWSR will receive the Council's
recommendation and determine the actual performance
standards for each watershed.
Deleted: May 2DD4
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Page 9-3
Second Generation Watershed Management Pian �September 2006_�
I
Appendix G
m m
mm
o
a
N
O "L7
cC i, a�
H R+.�
V
R
U
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Waiershed Management Commissions Page G-6
acpf2�F�.
G (A
n
c
�o
c. m
2UO3 2004 2005__� 2006�2007�2008�2009 2010�2011�2012
MANAGLMENT PLANS�
R io
Water Oualitv Plan
n �$12.500�
ro Shznele Creek Corridoc Plan �$40.000�
Lake ManaQemeut Plans $20.000� $15.000�
Pliase II 5tream Assessmei�t �$20.000�
N
N' Wetllnd Manaeement Plan I $20.000�
Evaluate Creek 100 Year Elev $20.000�
3 Generation Plan �$125.000
N
a CAPITAL PRO.TECTS I I I I I I I I I I
w
a Slunsle Creek Restoration. BBlvd $750.000
m to Candlewood
New Hone-Wincrest Pond $290,000�
n Ma�le Gcove Pond P51 I I I$1.459.00OI
Crvstal Lake Water Oualitv �$400.000�
Madle Grove Pot�d P57 ($648.000.1
a Twin Lake Wedand G39W Imnr �$690.000�
New Hooe 45 Ave Pond $SS0.000�
SlunQle Creek Restoration. CR 1,0 $430.000 I
to I 69�
M�►ale Grove Pond P33 $574.000�
Maole Grove Pond P55 I I I �855,000�
S�cbtotal. Com�nissian 7S 000 322 S00 $434.500 $496.125
Ca:tribtition
SuGfotal. Citv Contr•ibution� �675.000� �$1.426.500� $1.303.500� 51.912.875I I
Total Cnnital Proiects� $750.000� �$1.749.0�0� �1.738.000� 2 409 000�
Note: Subtotals assrcme Fundine Onlion 1. See nroiect descrivtions belo�v for fiutdine source detail.
o D
.z7
'G
v N
o.
c� x
Appendix G
CIP Proiects and Fundin�
Proiects nroposed for the Interim CIP are described below. It is the current intent of� the,�
_��rnriiissions to finance= these oroiects using� Fundin� 'O�uon 1. the revised Cost Share Policv.
However. in the event cities are unable to aeree on how to share the Cih� Avportionment, or for some
other reason the Commission determines that it is infeasible to Qo forvvard usina Option 1, then the
Commission. as authorized in the Joint Powers A�reement, mav ao forward usin� ODtion 2 or ODtion
3 as described below.
���r�-3=- Cast Share-Policv
For capital Droiects that have been identified in a Commission-ado*�ted or a�proved TI��DL or
manaaement Dlan:
L The Commission's share should be 25 nercent of the cost of the �oroiect, to a maximum share
of $250,000.
2. The Commission's share should be funded throu�h the ad valorem tax method s�read
across all tax�avers within the watershed.
3. The Commission should use a m�imum annual lew of $500.000 as a workinQ auideline.
4. The cities' share should be 75 nercent of the cost of the nroiect. This would be a�portioned
to the cities as follows, or in some other manner accentable to them:
a. The area directiv benefitin� from the Aroiect should be a�portioried 25 nercent of the
cost of the �roiect. This would be aunortioned to cities based on, for e�amvle,
nroportion of lake or stream frontaQe.
b. Fiftv percent of the cost of the �roiect should be aDnortioned based on contributin�/
benefitine area. The basis of this anDOrtionment would likelv be unioue to each
rP o�ect•
5. The cities can each decide the fundin� mechanism that is best suited to them for *�avment of
their share. for examDle throu�h sDecial assessments. storm draina�e utilitv, Qeneral tax lew,
or watershed management tax district.
f3�aa���. �¢.i�?O:Percent Ad Valo��m `Ta�r I.ew;�
Under the authoritv Drovided bv Minn Stat 103B.251 Section VIlI. Subd. 5, the Commissions have
the authoritv to certifv for pavment bv the countv all or �art of the cost of an annroved ca�ital
improvement. The JPA nrovides that if cities aze unable to come to a cost sharin� a�reement, then,
the Commission mav order the �roiect bv fundinQ 100 oercent of the nroiect cost from the Henne�in
Countv ad valorem tax lew.
Option 3— 100 qercent Anportionment to Cities _i
�u.
Proiects mav also be 100 nercent funded bv cities. The JPA vrovides two alternates: Droiects mav be
funded throuah a neeotiated cost share between cities havina land in the affected subwatershed. Or,
�roiects mav be funded bv a�ot�ortioning the cost of the nroiect across all the cities in the watershed
usina the same 50% land area 50% tax cavacitv formula as the �eneral assessments to cities. The
latter mav be amended bv the Commission if it is clear that one or more of the cities receive a s*�ecial
benefit from the proiect.
5hingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Managemeni C�mmissions Page G-11
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan ��^�=�^�Se�tember 2DD6
Appendix G
2007 Proiects
New Hope Wincrest Pond
This proiect includes exnansion of an existing z�ond located between Winnetka Avenue and Surnter
Avenue, north of the Wincrest A�artments into a two-cell nond svstem. The ouroose of the nroiect is
to increase both the water oualitv treatment volume and flood storage volume of the existina �ond.
Stormwater treatment efficiencv will be increased. and neriodic overtonning that now causes erosion
v,�ill be eliminated. The area treated bv this �ond drains to Unper Twin Lake. The TMDL for that
lake reauires vhosDhorus load to be reduced throuQh retrofittinQ the subwatershed with additional
treatment.
Fundin� Options Ad Valorem Tax Citv At�portionment Total Estimated
New Hove Wincrest Pond ��'v �Commission �Cities' Sharel Proiect Cost
Sharel
1- Revised Cost Share Policv I $72.500 $217.500 $290,000
2 Ad Valorem Tax Lew $290.000 $0 $290.000
3— Citv Apoortionment $0 $290,000 $290.000
MaDl.e Gr Pond P�1
Maple Grove nlans to construct a series of re�ional vonds to Drovide vollutant .load reduction,
volume and neak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This �ond would
serve 312 acres of new develoAment in the Arbor Lakes area of Manle Grove. The �ronosed �roiect
would upsize the Dond to Drovide treatment bevond the minimum reauired bv Commission standards
and would nrovide an estimated additional 94 vounds of annual nhosphorus load reduction as well as
reduction of other pollutants. The Droiect cost here is the additional cost to uosize the nond to
achieve ereater pollutant removaL
Fundin� Ovtions Ad Valorem Tax Citv Apportionment Total Estimated
Maple Grove Pond P51 �Commission �Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
Sharel
1- Revised Cost Share Policv $250,000 $1,209,000 $1,459,000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Lew I $1,459,000 �0 $1.459,000
3— Citv ApDOrtionment I $0 $1,459,000 $1,459,000
2008 Proiects
Robbinsd.ale Crvstal Lake Wat.er 4ualih� I»inro>>enients
The proiect involves the construction of infrastructure that would enable the withdrawal of
hwolimnetic water from the lake. and its num�in� to an uDStream point for flow back throuah a
series of veaetated Aonds nrior to re-entrv into the lake. The nuroose is to reduce hi�h internal
�hosphorus loadinQ of the lake bv withdrawal of �hosAhorus-rich hvpolimnetic water. resultin� in the
�revention of excessive al�al blooms and imnro��ement in water oualitv. T3us proiect is in the Initial
TMDL ManaQement Recommendations for Crvstal Lake.
Shingle Creek and West t�lississippi Watershed Ivlanagement Commissions Page G-12
Second Generation Watsrshed Management Plan s�,:.�,^:��� ?^^�Seotember 2006
Appendix G
Fundina Options Ad Valorem Tax Citv Annortionment Total Estimated
Crvstal Lake Water Oualitv Lew (Commission �Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
Improvements Share)
1- Revised Cost Share Policv I 100.000 �300.000 $400.000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Lew I $400,000 �0 $400,000
3— Citv ApDOrtionment $0 I $400.000 $400.000
Manl.e Grove Pond P57
l��aple Grove nlans to construct a series of reQional nonds to nrovide nollutant load reduction,
volume and neak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This �ond would
serve 93 acres of new develonment in the Arbor Lakes area of Ma�le Grove. The nronosed �roiect
would u�size the Dond to �rovide treatment bevond the minimum reouired bv Commission standards
and would Drovide an estimated additional 14 oounds of annual nhos�horus load reduction as v� ell as
reduction of other nollutants. The nroiect cost here is the additional cost to unsize the nond to
achieve �reater nollutant removal.
d'na O�tions Ad Valorem Tax Citv Auportionment Total Estimated
Fun i
Levv (Commission
Maple Grove Pond P57 Share) (Cities' .Sharel Proiect Cost
1
Revised Cost Share Policv $162,000 $486,000 $648,000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Lew I $648,000 $0 $648,000
3— Citv Annortionment $0 I $648,000 I $648,000
Twin I.ake Wetland 639W hnnrovements
The Twin Lake ManaQement Plan and TMDL bott� identified restoration of this wetland as ke�� to
reducinQ subwatershed ohosDhorus loadine to UDner Twin Lake. The wetland is located north of
Upper Twin Lake in Brooklvn Center and Crvstal: a maioritv of the wetland is located on oronertv
owned bv the Metro�olitan Aimorts Commission and is commonl� referred to as the MAC Nature
Preserve. Three alternatives for achievin� this reduction have been identified: 1) partial diversion of
flow around the wetland; 21 dechannelization and increased stora�e within the wetland: and 31 an
alum ferric chloride treatment s�stem. The initial nroiect �hase will be the comoletion of a feasibilitv
studv to detem�ine the most aopronriate and cost effective ontion for achieving the desired
nhos�horus load reduction, followed bv construction of the recommended solution.,
Ad Valorem Tax
Fundina Options Citv Apnortionment Total Estimated
Lew (Commission �Cities' Sharel Proiect Cost
Tv� in Lake V� etland 639W Sharel
1- Revised Cost Share Policv I 172.500 I $517.500 �690,000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Lew I �690.000 I �0 I $690,000
3— Citv A�nortionment $0 $690.000 I $690.000
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-13
Se�ond Generation Watershed Management Plan °^^�=�^^wSeotember 20D6
Appendix G
2009 Proiects
New Houe 45` Avenue Pond
The nroiect would convert an existine drv nond on 45` Avenue between Winnetka and Xvlon
Avenues to a wet nond to provide �hosnhorus removal from an 80 acre subwatershed. The Aumose
of the proiect is to reduce �ollutant loadinQ to downstream water bodies: This subwatershed drains to
the Crvstal Memorv Lane Pond svstem, which ultimatelv discharQes to Lov��er Twin Lake.
Increasina the size of the nond will also nrovide additional flood storaae for the sub��atershed. The
TMDL for the Twin Lake svstem reouires DhosDhorus loads to be reduced throu�h retrofitting the
subwatershed with additional treatment.
Ad Valorem Tax
Fundin� Ontions Citv Aoportionment Total Estimated
New Ho�e 45�' Ave Pond �vv (Cominission �Cities' Sharel Proiect Cost
Sharel
1- Revised Cost Share Policv $137,500 I $412.500 �550,000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Levv $550,000 $0 $550,000
3— Citv ApDOrtionment $0 $550,000 $550.000
Sliin�l.e Creek Restoration, CR 10 t.o 1694
The proiect would construct stream corridor imnrovements on Shin�le Creek as recommended bv the
Shin�le Creek Corridor Studv and as antici�ated will be recommended imnrovements in the ShinQle
Creek dissolved oxv�en and im�aired biotic TMDLs to be comAleted in 2007. The reach to be
improved is from Countv Road 10 to Interstate Hi�hwav 94/694. The followin� imnrovements are
proposed: streambank stabilization in erodina areas: removal of select trees to reduce canoov densitv;
establishin� or enhancinQ buffer ve�etation: and installation of rock vanes and varied substrates.,
Fundine Ontions Ad Valorem Tax Citv Apnortionment Total Estimated
Shin�le Creek Restoration, CR Levv (Commission �Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
10 to I694 Share)
1- Revised Cost Share Policv $107,500 $322,500 $430A00
2- Ad Valorem Tax Levv I $430.000 I �0 $430,000
3— Citv Apnortionment I �0 I $430,000 $430,000
Mapl.e Grove Pond P33
Manle Grove ulans to construct a series of re�ional nonds to provide �ollutant load reduction,
volume and Aeak rate attenuation. and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This �ond would
serve 123 acres of new develoDment in the Arbor Lakes area of Manle Grove. The �roposed nroiect
would uDSize the �ond to �rovide treatment bevond the minimum reouired bv Commission standards
and v��ould Drovide an estimated additional 17 Aounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as
reduction of other pollutants. The Aroiect cost here is the additional cost to u�size the nond to
achieve greater pollutant removaL
Shingle Creek and West IJlississippi Watershed tJ�anagement Commissions Page G-14
Second Generation Watershsd•Management Plan 2006
Appendix G
Fundin� Ontions Ad Valorem Tax Ciri� Apportionment Total Estimated
Ma�le Grove Pond P33 Levv (Comm.ission �Cities' Sharel Proiect Cost
Sharel
1- Revised Cost Share Policv I $143.500 $430.500 $574.000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Levv I $574.000 I $0 I $574.000
3— Citv ADportionment $0 $574.000 $574.000
11�aDl.e Gro>>e Po�id P55
Manle Grove Alans to construct a series of reQional oonds to nrovide nollutant load reduction.
volume and neak rate aftenuation. and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This �ond would
serve 96 acres of new develovment in the Arbor Lakes area of Manle Grove. The nroposed proiect
would u�size the oond to vrovide treatment bevond the minimum reouired bv Commission standards
and would Drovide an estimated additional 25 oounds of annual nhos�horus load reduction as well as
reduction of other nollutants. The �roiect cost here is the additional cost to unsize the Dond to
achieve �reater nollutant removal.
Fundin� ODtions Ad Valorem Tax Citv A�portionment Total Estimated
Maple Grove Pond P55 �vv (Conunission �Cities' Sharel Proiect Cost
Share)
1- Revised Cost Share Policv I $107.625 I $747,375 $855,000
2— Ad Valorem Tax Lew I $855.000 I $0 I $855,000
3- Citv Apnortionment I $0 I $855,000 I $855.000
5hingle Creek and West tJ�ississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-15
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Se{�~°' z'�8-5Seotember 2006
Appendix G
I T.. F, -rav.���a
I 7f1(1Z 7M7 Cc.+irr�_4_rl Q��„��.Jne±�n.d r`IDfT�,4�1 Cr`\I1/�A \M�II(''\
�8A3 �A84 �-0�5 �2986 �89�
l�wee�iar�n ��1��nY.n�..g a ��u. Q .�T
I t ��.;M..._....,�.uwu .�.�.z= �?F c.
s x �_......_i
�aae �a -,��aa �e �e
�s��� �aa�,�ee -�a;eae �a�-e-,�es -�-�eee -�a�eae
e� -�?eea -��ee -$-�a,se� -�--�e�e� -�-�aea� -�-�;ses
e.�! v•,�r�r,�,.., T.,.. �.8
f
CYD, CA c:-c�v�-� '�i�� �-r� -43���,
I �.,,,ie,��,;.,n ,,,,�unn��..* �c �n� Q�a� �nn Q��n �on Q��Q �yn Qno'n� r �nL� pn
�cv�c,� -WL6� ���3�C
i ��ri Q .m�i�v Q y "m v cav sD t 'f"'r tYCV Q i- r��v �-F�C. 9 O
\/nh �n+nnr_'. nin4e�r1 mnnitnrinn Q i��o n n n
Q LLZ JttV 'F L�.. �'7
I L��� �98 i �.7b '�"'"c� "ti p j d
I Crl��n•�,4�nn nnr7 .�.r�h c�+o ,�Q�� 'dp �i 'b �i
-AJ-���€ as#+v+�ies -$-�;980 -$-�-4-,-�48 ��9 `,��9
I Cea��n�+�nn nr�n+n "L '4 '4 ,y��y1'7 'L Ce�CtJ
Qonn�irno �Anm# Drnion4n Q70�i�? 1�0 �g Q�y
I '7nr� nnnor�4ir�.n r�l�n �C�
I ThAII���QT
e
I T..rin I nLoc L+mm�ru�mer r�r!
I 1A/•+4e�r rne�n� �mo mnm+ r�l�n
I lA/n4e�r rn i�li+v �I�n �'1�7�0
Chinr.ln (�rr�n4 mnm+ r�lnn
I Dr�+ntin'.1 0 4. r+n�ic r+l.�n
e
I T�Alll Imnlomonl�4inn
I \A/n4I�n.J mnm4 r.l-�n ��8
I
I Cv+l n �e�L i(1!1 v r�l�"n4inn
'�-�v�vav
I \A/oc+ �Ai n n nnr�if��rl n'.ion+ �N C
I �A�IQe� Tie� II �+�+��c
e
I �C'b �3H':'dt7C
I I 'n4 "1,
��32�T3y,; �ill/1 f121 ��f��1=�i �S! JIlly Q "71 �1.fl'1;.
�,�j+vr: y�°'� ....t�-Jt �p ...+��T '-�-cr�-"
I •Ae-c��m'.n rl_C nnf .�t n nuA •,.z I I
I `��sr�^' e,�.�� a z .r �"�---cv'� 1 flA T2:
s x
a:�.�..` ;`,�n"' ��w.� :.m,x.,�,..�. ,��..a.a�,...a�i...'� m`� r, Q
I .e. ._.�a�..., ..x,_.:;
�i�o '�it L f -S- GC �0,(1
I ('`'.ni?nI Drninn+a
I T�nrin 1 '+4a Qen+nrn+inn
CF�innlo /''.00L Ro�+"��+�nn 7����
e
QrnnLlvn Qn� �lovnrrl +n lJmm�cF�iro
Drninn+c 4rnm Q�
I lA/o41nnr1/hn{-�i+n4�ro c +nrn}inn
TT. [iQTIQ�19'G[VCCGRTV uT[Q1 4C1V1T f
I �/1f+^]� P'�I/'11l�I++ T'f�l�F1 L
,,.a„-. ra W...
��i��E�Sf��'Vx-i ���vv Y Q
5hingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-16
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �^^���September 2DD6
Appendix G
I �a=wa'cv�iz �ddge� t��SIP lTn+�l
I
I I �2� �98J �8�--�-
i �'"�A.�
°,��-r,`„'.���i,��' ��.t'� s a
,va, �'ct� '�z`�.;�a.: :i. ?..t�.. r
I >.o�.
-��a,-�eo -��a,�ee �s -��ase -�s�a
I T'i��rfJJTmTGIi[O `✓`i`�"f"�� T W�+"`.'f`i`i" W`+"if"""
I
I CYD��C ��B �T�g O
I I Cn /�e-Im'n/I r�n•.1/AAi� Q2 i��?,fl� i3��,�
I I Drnrrvan,rr�rtr.� 32 �-tdtl�V -cB't�rtf Q1 �-r� -c�.. �vv �ti ��,?�d3
'�A �9-cr+°vc 'z' �Q�Jt�v Q
I \/��G� #or-1 mnniinr�n� f
I $-�4' �98 4�9 -a 'g,?.'� $-4-8 �--4-2�95 Q
I .�4'n ..nrl �r.icF� ��4a Q �I� iG(1 Q ��t�v
��c
-�1�$€c ^^*��i� -9T-�&;�89 '�"-�-�-�"�'0 °��39
I Ci-I� inn4inn nr�n4�+ ..�-.�-�8 �--�q 7�ytft7
I
I Qonn� �rnr� �Anmf D�nien+c� Q
I
I
I \A/•�4or ro n��rno mr�mt r�l�n �8
e
I 1A/�+t�r �o ni �rno mnmt r.l�n
e
I
I
I
I
I
�$-68;998 �-�5:-9A8 -�--�:-�98 -�-�8�:888 -�8-899 -�A;888
I ITQi i i ')71 ��=�x�r.
e rc :.^�-9�;3� a -$-�6�-
a_
I *A�..� �-.ornr�nl -+nn� ��I nrn��hh
x„,�r �"�fl AQi� a�
���6e y;�� �--�-0� ..x �r
_...ry.. ,_n..
I �+�C1��19f�
f
I r.,.,�+.,i o.,,�e..+�
I ('r nn��rn 12 n1��nn4� LC�3tJV ����yL�C L`c��tC
t
1 nn�l r�rnionf m�3+� �G '�-'�v
,nr.,+i.,,,,�,h.,ti�+.,+ ro�,,,.�+�,,., -�.�`9-.ggg
F.�es"+�-�a�se -�►-=�2-8� -�9;� ..`:-$-��-9
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-17
Second Generation Watershed I�lanagement Plan �ber-�99-�Seotember 2D06
Appendix G
Table G-3
Approved Budaets 2003-2006 and Estimated BudQets 2008-2012
(Assunles 3% Annual Increases)
A�nroved A�oroved A�oroved A��roved Pro�osed Additional
2003 20D4 2005 2006 2007 2007
1 A��lication fees $2D.ODD $24.000 �24.D00 �24.00D $24.000 �0
2 Wetland reviews
3 Interesi income 10.OD0 2.000 2.00D 1.SOD 3,OOD
4 Contribution to Reserve (7.300)
5 Contribution from Reserve 51.920 43.250 26750 12.550
6 TMDL Grants 90.950 105.339 5.000 65,DD� 200.ODD
7 Other Grants 20,000
8 Assessment 324.O�D 338,95D 361.140 386.85D 411.500 1,050
9 Assessment above cao 17.050
10 Ad valorem
TOTAL REVENUE I$489.570 $533.539 $4�8.890 5490,200 $636.500 518.100
OPERATIOPIS
Administration:
11 Administrative Services $70.00D $70.000 $71,400 $84,500 $87JD0
12 Enaineerina Su000rt 11.50D 11.500 11J30
Enaineerina:
13 Administration 63.0�0 63.D00 64.260 65,2DD 58.600
i4 Manaaement Plan 1D,DOD 10.ODD 10.20D 10.20D 10.0�0
15 Grant Writino 10.000 10.�00 10200 10.20D 8.500
16 TMDUCIP Enaineerina 8.D00
17 Field Insoection S.00D
Leoal:
1 S Leoal 5ervices 25.92Q 20.D00 20,40D 20.500 20.500
Proiect Reviews:
19 Enoineerina 48.ODD 46.00D 4B.960 49.ODD 52,500
20 Administration 7.�00 7.00D 7.140 7.300 7.450
Misce!laneous:
21 B�okkeeoina 4.�OD 4.000 4.D80 4.t50 4.250
22 Audit 3.DOD 3,OD0 3.�00 1 D.DDO 1 D.ODD
23 Continaencv 7.50D 8.5D0 6.5D0 6.000 6.500
24 Insurance Bondina 5.D00 5.000 5,OD0 S.00D 5,600
25 I Meetina Ex�ense 3.700 3.7DD 3J70 3.850 4.000
I SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS 5268.620 $268,700 $266.640 $275.900 5283.600 �D
MONITORING AND INFO GATHERING
26 Commission stream monftorina $22.5D0 g30,000 $35.0�0 $35.ODD �36.SD0
27 USGS site monitorina 2.600 3.200
28 Chloride TMDL annuai re�ort 5.OD0
29 Volunteer lake monitorinq 7.D00 7.000 6.500 6.50D 6.5D0
30 Volunteer stream monitorinq S.ODD 5.000 5.D00 4.000 4.000
31 Volunteer wetland rnonitorina 5.000 4.000
32 Volunteer aauatic olant monitorina 2.1 DO
I SUBTOTAL MON/TDR/NG �39.500 �42.OD0 �46.500 $46.300 552.5�0 511.100
Shingle Creek and West tvlississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-16
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �°�^�,,,��,-��Seotembsr 2D06
Appendix G
Aeoroved A�oroved Aporoved A�proved Pro�osed Additional
2003 2004 2005 2006 20D7 2007
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
33 Education Pr�oram �30.000 $30.ODD �34.D00 �50.D00 $51.400
34 Web site 10.000 7.5D0 6.750
35 NPDES 13.000 5.000 S.00D
36 Education and Im�l Grants 5.OD0 5.000 5.OD0 6.000 6,OD0 6.000
37 Chloride TMDL annual workshoo 1.ODD
SUBTOTAL EDUCA770N S58.00D $47,500 $50,750 $56,OD0 �57,40D $7.ODD
MANAGEMENT PLANS
TMDLs:
36 Shinqle Cr Chioride $90.950 $20.000 $S.ODD
39 Lakes Phase I 85.339
40 Lakes Phase II 65.D00
41 Shinqle Cr DO/Biotic Intearitv 20D.000
Manaoemenf Dlans:
42 Water Qualitv Plan 12.5D0
43 Shinale Creek corridor studv 4D.D00
4 44 Ghloridellake ohase I TMDL imoi alan 2�.000
45 Stream assessment phase il 20.D00
46 Lake phase II TMDLim�l plan 15.OD0
47 Future Wetiand Mamt Plan
5.000
I SUBTOTAL MGMT PLANS 5103,450 ��145,339 I$ 25.000 85.ODU $220,OOD S
I 48 Contribution to constdorant match 20.000 30.OD0 30.000 25.000 25.000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE 5489,570 �$533,539 �$418.690 I$490.200 $638,500 $18.100
I
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 Aoolication fees $25,OD0 $25,000 $25.OD0 $25.OD0 $25.000
I 2 Wetland reviews
�3 Interest income 3.OD0 3.ODD 3.OD0 3.�D0 3.�DD
4 Contribution to Reserve
5 Contribution from Reseroe
6 TMDL Grants
7 Other Grants
8 AssessmenT 423.850 436.570 449.670 463.160 477.05D
9 Assessmentabove cap 8.090 7.500 8,150 2.97D 100.�00
1 D Ad valorem
I I TOTAL REVENUE 5464.940 5472.070 $485.820 $494.130 �6QS.D5D
OPERATIONS
Administration:
11 Administrative Services $90.330 �93.D40 $95.830 �98.7D0 �101.660
12 I Enoineerina Suoport fincl above)
Enaineerina: I
13 Administration $60.360 $62.17D �64.D4D �fi5.96D �67,94D
14 Manaaement Plan 10.300 10.OD0 10.DD0 10.OD0
5hingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-19
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �^^�:'-�o^�Seotember 200fi
Appendix G
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
2008 2Q09 2010 2011 2012
15 Grant Writino 8.760 9.020 9290 9.57D 9.860
16 TMDUCIP Enpineerinq $8.240 $8.490 $BJ40 �B.ODO $9.270
17 Fieid lns�ection
Leoal:
18 Leaal Services �21.120 �21,750 $22,400 $23.07D $23.76D
Proiect Reviews:
19 Enaineerina �54.08D $55.700 $57.370 �59.090 $6D.860
20 Administration 7.670 7.9QD 8.140 8.360 8.630
Misce!laneous:
21 Bookkeepino $4.380 $4.510 $4.650 $4.790 $4.93D
22 Audit 10.D00 1D.DDD 10.000 10.000 10,000
23 I Continaencv 6.500 6.500 6.5DD 6.500 fi.50D
24 Insurance Bondinq� 5.6DD 5.6D0 5.60D 5J50 5.750
25 Meetina Exoense 4_000 4.OD0 4.000 4.100 4.100
I SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS $291.340 $298,680 $306.560 $314.910 $313260
MONITORING AND INFO GATHERING
26 Commission stream monitorino $39.960 $41 J 60 $42,390 $43,660 $44.970
27 USGS site monitorina 3.200 32D0 3.2�0 3.200 3.200
28 Chloride TMDL annua( re�ort S.00D 5.000 5.000 5.000 5.OD0
29 Volunteer lake monitorina 6.500 6.500 6.500 6.500 65�0
30 Volunteer stream monitorina 4.000 4.00D 4.OD0 4.00D 5.000
31 Volunteer wetland monitorina 4,000 4.000 4.000 4.000 6.�D0
32 Volunteer aauatic olant monitorina 2.ODD 2,OD0
I SUBTOTAL MONlTOR1NG 562.660 565,660 I �65,090 568.360 570.670
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
33 Education Prooram $52.940 $54.530 $56,170 $57.860 $58.�20
34 Web site fincl abovet
35 NPDES (incl abovel
36 Education and imolement arants 12.000 12.000 12,OD0 12.000 12.000
37 Chloride TMDL annual worksho� 1.000 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000
I SUBTOTAL EDUCATION I 565.940 567.530 I $69.170 �70.860 $71,120
MANAGEMENT PLANS
TMDLs:
38 None antici�ated
Manaoement Dlans:
39 Commission lake monitorina 15.000 15.OD�
40 Wetland Mamt Pian 20.000
41 Creek 10D-Yr Elevation 20,000
42 3rd Generation Plan 125,000
I SUBTOTAL MGMT PLANS 20.000 9 S.DDO S 20,000 15.000 125.OD0
46 ConYribuYion to constr/arant match 25.00D 25A�0 25.00D 25.OD� 25.000
TOTAL �PERATING EXPENSE I�4b4.94D 5472.070 I$485.820 5494.130 $6D5,Q50
I
Shingfe Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G-20
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �°^�^�Se�tember 2006
�ater ualit Plan
Q Y
Wenck File #1240-22
Prepared for:
SHINGLE CREEK
AND
WEST MISSISSIPPI
WATERSHED
MANAGEMENT COMMISSION
Prepared by:
September 2006
WENCK ASSOCIATES, INC.
1800 Pioneer Creek Center V`��nC
P.O. Box 249
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359-0249
(763) 479-4200
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..............................................................................................................I
L0 WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION .....................................................................1
1 .1 Introducti on l
1 .1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................1
1 .1.2 Obj ectives ........................................................,.........................................1
1.2 Water Resources in the Shingle Creek/West Mississippi WatershedS ....................2
1 .2.1 Lakes ..........................................................................................................2
1.2. l.l 303(d) Listed Lakes ...................................................................2
I .2.2 Streams ..................................3
1.2.2.1 303(d) Listed Stream Segments .................................................7
1 .2.3 Wetlands .............................................................................................:....:.7
1.3 Lake Classification and grouping ..........................................................................10
1.3.1 Lake Classification ..................................................................................10
1.3.2 Lake Grouping Factors ............................................................................11
1.3.3 Watershed ta Lake Area Ratio ................................................................12
1.3.4 Stormwater Treatment Capability ...........................................................13
1 .3.5 Water Clarity ...........................................................................................14
1 .3.6 Use Class .................................................................................................16
1.3.7 Fisheries Status ............................................::..........................................17
1.3.8 Connectedness .........................................................................................19
1.3.9 Scoring .....................................................................................................21
1.3.10 Overall Scoring Recreational Lakes ........................................................21
1.3.11 Overall Scoring Aesthetic Lakes ..........22
1.3.12 Water Quality Goals ................................................................................22
1 .4 Streams ...................................................................................................................24
1 .5 Wetlands ................................................................................................................25
1.5.1 Identification of Watershed Significant Wetlands ..................................25
1.5.2 Functions and Values Analyses .......................................:.......................26
2.0 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...........................................................................................29
2.1 Introduction ............................:.....................................:.......................................29
2.2 Monitoring/Information Gathering ........................................................................32
2 .2.1 Lake Monitoring ......................................................................................32
2.2.1.1 Lake Monitoring Objectives ....................................................32
2.2.1.2 Commission Lake Monitoring .................................................32
2.2.1.3 Volunteer Lake Monitoring .....................................................33
2.2.2 Stream Monitoring ...................................................................................34
2.2.2.1 Stream Monitoring Objectives .................................................34
2.2.2.2 Commission Stream Monitoring ..............................................34
2.2.2.3 Volunteer Stream Monitoring ..................................................35
2.2.2.4 Biomonitoring ..........................................................................35
2.2.3 Wetland Monitoring ...............................................................................35
J:4Shingle CreeklCIPslMajor Plan Amendmenf�September packet�f'INAL Water Qualit�� Plan_SepLdoc
1
Table of Contents (Cont.)
2.2.4 Aquatic Plant 1vlonitoring ........................................................................36
2.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS .....................................................................................36
2.3.1 Lakes ........................................................................................................36
23.1.1 Lake Management Plan Objectives .........................................36
2.3.1.2 Lake Management Plans ..........................................................37
2.3.1.3 Lake TMDLs ............................................................................37
2.3.2 Streams ....................................................................................................37
2.3.2.1 Stream Management Plan Objectives ......................................37
2.3.2.2 Stream Assessments ..........................................................:......38
23.2.3 Stream TMDLs ........................................................................38
2.3.3 Wetlands .................................................................................................3 8
2.3.3.1 Wetland Management Plan Objectives ....................................38
23.3.2 Wetland Protection and Preservation Plan ..............................39
2.4 Capital Improvement Plan .....................................................................................39
2.4.1.1 Management Plan Implementation ..........................................39
2.4.1.2 Shoreline/Streambank Restoration ...........................................39
2.5 Education and Public outreach .......................................................................:.......39
2.5.1 Watershed Management Rules and Standards ........................................40
2.5.2 Education and Public Outreach ...............................................................40
2.5.3 BMP Demonstration Projects ..................................................................40
2.6 Cost of implementation ..........................................................................................40
2.6.1 Continuing Activities ...............................................................................40
2.6.2 New Activities .........................................................................................41
2.6.3 Funding Options ......................................................................................41
TABLES
Table l. Lakes In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List (303(d) List)..... 2
Table 2. Lakes in the Shingle Creek Watershed 5
Table 3. Streams In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List (303(d) List). 7
Table 4. NWI Wetland Area by Type, Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds
Combined 10
Table 5. First Generation Management Plan Water Resources Classifications 11
Table 6. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score Range 12
Table 7. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score by Lake 12
Table 8. Stormwater Treatment Capability Score Range 13
Table 9. Stormwater Treatment Capability Score by Lake 14
Table 10. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20% of the Time or More
15
Table 11. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20% of the Time or More
16
Table 12. Use Class: Recreation Use Score Range 16
Table 13. Use Class: Access Score Range 17
Table 14. Use Class Score by Lake 17
J:1Shingle Creek\CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet�FINAL Water Qualiry Plan_Sept.doc
ll
Table of Contents (Cont.)
I Table 15. Fishery Status Range of Scores 18
Table 16. Fishery Status Score by Lake 19
Table 17. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Range of
Scores 19
Table 18. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Score by
Lake 21
Table 19. Overall Lake Scores for Recreational Lakes 21
Table 20. Overall Lake Scores For Aesthetic Lakes 22
Table Lake Grouping 22
T able 22. Lake Water Quality Standards 23
Table 23. 2002 Lake Water Quality Data Compared to Water Quality Goals 23
Table 24. Most Recent Shingle Creek Data For Certain Water Quality Parameters 24
Table 25. Priority Wetlands 26
Table 26. Implementation Plan Activities 30
Table 27. CAMP Lake Monitoring Schedule 33
Table 28. Implementation Plan Costs 42
Table 29. Lake Monitoring Parameters And Frequency 45
Table 30. Stream Monitoring Parameters And Frequency 47
Table 31. Monitoring Quality Assurance Objectives 48
FIGURES
Figure l. Lakes and Streams ...............................................................................................................4
Figure DNR:Public Waters .............................................................................................................8
Figure NWI Wetlands .....................................................................................................................9
Figure 4. Total Phosphorus Concentration and Expected Frequency and SeveriTy of Nuisance
AlgalBlooms ........................................................................................................................15
Figure 5. Fish Abundance By Species Group Compared to Tropic State Index .................................18
Figure 6. Wetlands: Priority for Functions and Values Analysis ........................................................24
APPENDICES
A Field Monitoring Protocols
B Standard Operating Procedures for Grab Sampling
B Standard Operating Procedures for Automated Sampling
C Standard Operating Procedures for Stream Discharge Monitoring
J:�,Shingie Creek\CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet�FINAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
111
1.0 Water Resource Prioritization
1.1 INTRODUCTION
1.1.1 Purpose
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions' Water Quality
Plan (WQP) is intended to help achieve a Second Generation Managen7ent Plan goal of
protecting and improving water quality. A number of activities are proposed in the Management
Plan over the next ten years, including developing individual management plans for major water
resources. In addition, the Commissions are required to undertake the following:
Complete and implement chloride and low dissolved oaygen TMDLs for Shingle Creek;
Establish numerical water quality goals for lakes;
Complete and implement �'r�en�a�e-nutrient TMDLs;
Complete and implement an impaired biota TMDL for Bass Creek; and
Identify priority wetlands for preservation or restoration.
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds Water Quality Plan (WQP) t��ntendedxto=
Set forth the Commissions' water quality goals, standards, and methodologies in more
detail than the general goals and policies established in the Second Generation
Management Plan.
P�auid� p�`�os�phical guidarice fof completing w�.tei resflurce management plans and
a 3'IvIDLs; and
direction for the ongoing water quality monitoring programs that will be essential
to determining if the TMDLs and implementation prograxn are effectively improving
water quality.
1.1.2 Objectives
The primary objectives of the WQP are to provide:
Detailed goals for each water resource for water quality and quantity, aquatic life, and
aesthetics;
A prioritization and grouping of each resource to target further study and use of financial
resources,
A detailed plan for accomplishing the TMDLs that will be required over the next several
years as well as the water resources management plans; and
1
J:�Shingle Creek\CiPs�Major Pian AmendmenPSeptember packet�FINAL Water Qualiq� Plan_Sept.doc
Standard procedures for water quality sampling and analysis to assure consistency of data
collection.
The Plan is organized into two chapters. The Water Resources Prioritization chapter begins with
a summary of what is known about the quality of the water resources within the two watersheds.
For each category of water resources lakes, streams wetlands general goals are identified, as
are the activities by which those goals would be accomplished and evaluated. This chapter also
includes a general prioritization or grouping, or a process by which the resources would be
prioritized.
The Implementation Plan chapte�details the activities to be undertaken to work towards meeting
the goals specified in the Plan. Appendices establish technical and analytical standards and
procedures to provide for consistency and comparabiliiy of data from year to year. This chapter
assures data is collected and analyzed in a consistent manner even if there is a change in
personnel, or if another agency, for example, were to collect data.
1.2 WATER RESOURCES IN THE SHINGLE CREEK/WEST MISSISSIPPI
WATERSHEDS
1.2.1 Lakes
There are sixteen lakes in the Shingle Creek watershed, and none in West Mississippi (see Figure
1). Twin Lake is comprised of three basins and is considered as three separate lakes even though
they are one cha.in of lakes. Table 2, Shingle Creek Watershed Lake Data, details the general
lake physical, water quality, and recreational information.
1.2.11 303(d) Listed Lakes
Table 1 lists the impaired lakes in the Shingle Creek watershed. According to the Sta.te of
Minnesota, these lakes either do not meet their designated beneficial use (aquatic recreation) due
to an excess of nutrients or there is a Fish Consumption Advisory (FCA) for mercury or PCBs.
The Muznesota Department of Health (MDH) has issued guidelines recommending that
consumption of all fish caught in Minnesota be limited due to the widespread mercury, PCB, and
dioxin contamination from air pollution. The DNR has sampled the fish in some of the lakes in
Minnesota and issued more specific Fish Consumption Advisories. The specific FCAs for Twin
Lake and Eagle/Pike Lakes are for consumption of carp and Northern pike and additionally for
Eagle/Pike Lakes, walleye and bluegills.
Table 1. Lakes In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List (303(d) List).
Lake DNR Laice Affected use pollutant or Year Target*
stressor Listed Start/Complet�
Bass 27-0098-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2009/2013
Cedar Island 27-0119-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2004 2010/2014
Crystal 27-0034-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005
2
J:�Shingle Creek\CIPs�ivlajor Plan Amendment`,September packetl�'INAL 1��ater Qualit�- Pian_Sept.doc
Pollutant or Year Tar et*
Lake DNR Lake Affected use g
stressor Listed Start/Complete,
Eagle 27-0111-01 Aquatic recreation Excess nutr�ents 2002
2008/2012
Eagle/Pike 27-0111 I Aquatic consumvtion Mercury FCA** 2002 1999/2011
Magda 27-0065-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012
Meadow� 27-0057-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012
Pike 27-0111-02 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012
Pomerleau 27-0100-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012
Ryan 27-0058-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005
Schmidt 27-0102-00 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012
Twin 27-0042 AQUatic consumntion Mercury FCA** 2002 1999/2011
Twin 27-0042 Aquatic consumption PCB FCA 2002 1999/2011
Twin-Middle 27-0042-02 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005
Twin-North 27-0042-03 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005
Twin-South 27-0042-01 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2003/2005
*MPCA target.
**MI'CA will complete regional or statewide TNIDLs for mercury. FCA is Fish Consumption Advisory.
1.2.2 Streams
The main stem of Shingle Creek begins in Brooklyn Park in northwestern Hennepin County and
flows generally southeast to its confluence with the Mississippi River in Minneapolis (see figure
1). Shingle Creek is formed at the junction of Bass Creek and Eagle Creek, two of the major
tributaries in the watershed. The river is approximately 11 miles long and drops approximately
66 feet from its source to its mouth. Palmer Lake is the only lake directly on Shingle Creek.
Several tributaries enter Shingle Creek as it flows through the watershed. A major tributary is
Ryan Creek, which originates as the outlet of Ryan Lake in Minneapolis and joins the main stem
of Shingle Creek 1.2 miles upstream of the outlet in northeastem Minneapolis. The three basins
of Twin Lake drain most of the central portion of the watershed and outlet into Shingle Creek
through a channel.between Lower Twin Lake and Ryan Lake. Bass Creek and Eagle Creek drain
most of the southwestern part of the watershed before fornung Shingle Creek. Information
regazding storm sewer systems and dischazge rates can be found in the cities' individual
stormwater management plans. Other tributaries include Pike Creek in Maple Grove and Twin
Creek in Brooklyn Park and Brooklyn Center.
The central portion of the West Mississippi watershed is drained by Oxbow Creek. The creek
flows in an easterly direction and then heads north, eventually outletting to the Mississippi R.iver.
The southern portion of the watershed is drained by the man-made Edinbrook/Century Channel,
which runs from TH 169 to Mattson Brook and from there to the Mississippi River.
3
J:�Shingte Creek\CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendment�September packet�FINAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
Ch-rnplin �r,
�ort—
Brooklyn Park
o�...a
en �;.M.. a.��
A
�I ar.o..�.... Bod
Map[e k
Grove
I
�G..� E ,,.,..R
g 3 r Br klyn
's a o
R,�
m
ti,,
Plymouth
New A npe �r++�
Meih T.rin
6.
Gy: ra!
�r neapo c
ar
R bbi
Hennyiin
CRlrtry•, w E
Mnnoniu
1 0 1 2 3 Miles S
i
T 4
Sh�ngle Creek/V� est Nfississi i Watershed Commissions
PP DEC 2003
I 6
Wer�ck
Lakes and Streams m the SCWM Watersheds Wt�ASSOaates, Inc. 1800PioneerCreek CeNer
�,���5 ��eP�,�, 5�5�-�� Figure 1
4
J:�Shingle Creek\CIPs�tvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet�F'INAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 2. Lakes in the Shingle Creek Watershed.
Bass Cedar Crystal Curtis Eagle Magda Meadow Palmer
Island
GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION
Ma le Brookl n Ne
w Brookl n
Location Plymouth Maple Robbmsdale Plymouth P y y
Grove Grove Park Hope Center
DNR Lake Number 27-0098 I 27-0119 27-0034 27-593W I 27-0I 11-01 I 27-0065 I 27-0057 27-0059
Ordinary High 906.1 902.4 847.5 N/A g DNR 885.9 N/A 842.8
Water (OHW) (ft) 873.8 �lan
Lake Area (acres) I 175 81 78 4.5 291 10 l 1 25
Shoreline (ft) I 11,950 I 12,]50 I 7,450 2,220 16,700 I 2,990 3,790 I 7,390
Shoreline' 22 �_g2 L 14 1.41 132 l.28 l.54 2.00
De.velopment Factor
Littoral Area' ]43(82%) 81(100%) 53(68%) 4.5(100%) 199(68%) 10(100%) 11(100%) 25(100%)
(acres)(%)
Maximum Depth (ft) 3l 7 I 39 10 34 7 5 I 4
Mean Depth (ft) I 9.5 I 4.6 I 10 I N/A I 12.5 I N/A I N/A I 2
WATERSHED INFORMATION
Drainage Basin Area C2 121 l7 954
(acres)
3,183 642 1,238 283 2,879
Drainage Basin to 7_1 8:1 16:1 70:1 10:1 6:1 11:1 722:1
Lake Area Ratio
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
Trophic State Index 56 74 78 N/A 52 69 83 N/A
(TSI)
ast CAMP Report 2003 2003 1997 2002 2003 1999
d Grade" C F D N A C F p N/A
ecchi Depth 5 1.2/3.9 .6/2.0 1.1 /3.6 N/A 1.6/5.2 .612.0 3/1 A N/A
(meters/feet)
Phosphorus (ppb) 35 123 179 N/A I 19 117 230 N/A
Chlorophyll-a (npb) 20 I 79 I 58 I N/A 19 45 78 N/A
RECREATION INFORMATION
Public Access I Yes No Yes No Yes No No No
Adjacent Park Yes Yes Yes No Re�ional No No Yes
Fishing Fishing pier
Other Amenities P1er None Fishing pier None Long term None None None
plan: beach
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Last Fish Survey, 1991 1998 1999
Most Abundant Fish BLG, N/A BLC, BLG, N/A BLC, BLG, N/A N/A N/A
Species6 BLB� �P� NOP YEP, GSF
Other species noted L WAE TME, Carp N/A ME, WAE, N/A N/A N/A
NOP Caro
Exotic Plants Milfoil None None N/A Milfoi] None None N/A
Present
'Shoreline development factor expresses the degree of irregularity of the shoreline compared to its area. A perfect circle would be l.0.
The higher this factor, the more irregular the shoreline, and increased potential for contamination from shoreline development.
z Littoral area is that part of the lake less than I S feet in depth, home to majority of aquatic plants and young fish.
3 Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI) is a measure of lake productivity, combinuig phosphorus, chlorophyll, and Secchi (transparency).
4 CAMP is the Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program.
ecchi depth is a measure of transparency and refers to the depth to which a patterned disc is visible from the surface.
LC Black Crappie WHC White Crappie SLJN Sunfish species BLG Bluegill GSF Pumpkinseed Sunfish LMB
Largemouth Bass SMB Smallrnouth Bass NOP Northem Pike WAE Walleye BLB Black Bulihead BR.B Brown Bullhead
TME Tiger Muskellunge ME Muskellunge YEP Yellow Perch WHS White Sucker
5
]:�Shingle Creek\CIPsVviajor Plan Amendment�September packet�FINAL Water Qualin� Plan_SepLdoc
Lower Middle
Pike Pomerleau Ryan Schmidt Success TH Twin Upper Twin
GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION
Maple Minneapolis Brooklyn Robbins- Brooklyn Brook]yn
Location Grove Plymouth Robbinsdale P�ymouth park dale Center Center
Plymouth Crystal Crysta]
DNR Lake Number 2�'0111- 2�_p100 27-0058 27-0102 27-634W 2�"0042- 2�_0042-02 27-0042-03
02 0]
Ordinary High 874 2 937 849.6 DNR 925 N/A 853.] 853.1 853.1
Water (OHVJ) (ft) 850.�nlan
Lake Area (acres} 58 30 20 37 5 I 30 I 56 1 l8
Shoreline (ft) 7,780 4,170 3,195 1 8,390 2,385 6,450 7,250 14,890
Shoreline' 138 1.03 1.14 1.86 1.44 1.59 ].31 1.85
Develo ment Factor
D
Littoral Area 1 55(95%) 20(67%) ]0(50%) 34(92%) N/A 25(83%) 32(57%) 1 I8(l00%)
0
(acres)( /o)
Maximum Depth (ft) 22 26 33 27 I N/A 21 42 10
Mean Depth (ft) 7 9 15.6 5.6 N/A N/A l 6 N/A
WATERSHED INFORMATION
Drainage Basin Area 1,071 266 5,613 252 192 5,322 4,053 3,657
(acres)
Drainage Basin to 16:1 38:1 266:1 6:1 36:1 176:1 72:1 31:1
Lake Area Ratio
WATER QUALITY INFORMATION
Trophic State Index 69 69 64 62 37 7l 65 75
(TSI)
Last CAMP Report 2000 2003 2003 2001 2003 2003 2003 2002
Card Grade C D B C C C C F
Secchi Depth 1.2/3.9 ].7/5.6 ].2/3.9 ].9/6.2 2.2/7.2 I.1/3.6 1.7/5.6 .48/1.6
(meters/feet)
Phosphorus (ppb) 90 89 54 58 l0 93 60 137
Chlorophyll-a (ppb) I 3l I 16 I 16 15 9 39 28 56
RECREATION INFOR1ViATION
II
Public Access Curb cut No Curb cut No Yes Yes Yes
Eagle
Adjacent Park I ReQional No Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
Other Amenities None None I Fishing nier None None None Beach None
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
LastFish Survey, 1993 1990 2002 2002
Most Abundant Fish BLG 1994 1986 gLB N/A BLC, BLC BLG BLC BLG
Species yEp' GSF, LMB BLB, BRB BLG BLG, yEp� BLB YEP� BLB
YEP,BLB
Other species noted NOP NOP, SUN N/A NOP N/A C�' NOP, Carp NOP, Carp
Exotic Plants Poss curly Poss curly Poss curly
Present None None None Milfoil None leaf )eaf leaf
'Shoreline development factor expresses the degree of irregularity of the shoreline compared to its area. A perfect circle would be 1.0.
The higher this factor, the more irregular the shoreline, and increased potential for contamination from shoreline development.
2 Littoral area is that part of the lake less than l 5 feet in depth, home to majority of aquatic plants and young fish.
3 Carlson's Trophic State Index (TSI) is a measure of lake productivity, combining phosphorus, chlorophyll, and Secchi (transparency)
measures.
"CAMP is the Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program.
S Secchi depth is a measure of transparency and refers to the depth to which a pattemed disc is visible from the surface.
6
BLC
Black Crappie WHC White Cra ie SCTN Sunfish s ecies BLG Blue ill GSF Pum kinseed Sunfish LMB
PP P g P
Largemouth Bass SMB Smallmouth Bass NOP Northern Pike WAE Walleye BLB Black Bullhead BRB Brown Bullhead
TME Tiger Muskellunge ME Muskellunge YEP Yellow Perch WHS White Sucker
6
]:\Shingle Creek\CIPsQvtajor Plan Amendment\September packet�f'INAL Water Quality Pian_Sept.doc
1.2.2.1 303 d Listed Stream Se nients
g
Streams in the Shingle Creek watershed are also on the impaired waters list of the State of
Minnesota (303(d) list). Table 3 lists the listed reaches and parameters in the Shingle �reek
Watershed.
Table 3. Streams In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List (303(d) List).
Stream Segment Affected use pollutant Listing Year rMDL Target*
or stressor Start/Complete
Shin�le Creek 07010206-506 Aquatic Life I Chloride 1998 I 2002/2006
Shingle Creek 07010206-506 Aquatic Life Low Oaygen 2004 2004/2006
Shingle Creek 07010206-506 Aquatic Life lmpaired Biota 2006 2013/2015
Bass Creek 07010206-527 Aquatic Life Impaired Biota 2002 2008/2015
*Target established by MPCA.
Recent sampling results suggest it is likely that Shingle Creek will be added to the impaired list
for fecal coliform at some point in the future.
1.2.3 Wetlands
The "protected" waters and wetlands of the watershed are those that have been inventoried by the
Minnesota Departznent of Natural Resources (DNR) (see Figure 2). All Type 3, 4, and 5
wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) Circular No. 39
(1971 edition), were inventoried. The definition of public waters (Minnesota Statutes 105.37,
subpart 14) includes wetlands that are ten or more acres in size in unincorporated areas and 2.5
or more acres in incorporated areas.
The USFWS has also compiled wetland maps as part of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
(Figure 3). The NWI maps identify wetland Types 1 through 8 regardless of size and, therefore,
provide a more complete wetland area accounting. The NWI map for the watershed is on file
with the municipalities. Local surface water management plans should be consulted for wetland
inventories, classifications, and functions and values assessments.
It should be noted that the NWI was developed in the 1980s. Subsequent development and fill
has impacted many of those wetlands, so the NWI map cannot be considered as definitive.
7
J:\Shingle Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendmenf,September packet�F'INAL Wa1er QualiN Plan_Sept.doc
I
I
,7 �j
i
r,
1-,
j
_y
I
�j
i
`f L
Z
-fI_
1 0 1 2 Mi{es N
Data Source: Minnesota DNR
Shingie Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions f'�y DEC 2003
D N R P u bl i c W ate rs Wend: Assoaates, Inc 180o Pimeer Geek Centa F) ure 2
Environmental Engneers Mapie Plain, MN 553530429 9
O
J:�Shingle Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendment\September packetlFINAL Water Quafit}� P]an_Sept.doc
NWI Circular 39 Classification
1- Seasonally Flooded
2 Wet Meadow
3 Shallow Marsh
4 Deep Marsh
5- Shallow O en Water
p a�.
6 Shrub Swamp °o
7 Wooded Swamp
90 Riverine
Streams
Lakes r 4-
r
4
J i
r
o
o
v j° 4
r�
a r
O
1 i
d. 4: A i
o
aaP
�.C_�.:
6 i.
e. .�4
r
o' f p• s 'p
l
r p 1�
�t s
r
1 0 1 2 Miles
Data Source: Minnesota DNR
Shingle Creek/West Mississ�pi Watershed Commissions oE� 2003
N W I W P.II a1 1�S Wendc Assooates, Inc. 18DD Pimeer Geek Centa Figure 3
Environmental Engneers MaWe Plain. MN 55353D429
9
]:�Shingle Creek\CTPsUvlajor Plan Amendment\Sepiember packet�f'INAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
Table 4. NWI Wetland Area by T,ype, Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds Combined.
Type Acres Percent Type Acres Percent
1- Seasonally Flooded 130 0.3 Emergent (EM) 2,671 6.0
2- Wet Meadow 132 0.3 Forested (FO) 1,067 2.4
3- Shallow Marsh 2,444 5.5 Scrub- shrub (SS) 385 0.9
4- Deep Marsh 231 0.5 Unconsolidated Bottom 1,914 4.2
5- Shallow Open 1,408 3.2 Unconsolidated Shore 5 0.0
Water (tJS)
6- Shrub Swamp 385 09 Upland� 38,633 86.5
7- Wooded Swamp 1,034 2.3 �Grand Total 44,674 100.0
90- Riverine 277 0.6
Upland� 38,633 86.4
Grand Total 44,674 100.0
1.3 LAKE CLASSIFICATION AND GROUPING
One aspect of lake management is establishing numerical goals for prioriTy chemical and
aesthetic parameters. Because physical differences in lakes such as size and depth significantly
influence water quality, many agencies and WMOs establish different goals for different
classifications of lakes.
As a second level of analysis and goal setting, the TAC established a system to group lakes
within those classifications. This grouping system was based on physical parameters as well as
uses. The goal was to develop an index of "watershed significance" with which lakes could be
grouped. The purpose of rou in within classifications was:
g P g
Helps to establish appropriate water quality criteria for lakes
Helps identify lakes where restoration funds will be most effective
Establishes management goals for fish, swimming, aesthetics, habitat
It is important to note that the management goals established through the WQP process will be
reviewed in more detail as each lake is more extensively and individually studied as part of the
development of Lake Management Plans. As a result of this process water quality and other
goals may change and become more tailored.
1.3.1 Lake Classification
The First Generation Management Plan included a classification scheme that was used to
designate appropriate best management practices for those water resources.
10
J:`,Shingle Creek\CiPsUvlajor Plan Amendmentl5eptember packeflF'INAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 5. First Generation Management Plan Water Resources Classifications.
Recreational Groun Aesthetic Grouv Runoff Manaeement Group
Bass Lake Magda Lake Judicial ditches
Cedar Island Lake Meadow Lake County ditches
Crystal Lake Palmer Lake All wetlands including DNR
Eagle/Pike Lake Curtis Lake Protected Wetlands and all
Ryan Lal:e Success Lake waterbodies other than DNR
Twin Lake All other DNR Protected Waters Protected Waters
Schmidt Lake Streams or ditches tributary to
I
Shingle Creek recreational or aesthetic waters
Eagle Creek
Bass Creek
Recreational Group: inflow treated with BMPs, including removal of fine sands and
sediment, skimming of oil and floatable materials, and nutrient removaL
Aesthetic Group: same BMPs as above except for nutrient removal. Waters may be
used for runoff management as long as state water quality standards are not violated and
flow and elevations are controlled.
Runoff Management Group: managed as storm water storage and conveyance
components. BMPs implemented where reasonable and prudent.
Special Purpose Group: treatment as necessary to maintain the characteristics
necessary to support the special purpose. No special purpose areas were designated.
The TAC reconunended to the Comrnissions no changes to the classification system; however,
the specific BMPs appropriate to each classification would be reviewed as part of the Lake
Management Plans.
1.3.2 Lake Grouping Factors
The TAC reviewed a number of existing grouping systems, which ranged from simple to very
complex. The TAC developed a hybrid approach that identified six lake and watershed
attributes as parameters of the evaluation:
Watershed to lake area ratio;
Stormwater treatment capability;
Water clarity;
Use class, grouped by use, access, swimming;
Fisheries; and
Watershed significance.
11
]:�Shingle Creek\CIPsdvlajor Plan AmeqdmentlSeptember packet�FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
These individual parameters were scored and the scores summed to develop an overall grouping.
Each of these parameters are described in more detail below, followed by atable illustrating
application to the 161akes in the watersheds.
1.3.3 Watershed to Lake Area Ratio
The watershed to lake azea ratio is an indicator of the relative amount of incoming nutrient
sources (watershed) to assimilation capacity (lake). Large watersheds and a small lake will have
a large source to poor assimilation capacity ratio, resulting in poorer water quality. A small
watershed and large lake will result in a small source and large assimilation capacity, with likely
better water quality. This ratio is calculated by dividing the area of the watershed contributing to
the lake by the surface area of the lake. The resulting ratio was assigned a point score according
to Table 6.
Table 6. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score Range.
Range I Score
20 4
l 0 to 20 3
4 tQ 10 2
1
Table 7. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score by Lake.
Lake Class WA/LA Score
Bass Recreational 17 3
Cedar Island Recreational 8 2
Crystal Recreational 16 3
Curtis Aesthetic 70 4
Eagle Recreational 10 3
Magda Aesthetic 6 2
Meadow Aesthetic 11 3
Palmer Aesthetic 722 4
Pike Recreational l6 3
Pomerleau Recreational 38 4
Ryan Recreational 266 4
Schmidt Recreational 6 2
Success Aesthetic 36 4
Twin Lower Recreational 176 4
Twin Middle Recreational 72 4
Twin Upper Recreational 31 4
12
J:�Shingle Geek\CIPs�Major Plan Amendment\September packet�FINAL Water Qualit�� Plan_Sept.dce
1.3.4 Stormwater Treatment Ca abili
P �3'
Storniwater treatment capability is defined as the amount of watershed area available to put in
storm«,�ater BMPs for v�Tater quality and is based on land use. To develop this grouping, some
assumptions were made based on work conducted by the City of Plymouth as part of its 1994
wetland evaluation plan. On completion of a functional analysis of all its wetlands, the City
concluded that high and medium-quality wetlands should be protected from untreated
stormwater input to protect existing wetland functions and values. About 25 percent of its
wetland area was either already used for treatment or would not be degraded any further if it was
used for treatment. For the WQP, the TAC assumed that 25 ercent of wetland area within a
P
city could be used for stormwater treatment.
Second, city-owned land was considered for possible use for stormwater treatment. Parks were
considered, but in most cases using some or all of a park would conflict with established park or
recreational uses. The TAC thus assumed that only a small amount of parkland, S pe��cent, could
be available for stormwater treatment. Other city properties such as city halls, community
centers, and municipal garages were also considered but rejected, as it was more likely that the
sites would not be suitable for regional stormwater treatment.
The final potential location for treatment would be land that is cunently undeveloped. It�was
assumed that when developed the land would meet Commission treatment standards. A rule of
thumb is that treatment would require about 6 percent of unde>>eloped land.
To calculate stormwater treatment potential, land use in each lakeshed was evaluated using the
National Wetlands Inventory and the Metropolitan Council's 2000 land use ArcView shape file.
For each lakeshed, the total wetland acreage was assumed to be the total acreage as identified in
the NWI. Park land was defined as park and open space (excluding golf courses) identified on
the 2000 Land Use file, and undeveloped was similarly defined as the acreage identified as
undeveloped in the 2000 Land Use file. The acreage in each of these land use types was
multiplied by the appropriate percentages above and summed. No attempt was made to evaluate
the existing amount of acreage currently providing stormwater treatment.
Using the same logic as above, it was assumed that a target stormwater treatment potential would
be to have about 6% of watershed area available for effective water quality treatment. Each
lakeshed was evaluated according to the percent of watershed area available for treatment (Table
8).
Table 8. Stormwater Treatment Capabitity Score Range.
I Range Score
<2% 4
2to4% 3
4 to 6% 2
>6% 1
13
J: ;Shingle Creek\CIPsVvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet�F INAL Water Qualiry Plan_Sept.doc
Table 9 below shows the estimated acres available for treatment within each lakeshed, and the
corresponding percent of the total lakeshed acreage.
Table 9. Stormwater Treatment Capabitity Scare by Lake.
Lake Class Acres Available of Total Score
For Treatment Acreage
Bass Recreational 188.8 6.0 1
Cedar Island Recreational 12.3 2.0 3
Crystal Recreational 4.8 0.4 4
Curtis Aesthetic 27.0 8.6
Eagle Recreational 219.1 I 69 1
Magda Aesthetic 0.6 1 A 4
Meadow Aesthetic 1.2 1.0 4
Palmer Aesthetic 887.2 5.0 2
Pike Recreational l
Pomerleau Recreational 29.6 10.1 1
Ryan Recreational 130.7 2.3 3
Schmidt Recreational 3.0 ].5 4
Success Aesthetic 5.4 3.l 3
'Twin Lower Recreational I 113.8 I 2.2 3
Twin Middle Recreational 88.5 2.2 3
Twin Upper Recreational 52.2 I 1.4 4
*Pike Lake was scored the same as Eagle.
1.3.5 Water Clarity
Water clarity is often degraded by the presence of algal blooms, which are associated with the
concentration of phosphorus in lake water. These algal blooms can be so mild that they do not
inhibit swimmability, or they may be so severe that swimming is unappealing. The frequency of
algal blooms is also a factor in considering the general swimmability of a lake. A lake that
usually has only mild algae but occasionally experiences a nuisance bloom is much more
attractive to swimmers than a lake that experiences nuisance or severe nuisance blooms most of
the time.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) developed Figure 4 to illustrate the
relationship between total phosphorus concentrations in a lake and the frequency and severity of
algal blooms that could be expected.
14
J:�.Shingle Creek\CIPsUviajor Plan Amendmrnt\September packetlFINAL Water Qualiry Plan_Sept.doc
■>iD ppD ppb ■>3r ppb N� PPb
'I OO°{0
90%
$0%
"mild"
i0'/e
"nuisance"
60%.
U
0 50%'
P "severe nuisanee"
30%. r�� e.:
�Y
20%
10% ^very severe nuisan�e"
0%
0'10 20 30 40 48 55 63 70 75 80 90 100 930
TP ppb
Figure 4: Total Phosphorus Concentration and Expected Frequency and
Severity Of Nuisance Algal Blooms (MPCA 2003).
The MPCA's total phosphorus concentration for a"swimmable" lake is 40 ppb or less. As the
above figure indicates, at 40 ppb a lake would be expected to experience "nuisance" or worse
algal blooms no more than 20 percent of the time. Table 10 shows the categories of nuisance
algal blooms, the associated total phosphorus concentration range, and the assigned score. Table
11 shows the results of the water clarity score. Total phosphorus concentrations are the average
of the last five years (summer samples only).
Table 10. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20% of the Time or More
Score Range.
Category I TP (ppb) I Score
Very Severe Nuisance I >80 I 4
Severe Nuisance I 50 80 I 3
Nuisance I 40 50 2
Mild <40 l
15
):\Shingle Creek\CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet\f'INAL Water Qualiry Plan_Sept.doc
a 1 0
T b e 11. Water Clarity; Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20 /o of the Time or More
Score by Lake.
Lake Class Phosphorus Score
(P�b)
Bass Recreational 35 1
Cedar Island Recreational I 123 I 4
Crystal Recreational I 179 4
Curtis Aesthetic I N/A I 4
Eagie I Recreational 19 I
Magda Aesthetic 117 I 4
Meadow Aesthetic 230 4
Palmer Aesthetic N/A 4
Pike Recreational I 90 I 4
Pomerleau Recreatioi�al I 89 I 4
Ryan Recreational 54 3
Schinidt I Recreational 58 3
Success I Aesthetic 50 3
Twin Lower I Recreational I 93 I 4
Twin Middle I Recreational 60 I 3
Twin Upper I Recreational I 137 I 4
1.3.6 Use Class
The factor Use Class was considered according to two subcategories: Recreation Use and
Access. The subcategory of recreation use considered primary cuxrent uses, and assumed there
would be no significant change in use in the future (Table 12). Access was the second
subcategory within Use Class (Table 13). An important factor in determining the score range
was whether there was a pubIic access to the lake, and the nature of that access.
Table 12. Use Class: Recreation Use Score Range.
Recreation Use Scores
Aesthetics 4
Aquatic Life 3
Partial Body Contact (sailin�, fishing, boating) 2
Full Body contact (swimming beach) 1
16
J;�Shingle Creek\CIPs�ivlajor Plan Amendment�.September packeflFINqL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
Table 13. Use Class: Access Score Range.
Category �Scores
No Access I 4
Carry on access on public lands or curb cut 3
Public access, no parking lot I 2
IPubiic access with parkuig lot I 1
The scores in this category are intended to represent watershed significance. An individual
meinber city may choose to score lakes ���ithin their conununiTy on a different basis. For
eaample, some cities may classify lakes based on the size of an adjaceut park, or the amenities
within the park. Results of the scoring are shov�Tn in Table 14.
Table 14. Use Class Score by Lake.
Lake Class Public Access Adjacent Other Amenities Access Score Use Score
Park
Bass Recreational Yes Yes I Fishing pier I I 2
Cedar Island Recreational No Yes I None 4 2
Crystal Recreational Yes I Yes I Fisliing pier 1 2
Curtis Aesthetic No No None 4 4
Eagle Recreational Yes Regional Fishing pier: beach 1 1
platu�ed
Magda Aesthetic No No None 4 4
Meadow Aesthetic No No None 4 4
Palmer Aesthetic No Yes None 4 4
Pike Recreational i Ttu�u Eagle Regional None 1 2
Pomerleau Recreational Curb cut No None 3 2
Ryan Recreational No Yes Fishing pier 4 2
Schmidt Recreational Curb cut Yes None 3 2
Success Aesthetic No No None 4 4
Twin Lower Recreational Yes Yes None 2 2
Twin Middle Recreational Yes Yes Beach 2 1
Twin Upper Recreational Yes Yes None 2 2
1.3.7 Fisheries Status
A study prepared by the Department of Natural Resources ��as used to evaluate the suitability of
lakes for fish and aquatic life. This study evaluated the relative abundance of fish in over 3,000
lakes statewide and compared the findings to the lakes' Trophic State Index (TSI; Figure 5). The
study found a relationship between TSI-measured water quality and various classes of fish.
Group 1 fish thrived in lakes that had better quality water and thus lower TSIs but were found in
much lower abundance as water qualit�� declined and TSI increased. Group 3 fish, which are
more tolerant of poorer water quality, were the most abundant in lakes with higher TSIs.
17
J^Shin�le Creek\C1Ps�vlajor Plan Amendmenf,September packet�FINAL Water Qualin' P1an_Sept.doc
Lakes were evaluated as to whether water quality was suitable for a good fishery, based on the
statewide fish abundance versus TSI findings (Table 15). The goal is to maintain a diverse
fishery v,�ith desirable species.
Group 1: Northern Pike, Yellow Bullhead, White Sucker
Group 2: Walleye, Yellow Perch, Bluegill
Group 3: Black Crappie, Black Bulihead, White Crappie
Fiau-e A4 S�a:=wi�= Fish F.bun�ance v:rs�s Troahic 5;at= lndex
ED
'i D
c
6G
50
G i'
JO
y ..'`�,..-r.�
ca 2
D
Q z
20 25 30 35 40 45 5� �5 S� £v ?C ?3 8�
Trophic 5:ae lrxfex (Se��i D�sk}
Grau� 3 Group 2 Gro�� 1
Figure 5: Fish Abundance By Species Group Compared To Trophic State Index
((PJymouth Water Resources Plan, 1999 after Schupp, 1992).
Table 15. Fishery Status Range of Scores.
TSI Range Scores
>65 I 4
50 to 60 3
<40 2
40 to 50 1
Fish surveys have been conducted by the DNR on some but not all the lakes in the watershed.
Table lb notes the most abundant fish species found during the most recent fish survey as well as
the current Trophic State Index (TSI).
18
J:�Shingle Geek\CIPsVvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet\FINAL Water Qualih� Plan_Sept.doc
Table 16. Fishery Status Score by Lake.
Most Abundant Fish
Lal:e Class Other species noted TSI Score
Species
Bass Recreational BLG, BLC, BLB LMB, NOP 56 3
Cedar Island Recreational VVAE 74 4
Crystal Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, NOP TME, Cam 78 4
Curtis Aestl�etic N/A N/A N/A 4
Eagle Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, GSF ME, WAE, Carp 52 3
Ma�da Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4
Meado��� Aesthetic N/A N/A 83 4
Pahner Aesthetic N/A I N/A I N/A 4
Pike Recreational BLG, YEP NOP 69 4
Pomerleau Recreational GSF, LMB NOP, SIJN 69 4
Ryan Recreational BLB, BRB N/A 64 3
Schmidt Recreational BLB, BLG, NOP 62 3
Success Aesthetic N/A N/A 37 2
Twin Lo���er Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, BLB NOP, LMP 71 4
Twin Middle Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, BLB NOP, Carp 65 3
Tv� �in Upper Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, BLB NOP 75 4
BLC Black Crappie WHC White Crappie StTN Sunfish species BLG Bluegill GSF
Pumpkinseed Sunfisl� LMB Largemoutl� Bass SMB Smallmouth Bass NOP Northern Pike WAE
Walleye BLB Black Bullhead BRB Brown Bulihead TME Tiger Muskellunge ME Muskellunge
YEP Yellow Perch WHS White Sucker
1.3.8 Connectedness
A final factor to be considered is connectedness, or the relative importance of the lake within the
v��atershed. Lakes provide various functions within a drainage system with one of the most
important being storage of stormwater runoff, but for purposes of the WQP the iinportant
function is the anlount of treatment provided to the watershed. This function is defined as the
percent of the overall watershed acreage that drains through the lake. Scores for each category
are provided in Table 17.
Table 17. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Range of Scores.
Percent Range I Score
OtoS 4
5 to 10 3
lOto20 2
>2p 1
19
J:`Shingle Creek�CIPs'dvlajor Plan Amendment�September packef�FINAL Water Qualit�� Pl� Sept.doc
Table 18. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acrea e Drainin ThrouQh t6e Lake Score b� Lake.
g g 3
Drainage Basin
Lake Class q�ea (acres) percent Score
Bass Recreational 2,946 7 3
Cedar lsland Recreational 619 1 4
Crystal Recreational 1,274 3 4
Curtis Aesthetic 313 1 4
Eagle Recreational 3,044 7 3
Magda Aesthetic 62 <1 4
Meadow Aesthetic 123 <1 4
Pahner Aesthetic 18,047 40 1
Pike Recreational 919 2 f 4
Pomerleau Recreational I 293 I 1 4
Ryan Recreational 5,323 12 2
Sclunidt Recreational 208 <1 4
Success Aesthetic 178 <1 4
Twin Lower Recreational 5,291 12 2
Twin Middle Recreational 4,011 9 3
Twin Upper Recreational 3,657 8 3
1.3.9 Scoring
Overall scores for the lakes were computed as the sum of the scores on each of the evaluation
factors. Recreational lakes were rouped separate from the Aesthetic lakes.
1.3.10 Overall Scoring Recreational Lakes
Overall scores for the recreational lakes ranged from 13 to 24 with the lowest score correlating to
the highest lake priority (Table 19).
Table 19. Overall Lai:e Scores far Recreational Lakes.
Lake WA/LA Treatment Water Recreation Access Fisheries Watershed Total
Capability Quality Significance Score
__Eagle _3 1 1. 1 1 _3 3 13
Bass 3 1 1 i 2 1 3 3 l4
Pike 3 1 4 2 1 4 4 19
Twin Middle 4 3 3 1 2 3 I 3 19
Ryan 4 2 4 3 2 21
Schmidt 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 21
Twin Lower 4 4 2 2 4 2 2l
Crystal 3 4 4 2 I 4 4 22
Pomerleau 4 1 4 2 3 4 4 22
Cedar Island 2 3 4 2 4 4 4 23
Twin Upper 4 4 4 2 2 4 3 23
20
J:�S}un�le Creek\CII's'JvSajor Plan Amendmenf,September packeT,FTNAL R'ater Qualih PI� Sept.doc
S 1.3.11 Overall Scoring Aesthetic Lakes
Overall scores for the aesthetic lakes ranged from 23 to 27 with the lowest score correlating to
the highest lal�e priority (Table 20). It is important to note that both Magda and Meadow lakes
are on the State's 303(d) list of iinpaired waters for nutrients. Consequently, the State is required
to develop a nutrient TMDL for these water bodies even though they are considered aesthetic
lakes under this water qualiiy plan. These lakes may need to be considered for nutrient BMPs
even though they are classified as aesthetic lakes.
Table 20. Overall Lake Scores For Aesthetic Lakes.
Lake Wq/L,A Treatment Water Recreation Access Fisheries Watershed Total
Capability Quality Significance Score
Palmer 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 23
Success 4 3 3 4 4 2 4 24
Curtis 4 l 4 4 4 4 4 25
Ma�da 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 26
MeadovW 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 27
1.3.12 V4'ater Quality Goals
The primary purpose of grouping lakes was to assign water quality goals tliat are achievable and
that reflect the lakes' cunent use. As a first step the total scores were grouped into three
categories: 1, 2, and 3(Table 21).
Table 21. Lake Grouping.
Lal:e Class Total Score Group
Eagle
Recreationa] 13 T 1
Bass Recreational 14 1
Pike Recreational 19 1
Twin Middle Recreational 19 1
Ryan Recreational Z 1 2
Sclvnidt Recreational 21 2
Twin Lower Recreational 21 2
Crystal Recreational 24 3
Pomerleau Recreational 22 3
Cedar Island Recreational 23 3
Twin Upper Recreational 23 3
Each grouping v��as assigned a set of water quality goals, including total phosphorus and
chlorophyll-a concentrations and a Secchi depth goal (Table 22).
21
J.^Shingle Creek\CIPs`1�lajor Plan Amendmenf.September packeflFINAL V✓ater Qualiry Plan_Sept.doc
Table 22. Lake Water Quality Standards.
Group Total Phosphorus Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth
(ppb) (ppb) (meters)
1 <35 <10 I >1.4
2 35 to 45 l O to 2 8 I.l to 1.4
3/Aesthetic <78 <48 >0.7
Table 23. 2002 Lake Water Quality Data Compared to Water Qualit�� Goals.
Phosphorus Chlorophyll-a Secchi Depth
Lake Group (ppb) (ppb) (meters)
�Current� Goal �Current� Goal �Current� Goal
Eagle 1 19 �<35 19 �<10 I.6 1.4
Bass I 35 �<35 20 �<10 1.2 �>1.4
Pike 1 90 �<35 3l �<10 1.2 (>1.4
Twin Middle 1 60 35-45 28 �<l 0 �]•7 �>l •4
Ryan 2 54 35-45 16 10-18 1.2 I.I-1.4
Schmidt 2 58 35-45 15 10-18 19 1.1-1.4
Twin Lower 2 93 35-45 39 10-18 l.l 1.1-1.4
Crystal 3 179 �<78 58 �<48 1.1 �>0.7
Pomerleau 3 89 �<78 16 <48 1.7 �>0.7
Cedar Island 3 123 �<78 79 <48 0.6 �>0.7
Twin Upper 3 I 137 �<�g 56 �<48 0.5 >0.7
Palmer Aesth N/A �<78 N/A �<48 N/A >0.7
Success Aesth 10 �<�g 9 <<48 2.2 >0.7
Curtis Aesth N/A �<78 ��i/A �<48 N/A �>0.7
Magda Aesth 117 �<7g 45 �<48 0.6 �>0.7
Meadaw Aesth 230 �<78 78 �<48 0.3 �>0.7
The water quality goals for lakes in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are:
Stabilue water quality i�z lakes. No further degradation of lake water quality as measured by
total phosphorus and chlorophyll-a.
Meet lake ��ater quality standards. The WQP establishes water quality standards by lal:e
classification and grouping that shall serve as a minimum standard. A member city may choose
to strive for a higher standard for a lake that is located within the community.
Establish individual lake ma�zagement plans. Each lake and watershed is unique, and different
strategies may have to be developed for achieving water quality goals. Developing a lal:e
management plan may lead to an adjustment in the numerical goals for that lake based on
individual diagnostic analyses.
22
J:\Shing]e Creek\CIPs'Qvlajor Plan Amendment\September packet�'INAL Water Qualit�� Plan_Sept.doc
1.4 STREAIVIS
Goals were established for the streams in Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. The
goals established u�ere to meet the state's stream water quality standards to maintain the
beneficial uses of the stream's class. All waters are designated Class 2 unless otherwise
specified, with the beneficial use of aquatic life and vegetation. Subclasses are included in the
State's designation of beneficial uses. The subclasses are:
Class 2A Cold water fisheries, trout waters,
C1ass 2Bd Cool and wann water fisheries;
Class 2B Cool and wann water fisheries (not protected for drinl:ing water);
Class 2C Indigenous fish and associated aquatic community; and
Class 2D Wetlands.
t tream and all ofliers are Class 2B.
Slun le Creek is desi nated b the sta e as a Class 2C s
g g Y
Recent n�onitoring in the Shingle Creek watershed suggests that the streams are not ctu�rently
meeting State standards established for the waters of the State. Table 24 lists the current state
standards of interest for streams and the status of streams in the Shingle Creek watershed.
Table 24. Most Recent Shingle Creek Data For Certain Water Quality Parameters.
Category Threshold Slii ngle Creek
Chloride 230 mg/1 Winter exceedances
Summer eaceedances
Dissolved oaygen not less than 5 mg/1 Not meeting standards at USGS
station at Queen Avenue
Fecal coliform #1 200 organisms/100 ml water In 2005, 8 of 12�saniples atthe
outlet eaceeded ..00 organisms
Fecal coliform #2 2000 org/100 ml water Eaceeded once in 2005
Poor/very poor score on Index of Shingle Creek scored very poor;
Biological community Biotic Integrity (IBI) compared Bass Creek fish community
to reference stream in region impaired
Turbidity 25 NTU Measured as TSS (niglL), 2005
average at SC-0= 24, SG2= 20
The water quality goals for streams in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are:
Meet tlze State's strean� N�ater quality starzdards. The goal of the Shingle Creek Vdatershed
Management Commission is to have all streams in the watershed meet state standards for the
protection of the stream's designated beneficial use.
Alonitor st�•eanis to evaluate tlze cur�•ent status of water gualit�� as compared to State standards.
The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission will aim to monitor streams to evaluate
potential impairments of its streams through an annual monitoring program.
23
J:''Shin_le Creek\CIPsuvlajor Plan AmendmentlSeptember packeflF'INAL R�ater Qualily Plan_Sept.doc
I
1.5 WETLANDS
State statute requires watershed management plans to identify priority wetlands for preservation
and improvement. The Water Quality Plan (WQP) does not identify priority wetlands nor
specific goals for wetlands. Rather, the WQP identifies the wetlands that are of highest priority
for the completion of functions and values analyses. The functions and values studies v�rill
identify which wetlands are of highest quality and in need of preservation or those that could
attain higher functions and values with restoration.
The Second Generation Management Plan established that the Cominissions would require cities
to coinplete functions and values analyses for high-priority wetlands according to a schedule
established in the WQP and e��aluate other wetlands as opportunities arise. It further directed
that high-priority be defined as "watershed significant."
1.5.1 Identification of Watershed Significant Wetlands
The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) defined "watershed significant wetlands" as:
Connected to lakes;
Within or adjacent to a greenway or green corridor, such as a stream or trail; and
Within or adjacent to sites with rare species, ecological integrity, or high value native plants.
In addition, the TAC recommended that a priority should be placed on completing functions and
values analyses for all wetlands that are in areas that are rapidly developing.
Using these criteria, the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was used to identify a1L•
Wetlands within 25 meters of a lake;
Wetlands within 25 meters of a stream;
Wetlands adjacent to or within a biodiversi site identified b the Henne in Coun Biolo ical
h' Y P h' g
Survey (HCBS); and
Wetlands within three "development areas" where development is expected to occur in the next
ten ears: northern Brookl n Park• the Arbor Lakes area of Ma le Grove• and the area around
Y Y P
Pomerleau Lake in Plymouth.
Table 25 and Figure 6 shows the results of application of tliese prioritization factors. While the
majority of wetland acreage was identified as hi h riori onl about half the wetlands were
g P tY Y
identified as high priority. Most of the smaller, isolated wetlands were identified as being
medium to low priority for functions and values analyses.
It should be noted that the National Wetlands Inventory was completed in this area in the early
1980s. Many wetlands on the NWI have been filled, either prior to enactment of the Wetland
Conservation Act, or after the WCA under a pemut from the appropriate Local Government
Unit. Thus some of the wetlands identified as high priority may be gone or replaced by new
wetlands.
24
J:`Shinele CreeklCIPs'Jvlajor Plao Amendment'�September packet�FINAL Water Qualit}� Plan_Sept.doc
Table 25. Priority Wetlands.
Tota] NWI Wetlands Priority Wetlands
Type Number Acres Percent Number Acres o/ Ac es I
1- Seasonally Flooded 49 130 0.3 27 96 74
2- Wet Meadow 27 132 0.3 18 104 74
3- Shallow Marsh 721 2,444 5.5 362 1,966 80
4- Deep Marsh 209 23l 0.5 124 l 67 73
5- Shallow Open Water 44 1,408 3.2 38 1,401 99
6- Shrub Swamp 1,13 385 0.9 75 302 79
7- Wooded Swam 194 1 034 2.3 129 916 89
P
90- Riverine 4 277 0.6 4 277 100
Grand Total 1,361 6,041 100.0 ?77 5,229 86%
1.5.2 Functions and Vaiues Analyses
Completion of the functions and values analyses requirement should be completed in two steps.
First, the inventory of wetlands identified as high priority through this process should be updated
to remove from the list those that have been filled either throu h ermit or rior to the
g P P
implementation of the permitting process. This should be completed by the cities by the end of
2007.
Upon completion of that step, cities should complete functions and values analyses for these
high-priority wetlands by the end of 2008. Wetlands that are not identified as high priority
should be completed as opportunities arise.
After completion of the functions and values analyses, the Commissions will use that
information to identify wetlands that are of high priority for preservation or restoration.
25
I:�.Shinale Creek\CIPs�Major Plan Amendmenf,September packeY�FINAL Water Qualit�� Plan_Sept.doc
N
Priority wetlands
1- Seasonail Flooded "�i'
v�' �L TTf
2 Wet Meadow 's
3 Shallow Marsh
�r 4 Deep Marsh
f:
�t
�'r i
5- Shaliow Open Water s 1 A�
6- Shrub Swamp I� I -L j
i i
I 7 Wooded Swamp
90 Riverine
_'_I n n;�:.`
L
r
i
I �i�
f
I r 4 !�r �"I�
�t�� ��D t)��!N_l
I I I i i l t??►'
a �I t,.
j^' �c r Ih I
N 1
JI ��w_i' ����I
h
i �a u r
�_,1).
rU�
r �1�� 1� -�-r'�
r i
`t
t
}��,T
T r— F I 4 l ,:...1� r
��C--^. .Jr �1� I
f ��;J� l l
t
=v_. a 4� i
T.'
9"� I i—.+ I r� J i I� V 1��� ..i 7
�'1 ����I�� Z f ,i
f 1 L f i f' T J I
J ,P�.� �(�,�i i 1
.u�.i�.��.^t.: Y �"�i� r r i .'..ii�
t i—��� l �I ('`�`i T�
el i ��l'. Y i:i ii ,�i 1�1T'' „`i* i
7' o
1 T L r' I f �'i +I
s i I r� '---,I '�i� �L I
i �.t vr� 1r i *1�1, fl;
i�
y�-, Fa— i i( T y V� �J�':, i
�I� k��� II11 11 I I ji
il �i i i ?J
I �iyr� li 1 :i��,
r �Ir t�
O i f C
T r
'1
Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions DEC 2003
Wenck
Wetlands: Priority for Functions and Values Analysis WenckAssxiates, �nc. teooPioneerCree�cCenter FIgUfB G
Environmental Engineers� Maple Plain, MN 55359-D429
26
J:�Shingle Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendment�,September packetlFINAL Water QualiN Plan_Sept.doc
This page left intentionally blank.
27
J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs�ivlajor Plan Amendmenri5eptember packeflF'IIJAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
2.0 Implementation Plan
21 INTRODUCTION
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Cominissions' Water Quality
Inlplementation Plan is composed of four parts:
��A monitaring plan to track water quality changes over time;
Detailed management plans for each resource to lay out a specific plan of action for
meeting water quality goals;
A capital improvement plan; and
An education and public outreach plan.
This Implementation Plan charts the course the Comrnissions will take to meet their Second
Generation Management Plan goals to proteci and improve water quality and meet Commission
and State water quality standards. While the Plan lays out a series of activities and projects,
implementation will occur as the Corrunissions' and cities' budgets pernut.
The Coirunissions have received significant grant funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the Department
of Natural Resources to undertake planning and demonstration projects. The Commissions
intend to continue to solicit funds and partnerships from these and other sources to supplement
the funds provided by the ten cities having land in the two watersheds.
Details of the Capital Improvement Plan are not included in this report as most of those proposed
improvements will be identified in the resource management plans. It is expected that the
Commissions will continuously update their annual Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) as a
part of their annual budget process.
28
J:1Sbintle Creek\CII'sUvlajor Plan Amendmenf,5eptember packef�F'INAL Water Qualih� Plan_Sept.doc
2.0 Implementation Plan
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Conunissions' Water Quality
Impleinentation Plan is coinposed of four parts:
monitaring plan to track water quality changes over time;
Detailed management plans for each resource to lay out a specific plan of action for
meeting water quality goals;
A capital improvement plan; and
An education and public outreach plan.
Tlus Iniplementation Plan charts the course the Cominissions will take to meet their Second
Generation Management Plan goals to protect and improve water quality and meet Commission,
and State water quality standards. While the Plan lays out a series of activities and projects,
implementation will occur as the Cominissions' and cities' budgets pernut.
Tlie Commissions have received significant grant funding from the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the Metropolitan Council, and the Department
of Natural Resources to undertake planning and demonstration projects. The Conunissions
intend to continue to solicit funds and partnerships from these and other sources to supplement
the funds provided by the ten cities having land in the two watersheds.
Details of the Capital Improvement Plan are not included in this report as most of those proposed
improvements will be identified in the resource management plans. It is expected that the
Commissions will continuously update their annual Capital Iniprovement Programs (CIPs) as a
part of their annual budget process.
28
J:'Shingle Creek'�CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendmenfl5eptember packetiFINAL Water Qualin� Plan_Sept.doc
T�ble 2G. Implementation Plan Activities.
Action I Descriptivn Outco�ne I Cos� Comments/Notes
Monitoring(Information Gathering
Information needed to track overall Not currently perfo�7ned.
Commission lake monitoring Detailed monitoring of surface and water quality and internal loading Estimated at Recommend every 3-5 years for
bottom conditions of lake. and evaluate effectiveness of TIVLDL $15,000 per lake gi 1 lakes
unplemeutation
Volunteers n�onitor water quality Better understanding of lake quality, $550/ lake Every otl�er year for group 1
Volunteer lake monitoring of lake surface through the CAMP more involved and infonned citizens Current budget and 2 lakes and every 3 years
pro�rant. $7 ,000/yr for group 3 and aesthetic lakes
Infonnation needed to maintain Flow and quality monitoring at
Commission stream monitoring p ran etersreamflow, water quality hydrologic model and track changes $30,000/yrdget. two sites on SC. USGS
in watershed pollutant loadin�. monitoring site is separate.
Citizens, generally students, HCES: I,000
Better understanding of stream water
Volunteer stream monitoring provide macroinvertebrate and habitat quality, more involved per site Currentiy 3 locations in SC, 1
monitoring tl�rough the and informed citizens Current budget: in WM
RiverWatch pro�ram $5,000/yr
Citizens monitor plants and Better understanding of wetland plant $3,750 for four
Volunteer wetland monitoring inverteUrates tivough the WHEP and tiabitat quality, more involved sites Not currently performed
program. and infonned citizens
Survey of composition of plant Infoi7nation needed to uianage Estimated at May be possible for volunteers
Aquatic plant tnonitoring community and lbundance of aquatic plants, evaluate control to conduct some monitoring;
various species. measures, plan for future actions. $5,000 per site require training.
Man:�gement Plans
Detailed understanding of Approx 0,000 To date have been paid for by
Lake TMDLs Complete TMDLs as required impairment causes and options for each MPCA
improvement
Comprehensive review of Lake water Approx $10,000
Develop a management plan for Quality, beneficial use, recreation, depending on Complete concurrent witl�
Lake management plans each lake in concert with TMDLs fisli and wildlife needs; set speciftc atnount of TMDL
goals for each by lake; and develop a monitoring
detailed plan for achieving them required
Detailed understanding of causes of To date have been paid for by
Stream TMDLs Complete TMDLs as required stream itnpainnents and options for $100-200,000 MPCA
improvement
29
J:\Shingle l'reek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packet�F WAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Action Description Outcome Cost Comments/Notes
a
Conduct a series of assessments of Identification of potential problems Shingle Creek Corridor Plan
5tream assesstnents and tlle major streams to evaluate and solutions; establish a Appcox $5,000 completed in 2004; assessment
managenient plans channel capacity 1nd erosion, comprehensive strategy for managing per mil�e of tributaries to be completed in
�vater quality and habitat, and
potential for improvement across city boundaries 2006
Assemble functions and values Identification of high value wetlands
far preservation; amendment of ntles
Wetland protection and analyses developed by the cities Estimate $10-
preservation plan ittto an overall plan for tlte and standards if necessary to protect 5,000
watershed and preserve wetlands based on
function and value
Capital Irnprovement Plan
Implementation of management Projects to meet water quality Depends on project, city and
pians standards Improved water quality Variable consultant staff time, capital
costs, �rants to properly owners
Additionai studies identified in Additional or refined data revised Depends on study, city and
Special stuclies as needed management plans, ne�v goals and policies Variable consultant staff time
requirements, etc. I
Decreased erosion; decrease impacts Depends on project, city and
Shoreline/streambank restoration Return of native plants to shoreline to lakes and streams frotn lawn Variable consultant staff time, capital
and erosion control areas. maintet�a�►ce, storm water runoff; costs, grants to property owners
improve habitat
E�lu�ation and Public Outreach
I
Maintain I00 year flood profile;
Maintain ivles that cequire water Most costs of treatment/
reduce impact of upstream increased City and
Management rules and standards n��ality tceatment, rate and volume impervious surface; Uuffer runoffto consultant staff ineeting Hie rules and
control on new and re-development wetlands and watercourses; increase time ordinances are borne Uy
and update as necessary infiltration and recharge developers
Variety of activities that meet Increased awareness of ]ake water Cui�
Education and public outreach Commission objectives and the quality issues, changes in behavior budgeted at
pi�ograms NPDES Phase II Educatiot� and that redu¢e runoff of sediment $30,000
PuUlic Outreach requirements nutrients to tl�e lakes and streams.
Involve lake associations,
Increased awareness of homeowners City and I
Eticourage homeowners to adopt homeowners, commercial
BMP detnonstration projects practices that protect watet• quality. impacts on lake water quality, consultant staff property o�vners, students,
reduced runoff and erosion tinre, grants
youth groups, etc.
30
J'.\Shin�ek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\FINAL Water Quality Plan_Septdoc
I
2.2 MONITORING/INFORMATION GATHERING
Water qualit�� monitoring is performed to provide information on possible water quality
problenzs that may require inten�ention and to document future changes (improvement or
deteriorationj in known problem areas. Information from a well-designed and properly
implemented monitoring plan allows for the evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs and the
potential need for fiirther action.
Monitoring plans are necessary to direct monitoring efforts to answer specific questions and
meet monitoring objectives. Because it is not possible to monitor all locations all the time, it is
important to consider in advance how to make the best choices regarding the eapenditure of
liinited funds for monitoring. Linking the monitoring activities to fl1e monitoring objectives is
the most important aspect of a monitoring plan.
One of the Conunissions' goals is to coordinate all monitoring efforts in the watershed. Data
collected by otller agencies will be documented and incorporated into a single database.
2.2.1 Lake Monitoring
2.2.1.1 Lake Mo�zitoring Objectives
The most inlportant aspect of any monitoring plan is the specification of monitoring objectives
and questions to be answered using the monitoring data. The following objectives have been
established for lake monitoring in the Shingle Creek Watershed:
To quantify the current status of takes in the watershed in comparison to state water quality
standards established for nutrients.
To quantify changes o��er time, or trends, in the water quality status of lakes in the Shingle Creek
and West Mississippi watersheds.
To quantify the effectiveness of implemented BMPs for tlie protection of water qu�lity.
2.2.1.2 Commission Lake Monitoring
The Comnussion has to date relied on the Metropolitan Council's Citizen Assisted Lake
Monitoring Program (CAMP) for lake water quality monitoring. More detailed information than
volunteers can collect would be necessary to track overall lake water quality and internal loading
and to evaluate efFectiveness of TMDL implementation. Detailed monitoring of surface, water
column, and bottom conditions should be performed on high priority lakes every 3-5 }�ears.
Because the high priorit�� lakes are also Met Council Priority Lakes (Bass, Eagle, Twin), it may
be possible to partner with the Met Council and Three Rivers Park staff to accomplish this work
cost effectively. Appendix A details the parameters to be collected and methods to be used. The
monitorinQ program would collect data only on parameters that might be exceeded in Shingle
Creek lakes. The estimated cost is $15,000 per lake.
31
J:`Shingle Creek\CIPs'Jviajor Plan AmendmenflSeptember pac}:ef�FINAL Wafer Qualit}• Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.1.3 Volurzteer Lake Mo�zilori��g
The CAMP program uses volunteers to collect biweekly surface water samples, Secchi depths,
and general water quality observations. The samples are analyzed for total phosphorus,
chlorophyll-a, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. The Commissions pay a sma11 fee to the Met Council
for the lab work and monitoring supplies and coordinate and train volunteers. The budget for
this monitoring in 2003 was $7,000 for eight lakes. Quality control conducted by Met Council
staff has concluded that volunteers on average are acceptably accurate in collecting samples and
reporting data, so this is a good, cost-effective way of canducting basic monitoring. No increase
would be necessary to maintain this program.
The main disadvantage is that recruitment of volunteers can be time-consuming. Some lakes
have long-time volunteers that have been and continue to be interested in providing the service,
while on other lakes volunteer recruitment has been a struggle. In some cases city staff may
need to step in to take samples.
The proposed lake monitoring schedule for 2004-2008 as well as the historic schedule is shown
below. The schedule assumes that first and second priority lakes would be monitored every
other year, while other lakes would be monitored every three years. This schedule does not
eaceed the eight lakes budgeted; in most years fewer than eight would be monitored.
Table 27. CAMP Lake Monitoring Schedule.
Historical Recommended
Group �91�92�93�94�95�96�97I9gI99�00�01�02�03�04�05�06�07�08�09�10�
�Bass 1 �X� �x�s �a� �a� �x� �a �x� �x�
�Eagle 1 �x�s�x�s�s�x�x�a�s�x� �a� �x �x� �x�
�Pike 1 �x�x�x� �a� �a� �a
Tv��in Middle 1 M M x+ x' M� x x� x x
Ryan I 2 I �x� �x� �x� �X�x� (a� �X�
Schmidt 2 �x� s s �x� s �x�x� �x� �x� �a�
TwinLower� 2 M� �x� �M� �x� �M� �x� �x� �x� �x�
�Cedarlsland� 3 f �x� s s �s�s �x� �x� �(x� �x
�Crystal 3 �X� �x� �x� �x� �x� �X
�Pomerleau 3 x x x x x x
�TwinUpper� 3 �M� �x� �M� �x� x� x� �x� �x) �x� �a�
�Curtis Aesth I
�Magda Aesth x a+ x i x x
Meadow Aesth �x� �x� �x� �x� �x� �x�
Palmer Aesth
�Success Aesth x i x x i�
*Added to schedule for 2006 because sampling not completed in 2005 due to lack of volunteer.
x volunteer monitored
M Met CounciI monitored
S= Secchi depth monitored only
32
J.'Shingle Creek\CIPs'JvIajor Plan AmendmentSeptember packefiF'INAL Water Quality Pl� Sept.doc
2.2.2 Stream Monitoring
2.2....1 St�•ea�n Monitorz�Zg Ob�ectrves
The following objectives have been established for stream rnonitoring in the Shingle Creek and
West Mississippi ��atersheds:
To quantify the current status of streams in the watershed compared to state water quality standazds.
To quantify changes over time a��d space, or trends, in tl�e water quality status of streani in the
Sliingle Creek and West Mississippi watersl�eds.
To quantify the effectiveness of implemented BMPs for tl�e protection of water qualit��.
2.2.2.2 Comiazission Strearrz Alonitoring
The existing stream monitoring prograrn operates two sites on Shingle Creek: near the outlet at
Humboldt Avenue (SC-0) and a midpoint in the watershed at Zane Avenue (SC-2). An
additional site is operated by the U5GS at Queen Avenue (SG1). Streaxnflow is continuously
monitored at all three sites.
Routine and storm water quality samples are collected at SC-0 and SC-2 and analyzed for total
phosphorus (TP), dissolved phosphorus (DP), total suspended solids (TSS), volatile suspended
solids (VSS), nitrate, and chloride. Temperature and conductivity loggers take 15-minute interval
readings at both sites. Fecal coliform samples are collected at the outlet site. Teinperature and
conductivity are the only parameters routinely collected at the Queen site. This monitoring
provides an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs and provide a baseline for
reasonable v��ater quality goals.
Two amendments to the stream monitoring program should be considered. First, additional
parameters �vere added in 2005 to better characterize the Creek. Adding carbonaceous biological
oxygen demand (CBOD), anunonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) will help better
understand dissolved oaygen in the Creek. The added cost of these parameters is $5,000 per
year, increasing the Comnussion stream monitoring budget to $35,000 per yeax.
Second, little data is available for other streams in the two watersheds. During the period 1990-
1992 monitoring was performed on other streams in the two watersheds, but because most of
those were low-flow or ephemeral few conclusions could be drawn regarding water quality.
Occasional monitoring should be performed to better characterize water quality in the entire
watersheds. Appendix A details the parameters that should be collected and methods used. The
monitoring program v,�ould collect data only on parameters that might be exceeded in Shingle
Creek.
The estimated cost of periodic flow and chemical monitoring elsewhere in the watershed is
$15,000 per site. The stream assessments may identify specific locations for periodic
monitoring.
33
J:\Shingle Creek\CIPs'�Major Plan Amendmenf,5eptember packef�FINAL R'ater Qualit�� Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.2.3 I olunteer Sn�eani 111onitori�2g
The current volunteer stream monitoring activities are liinited to macroinvertebrate monitoring
as described below. This activity has provided useful infornlation aud is a good opportunit�� for
student participation. Opportunities to expand this activity are limited.
Other opportunities for volunteer stream monitoring available, such as the MPCA's Citizen
Stream Monitoring program that monitors transparency, stream stage, and appearance. The most
efficient means of im lemeiitin further volunteer monitorin would be to form arhiershi s
P g g P P
with specific schools to develop monitoring strategies, especially on smaller tributaries.
2.2.2. Biomonitoring
Biomonitoring adds an important dimension to stream water quality assessment. The presence
or absence of various macroinvertebrate and fish species can provide supplementary infonnation
about water quality.
The Conzmissions conduct macroinvertebrate monitoring though participation in Hennepin
County Environmental Services' River Watch program. Three sites are currently active in
Shingle Creek and one site in the West Mississippi watershed. Three Rivers Park District
monitors an additional site on Shingle Creek in the North Mississippi Regional Park. Expansion
of the ro am is limited both b the e f tudent ou s t at can commit to on oin
n u m b r o s h
P�' Y P g g
participation and by the nuinber of sites that are suitable for sampling. If additional sites are
identified through the stream assessments discussed below, the Comrnissions should work with
Hennepin CounTy Environmental Services to recruit schools to monitor them.
A few fish surveys have been conducted in the past on Shingle Creek, with the most recent
conducted in 1999, Fish surveys should be conducted every five years. The estimated cost of
perfornung a fish survey is $4-5,000 per site.
2.2.3 Wetland Monitorin
g
The Commissions currentl} do not conduct any wetland morutormg. Hennepin County
Environmental Services manages a volunteer wetland monitoring program called Wetland Health
Evaluation Program (WHEP) that trains adult volunteers to monitor wetland vegetation and
sample for macroinvertebrates. The CiTy of Plymouth participates in this program; one of its
sites is located in the Shingle Creek watershed.
The cost of participation in the Hennepin County program is $3,750 for four sites. As high-
priorit�j wetlands for preservation are identified the Commissions should consider enrolling those
wetlands in this program.
i
34
J^Shingle Creek\CTPs';Major Plan Atnendment',September packeflF'IT�AL Water Qualit}� Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.4 Aquatic Plant Monitoring
Aquatic plants protect water quality by absorbing nutrients such as phosphorus and xutrogen that
could stimulate algal blooms. Plant beds stabilize soft lake and river bottonls and reduce
shoreline erosion by reducing the effect of waves and current. Healthy native aquatic plant
communities help prevent the establishment of invasive exotic plants like Eurasian waternulfaiL
Aquatic plants provide important reproductive, food, and cover habitat for fish, invertebrates,
and wildlife.
Lake a uatic lant monitorin rovides information needed to mana e a uatic lants evaluate
q g g
P P q P
control nleasures, and plan for future actions. Aquatic plant conununities are surveyed far
composition of plant cominunity and species abundance and to documents the location and
extent of aquatic plants. This monitoring is especially useful as water quality management
activities are inlplemented arld plant communities change in response to changing water quality.
The Shingle Creek Commission does not currently monitor aquatic plants on its lakes. Such
monitoring should be conducted every 2-3 }�ears. The estimated cost of implementation would
be $4,000 per site, depending on lake size. An aquatic plant managenient plan is estimated to
cost $5,000 each. After the initial inventory is complete properly trained volunteers can monitor
a uatic ve etat' at uc w
q g ioil a m h lo er continuing cost.
2.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS
Specific management activities, including capital improvements, would be set out for each water
resource in Management Plans. Other activities would be included in any TMDLs required for
specific water resources. Where possible, development of a management plan should parallel
any required TMDLs so a single implementation plan is developed.
2.3.1 Lakes
2.3.1.1 Lake Manageme�zt Plan Objectives
The following objectives have been established for lake inanagement plans in the Shingle Creek
watershed:
To establish specific water quality and beneficia] use goals for each lake and a detailed plan for
achieving them.
To refine Commission rules and standards for nev�� development within the lakeshed to prevent
further degradation of and to improve lake water quality.
35
1:`SLinele Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendment`,September packeflFINAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
2.3.1.2 Lake Ma�za�ement Pla��.s
b
Lake Management Plans provide a comprehensive review of lake water quality; beneficial uses;
recreation, fish and wildlife needs; and local priorities. They also offer the opportunity to review
the general Cammission goals and management standards for a specific lake and to establish
more appropriate ones if necessary.
Some cities in the Shingle Creek watershed have already developed local Iake management
plans: Plymouth {Bass, Pike, Sclunidt, Curtis, and Pomerleau) and Maple Grove (Eagle, Pike,
and Cedar Island) have completed plans for all their lakes, while Robbinsdale has completed a
plan for Crystal Lake and Brooklyn Center a plan for Twin Lake.
For each lake, the Commissions could consider adopting some or all of a city's management plan
and goals, or use that plan as a starting point for a management plan adapted to the watershed
focus on water quality and maintenance of beneficial use. The Coirmlissions' Management Plans
would present both city and Commission plans in a unified fornlat that relates management
activities to the numerical water quality goals and Second Generation Plan policies. If a TMDL
is required on a specific lake, the Plan would incorporate the required TMDL analysis. The heart
of the Plans would be a detailed Action Plan of activities and improvements to be undertaken to
meet Commission, and State water quality and other goals and standards.
The estimated cost of each lake management plan is $10,000, although the cost wouId vary by
lake size and whether the local community had already developed it own management plan.
2.3.1.3 Lake TMDLs
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are required by the Clean Water Act for Impaired
Waters to provide a detailed understanding of the causes of lake impairments and to identify
options for improvement. Section 1.2.1.1 details the lakes in Shingle Creek that have been
designated Impaired Waters. The Commission has been working closely with the Miru�esota
Pollution Control Agency and with the cities to prepare TMDLs as required and to incorporate
these into the lake management plans. The estimated cost to prepare each TMDL is $10,000,
although the cost would vary by lake size and the amount of monitoring required. To c�ate, tTie
TMDLs have been funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2.3.2 Streams
2.3.2.1 Stream Manage�nent Plan Objecti>>es
The following objectives have beeil established for stream management plans in the Shingle
Creek and West Mississippi watersheds:
To conduct a series of assessments to evaluate channel capacity and erosion; water quality and
habitat; and potential for improvement.
36
J:\Shingle Cree};\CIPs'�Major Plan AmendmenT,September packef�FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
To establish specific goals for each stream and a detailed plan for achieving thern.
To establish a comprehensive strategy for managing across city boundaries.
2.3.2.2 St�•eam Assessmerzts
Stream assessments provide a comprehensive review of streanl water quality beneficial uses;
carryulg capacity; recreation, fish and wildlife needs; and local priorities. They also offer the
opportunity to review the general Commission goals and management standards for a specific
lake and to establish more appropriate ones if necessary.
The Minneapolis Park Board has completed a stream assessment of Shingle Creek from the
mouth to the city border with Brooklyn Center. In 2004 the Shingle Creek Cominission
extended that stream assessment from the Brookl n Center border to the head of Shin le Creek
Y g
at the confluence of Eagle and Bass Creeks. The assessment also included Ryan Creek. In 2006
other streams will be assessed, including Eagle, Bass, Pike, Twin, and Oxbow Creeks, and
Edinbrook/Century Channel and Mattson Brook.
The stream assessments gather infonnation; evaluate conditions using standard assessment
protocols; and make general recommendations for improvement. The assessments serve as
background information for the development of any required TMDL analyses.
The estimated cost of re arin a stream assessment is $3 000 er mile.
P P g P
2.3.2.3 Strear�z TMDLs
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies are required by the Clean Water Act for Impaired
Waters to provide a detailed understanding of the causes of strearn impairments and to identify
options for improvement. Section 1.2.2.1 details the streams in Shingle Creek that have been
designated Impaired Waters. The Commission has been working closely with the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency and with the cities to prepare TNIDLs as required and to incorporate
these into the stream assessments. The estimated cost to prepare each TMDL is variable
depending on the parameter and the amount of monitaring required. To date, the TMDLs have
been funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2.3.3 Wetlands
2.3.3.1 I��etland Management Plal� Objecti>>es
The following objectives have been established for the wetland management plan in the Shingle
Creek and West Mississippi watersheds:
37
J:`Sk�ingle Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendment`,September packef�f'TNAL VJater Qualiq� Plan_Sept.doc
To identi hi h riori wetlands for rotection and reservation•
fY P h' P P
To establish management strategies and priorities for wetlands based on their watershed
significance.
2.3.3.2 Njetla�zd P�rotection and Preser VQIl.019 PZQM
This plan will compile the wetland functions and values assessments for high priority wetlands
conaucted by tlie cities. From these results the Conunissions will develop managenlent
strategies and priorities for protection and preservation based on watershed significance. These
assessments are to be completed by the cities by the end of 2006, with the Prot�ction and
Preservation Plan to follow. The estimated cost of preparing tlus Plan is $20,000.
2.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2.4.1.1 Manageinent Plan bnplemenlation
Implementation of this Water Qualiiy Plan will generate the various management plans and
studies as well as specific improvement projects intended to iinprove water quality. These
would be incorporated into the Coinmissions' annual Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs).
Implementation of most of these projects would be at the city level, with Conunission technical
oversight and potentially financial participation. The CIP would be updated every year.
Potential funding mechanisms are discussed in Section 2.6 below.
2.4.1.2 Sh.oreline/Streanibank Restoration
Correcting shoreline and streambank erosion problems was identified in the Second Generation
Plan and the Shingle Creek Corridor Study as being an inlportant issue. Residential properties
along Shingle Creek in Brooklyn Park are experiencing significant erosion problems, and a
i
recent project in Maple Grove and Plymouth addressed erosion on Pike Creek. Additionally,
Shingle Creek is eaperiencing low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations that may be directly
related to stream structiu Many of the lakes experience erosion on some part of the lakeshore
that contributes to lake water quality degradation.
A program to undertake shoreline and streambank restoration improvements is necessary to
prevent further water quality degradation. The estimated cost of such a program is $50,000 per
year, starting in 2008. The stream assessments and lake management plans will help identify
locations for improvement.
2.5 EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
38
J:`Shinele Creek\CIPsVvlajor Plan AmendmenY,September packet�INAL Vdater Qualit}� Plan_Sept.dce
2.5.1 Watershed Management Rules and Standards
The Corrunissions have enacted Rules and Standards re ulatin the treatment of stormwater
I g g
runoff from development and redevelopinent projects in the watershed. The Conunissions will
modify these rules as necessary to address new concerns or as the individual resource
management plans or TMDLs require.
2.SZ Educa.tion and Public Outreach
The Conunissions currently sponsor a series of education and outreach activities that meet both
Commission objectives as well as the NPDES Phase II Educatioil and Public Outreach
requirements of nine of the ten cities in the watershed (Minneapolis falls under the requirements
of NPDES Phase I). These activities raise awareness of lake water quality issues and provide
opportunities for residents and conunercial property o��vners to learn how changes to their
property management practices can reduce runoff carrying pollutants such as sediment, nutrients,
and chloride to lakes and streams
The prograni will he integrated with the resources management plans and with the TMDLs, not
only to provide public input and review of tlie plans but also as an important component of
implementation. Many nonpoint sources impairn�ents will require change in manageinent
practices, not only by riparian property owners but by all properiy owners in the watersheds.
The current education and ublic outreach bud et is 30 000 er ear. The Conunissions also
P P Y
artici ate in the Metro WaterShed Partners consortium as well as informal alliances with other
P P
commissions to ma�:imize effectiveness of inessage. As additional resource management plans
and TMDLs are conducted, tlus budget item will need to increase to provide for increased
education and outreach to reduce pollutant loading.
2.5.3 BMP Demonstration Projects
A program of BMP demonstration projects or other small projects ��vill be encouraged to assist
cities and property owners to adopt practices that protect water quality. These will include
establishing native shorelines, buffer strips, plantiilg rain gardens, converting turf to sustainable
landscaping, etc. The estimated cost of this program is $25,000 per year, starting in 2008.
2.6 COST OF IMPLEMENTATION
2.6.1 Continuing Acti�•ities
The Commissions currently undertake several activities in this Plan:
Volunteer lake monitoring (CAMP);
39
J.^Shingle Creek\CIPs�Major P1an Amendment'�,September packef�FINAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
Conunission stream monitorin
g�
Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring;
Education and public outreach; and
Maintenance of management rules and standards.
Several lake and stream TMDLs are also undervvay, funded by grants funds from the MPCA.
Some of these activities such as stream monitoring and education and public outreach should be
increased in scope and budget to meet the goals laid out in this Plan.
2.6.2 New Activities
Several new activities have been identified as well. Some of these are specialized studies or
inonitoring that do not need to be conducted regularly but should be conducted periodically:
Lake management plans;
Stream assessments;
Detailed monitoring of high priority lakes;
Monitoring of streams other than Shingle Creek;
Stream fish assessments;
Aquatic plant surveys;
Wetland planning and monitoring.
It is also likely that the lake management plans and stream assessments will identify additional
studies or monitoring activity that should be undertaken that would be considered as part of
future budgets and CIPs.
2.6.3 Funding Options
Several funding options are available to implement the activities in this Plan. The first step is to
refine a detailed Capital Improvements program (CIP) to be incorporated into the Commissions
overall annual CIP. As part of that discussion, the Commissions should consider which
activities are best fiuided through the regular budget, that is from the general allocations from the
cities, and which should be funded by altemative mechanisms, such as:
Assessment to the cities based on Benefitting Area, as laid out in the Joint Powers
Agreement;
Certification of capital improvement costs to the County for collection as an ad valorem tax
levy; or
Direct cities to make specific improvements.
Grant funds are available from the Section 319 program administered by the MPCA, and from
other agencies such as the DNR, BWSR, and Hennepin County.
40
J:',Shin�le Creek\CIPs'Jvlajor Plan Amendment',September packet�FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 28. Implement�tion Plan Costs.
Year 2003 200� 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Monitoring/Information Gathering
Comtnission stream monitorinK 22,500 30,000 35,000 35,000 38,800 40,000 41,000 42,000 43,000 45,000
Cornmission lake monitoring 15,000 15,000
Volimteer lake monitorin� I 7,000 7,000 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500
Volunteer stream monitoring 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,000 4,000 �1,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 5,000
Volunteer �vedand monitorin� 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 6,000
Aquatic pl�ndfish monitoring 2,100 2,000 2,000
SUBTOT,4L I $3d,500 I $42,000 $46,500 $45,500 k}�d���°�$,5��%10t� �'5�1,500 $72,500 $56,540 $74,500 �62,500
Education and Public Outreach
Management Rules and Standards Maintain existing, may be future cost unknown at this time
Education and public outreach pro�rams 58,000 47,500 50,750 56,000 �k 64,40Q�,�� 66,000 67,500 69,000 71,000 71,000
BMP demonstration projects 10,000 �5,'`�0�` 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Management Plans lii
Lnlres I
TMDLs Pllase [(U, M, L Twiu, Ryan, g5,300
Crystal)
TMDLS Phase lI (bala��ce) 63,200
Lalce mana�ement plans Phase I 20,000
Lake m�naQement plans Phase II 15,000
Streams
Stream TMDLs 130,000 chloride 200,000 D07 Biotic Inte�rity
Shin�le Creek Corridor Study 40,000
Ph�se [I Stream Assessment (Bass, Eagle, 20,000
Pike, Twin, Oxbow, Mattson)
I�Ve!lnnds
Wetland protection and preservation plan 20,000
Capital Improvement Plan To Be Determi,�ed
Brooklyn Park-Sliingle Geek Restoration 750,000
Ne�v Hope-Wincrest Pond 290,000
Maple Grove Pond P51 1,459,000
Robbinsdale-Crystal Lake Water Qaality 400,000
41
J:\Shingle Creek\CIPsVvl�jor Plan Amendmenl\September packet�FINAL Water Qualit}• Plan_Sept.doc
Yenr I 2003 2004 2005 200G 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Maple Grove .Pond P57 648,000
Brooklyn Center Wetland 639W 690,000
New Hope 45"' Ave Pond 550,000
Brooklyn Center- Shingle Creek 430,000
Restoration
1Vlaple Grove Pond P33 574,000
Maple Grove Pond P55 855,000
SUI3TOTAL I S�so,o�o I I ��,��9,ono ��1,�3s.ono S2,�o9,no� TaBeDeternrirred
I
Total Estimatecl Cost �91,500 ,5109,500 81 /7,250 �'�12'I,SQO �°$731,800 'SIb5,5�0 �5765,000' $150,5dd �l�0,500 $l58,5�1Q
Commission, city assessments u�
Total Estim�ted Cost ,575,000 $322,500 5434,500 ,5496,125 To Be Deternrined
Commission, capital levy
Total Estimated Cost: Cities, ,S67s,000 $I,42G,5oo $i Sl,vIZ,875 ToBeDeterini�ied
c�pital projects
Total Estimated Cost: Grant
Funds plus Commission match $lo,000 �ZO,000
Tot�l Estimated Cost MPCA $148,SOO lake TMDLs
TMDL funding $130 ,000 chlor,de TMDL I
$ZOO,OOODO/13io�ic TMDL
Items in Bolcl print are partially or entirely funded from grant funds
I
I
I
i
42
J:1SI�i�eek\CIPsUvlajor Plan Amendmeot\Septeinber racket\FINAL Water Qualih' Plan_Sept.doc I I
References Cited
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2003). Guidance Manual For Assessi»g the Ouality of
Alinnesota Su�face YVaters For the Deter�ni�zation of h�i�ai��meizt: 305(b) Repo��t and 303(d) List.
St. Paul, MN: Environnlental Outcomes Division, Min.nesota Pollution Control Agency.
httb://w�w���.nca.state.mn.us/nublications/manuals/tmdl-ffuidancemanual.pdf. (.Apri122, 2004)
City of Plymouth Water Resources Plan.
Schupp, D. (1992). An Ecological Classification of Minnesota Lakes i�ith Associated Fisl�
Com�nu�2ities. St. Paul, MN: Section of Fisheries, Minnesota Departn�ent of Natural Resources.
Investigational Report 417.
43
J:1Shinole Creek\CIPsVviajor Plan Amendmenfl,5eptember pacAet�f'INAL Water Qualip� Plan_Sept.doc
Apnendix A Field Monitoring Protocols
Lakes
Field Collection Sites and Procedures
The Shingle Creek Watershed Commission does not currently routinely monitor Iakes. Should
the Commission choose to begin this practice, field colleetion procedures similar to those
established for stream monitoring will be developed to assure quality assurance and control.
Routine Lake Monitoring Pm•an�eters
I Should the Commission choose to begin monitoring lakes, the following table identifies the
parameters to be monitored and the frequency at which monitoring should occur.
Table 29. Lake Monitoring Parameters And Frequency
Parameter Sites Frequency Responsible Analyses
Party
Cl�lorophyll-a Surface I Bi-weekly I SCWMC Lab
I Total P Surface,bottom Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab
Orti�o P Surface,bottom Bi-weekl SCWMC Lab
Y I
TKN Surface,bottom Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab
Total Fe Bottom Bi-weekly SCWMC Lab
I
Tem /DO/conductivi Profile Bi-weekl SCWMC Field robe
P h' Y P
profile
Secchi depth Profile Bi-weekly SCWMC Field reading
Zooplankton Counts Spring, summer, fall SCWMC Field reading
Phytoplan��ton Counts i Sprin�, summer, fall SCWMC Field reading
i I I I I
Fish Summer, winter DNR? Field reading
I
i
I 44
J:'Shingle Creek\C1Ps�4ajor Plan Amendmentl5eptember packetlFINAL Water Qualit}� Plan_Sept.doc
Streams
Field Collection Sites and Procedures
All sampling will follow Wenck Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for grab and automated
sanlpling (Appendices A and B). Automatic sample collection will only occur at the SCWMC
continuous moiutoring sites at Zane Avenue (SG2) and the watershed outlet (SC-0).
Samples will be analyzed by a state certified laboratory (Braun Intertec, MDH Certified
Laboratory). Quality assurance and qualiiy control procedures will be followed including
collecting field blanks, rinsing collection buckets with distilled water, sampling duplicates, and
analyzing sanlples within 24 hours of collection.
Discharge measurements will follow the Wenck SOP for stream discharge monitoring
(Apgendix C). Measurements will occur across numerous flow regimes to develop accurate
rating curves. Flow measurements will be made using a Marsh McBirney velocity meter and
Solinst Level Loggers or ISCO submerged probes or bubblers for stage measurements.
RoutiJie Streaia� Alonitoring Paranzelers
The following table identifies the parameters to be monitored and the frequency at which
monitoring should occur.
45
J:\Shin�le Creek�CIPs`,Major Plan AmendmenflSeptember packeY�f'INAL Water Qualit�� Plan_Sept.doc
Table 30. Stream Monitorin Parameters And Fre uenc
g 4 Y
Parameter Sites Frequency ResPpaln�s�ible Analyses
Flow SC-0, SG2 During all san�pling trips (10 SCWMC Field Probe
USGS to 20 samples) USGS
TotaUVolatile SC-0, SG2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
Suspended Solids composite)
Biweekly May throu�h Oct
Carbonaceous SC-0, SC-2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Biochemical
Oxygeil Demand
Fecal Coliform, E. SC-0 6 storm events SCWMC Lab
coli Biweekly May though
October
Ammonia SC-0, SG2 As needed for suecial projects SCWMC Lab
Chloride SC-0, SG2 Biweekly SCWMC Lab
I Nitrate +Nitrite SC-0, SG2 2 storms (l pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Soluble Reactive SC-0, SG2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
Phosphorus composite)
Biweekly May throu�h Oct
Chemical Oxygen SC-0, SG2 As needed for special pro�ects SCWMC Lab
Demand
Total Phosphorus SC-0, SG2 2 storms (l pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Chlorophyll-a SC-0, SG2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Total Kjeldahl SC-0, SC-2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
Nitrogen composite)
Biweekl Ma throu h Oct
Y Y
Total Dissolved SC-0, SG2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Solids
PH SC-0, SC-2 Biweekly May through SCWMC Field Probe
October
Dissolved Oay gen SC-0, SG2 I Biweekly May through Oct SCWMG Field Probe
Conductivity SC-0, SC-2 Biweekly May through Oct; SCWMC Field Probe
USGS Monitored at 15-minute USGS
mtervals annually
Temperature SGO, SG2 Biweekly May through Oct; SCWMC Field Probe
USGS Monitored at 15-minute USGS
intervals annually
46
J:\Shingle Creel:\CIPs�vlajor Plan AmendmenY,September packeP�FINAL Water Quality PI� Sept.doc
Monitoring for other pollutants of concern is also necessary for identifying potential stressors
associated with urban environments. For example, oil and grease may present a potential
problem since niuch of the waterslied is urbanized. Previous sampli.ng for these parameters does
not suggest these azeas are a problem and don't warrant monitoring. Additionally, some data on
these parameters is being collected as a part of the USGS NAWQA program.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Internal quality control (QC) is achieved by collecting and/or analyzing a series of duplicate,
replicate, blank, spike, and spike duplicate samples to ensure that the analytical results are within
quality control limits specified by the program. Laboratory QC samples are documented and
reported with the analytical results. The QC sample results are used to quantify precision and
accuracy and identify any problems or limitatioiis assaciated with sa.inple results. Quality
assurance objectives are outlined in the following table.
Table 31. Monitoring Quality Assurance Objecti��es
Parameter Method Target Detection Precision Accuracy Con�pleteness
Limit
o 0
TotaUVolatile EPA 160.2 5.0 mg/L 20 /oRPD 75-125 /0 95 /o
Suspended Solids EPA 160.4 5.0 mg/L
Carbonaceous SM5210B 2 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Feca] Coliform, E. coli SM9222D 1 cfu/100 ml NA NA 95%
Aiiimonia EPA 350.2 0.05 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Chloride EPA 325.1 1 m�/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Nitrate Nitrite EPA 353.2 I 0.02 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Soluble Reactive EPA 365.2 10 µg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Phosphorus
Chemical Oaygen EPA 410.4 3 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Demand
Total Phosphorus EPA 365.4 10 µ�/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Chlorophyll-a SM10200H 0.5 ug/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Tota1 Kjeldahl EPA 351.2 0.5 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Nitrogen
Total Dissolved Solids EPA 160.1 10 mg/L 20%RPD 75-125% 95%
Precision
Precision is the degree of agreement among repeated measurements of the same characteristic on
the same sample or on separate samples collected as close as possible in time and place.
Precision will be measured through the use of duplicate samples. Two types of duplicates will
be used: field and analyticaL
47
J:\Shin�le Creek\CIPs'dvlajor Plan AmendmenftSeptember packefiFINAL Water Qualiry Plan_Sept.doc
Field du licates are se arate sarn les that are collected as close as ossible in s ace and tune.
P P P P P
All steps in the field sampling protocol are repeated for each sample and the samples are
submitted for laboratory analysis in separate sample containers.. The purpose of field duplicates
is to assess the consistency and reproducibility of field procedures. The field duplicates will be
collected at a rate of 5 percent. All analysis parameters will be run on field duplicates.
Anal��tical duplicates are created by analyzing two sub-samples from a single homogeneous field
sample. The purpose of anal}�tical duplicates is to assess the consistency and reproducibility of
laboratory procedures. The analytical duplicates will be run at a rate of 10 percent for all
parameters.
Precision is calculated as the relative percent difference between duplicate measurements.
Accuracv
Accuracy is a measure of confidence that the measured value for a sarnple is the "true ��alue."
Alternatively, accuracy can be considered to be the degree of bias in a sample result. Accuracy
will be assessed by analyzing a standard reference sample and comparing the result to the known
value for that reference sanlple. Standards will be run for all parameters at a rate of 10 percent.
Accuracy will be calculated as percent recovery of the known val�e.
Potential bias in samples will also be assessed through the use of blank samples. Blank samples
are composed of de-ionized laboratory water. Two types of blanlcs will be used in this study:
reagent and rinseate.
A reagent blan.k is a sample conlposed of all reagents (in the same quantities} used in preparing a
sam le for anal sis. It is carried throu h the same sam le re aration ste s as the sanl le.
P Y g P P P P P
Reagent blanks are used to ensure that interference form analytical system, reagents, and
glassware are under control. The required frequency for analyzing reagent blanks is specified for
each method and generally consists of one per day for each method/instrument.
I Rinseate blanks are filled in the field using contaminant-free laboratory water. The lab water is
poured into the sanipling device and then into the san�ple container following all the steps laid
out in the field sampling protocol. The field crew will process the lab water in the field and
submit the blank for laboratory analysis. Rinseate blanks will be run at a rate of 5 percent.
Renresentativeness
Representativeness is a qualitative measure of the extent to which the data collected actually
represents the true environmental condition or sample population. Sample event �iming will
occur over a range of conditions including rainfall and dry weather periods.
48
J:�Shinele Creek�CIPs�Major Plan Amendment\Septemt�er packeflFINAL Water Qualiq� Pl� Sept.doc
s������� ����r����
l�' n r��
"f;��� �:���5 �?�.,�s��� ��a� �d �������r�
�.�a n �y4`�"���w','�,�� �z
�t �y' ��y�.
t� y�,����»�'`�`��,���� �g
.��,��a�� a�i s� x .vr
S 4 w� -�n" ,�SY �s z t''y�
��t��a��.� �a 3
r �s�
v �u�f
R �s �S`� �r� r �i�*€ �a.�&�`'�
�,����1 a
��W 4
��z��.���,
���t �s
�c-� x
3� .�z�" 5 a�Y" F
g as��i�y� a r 5 �`'����'�u� 3
A r�
y�� x
�4�� N
�"�i����3� 3 ����''��`�;,9
��s� �t� s
�s �"�"�i�� ���,�s �����x'�`��yti�
��z a �v�`�� �r fi 7
�x
l �5
a'� s '�Y� ������r°������'��
'�'i� ����������'�'-���,ta���'y'�`��� �c;•..
a
;S �3 3�'��
���'���'����a°���� aa e r
j ti��� �Y��.
4
.���s�� �7
`��T� ��a���� .w�,���e' �s'��'��� w �a
z �.'�'��`.�'s z y,
5 �s
a �'���Y��`��,��
���s ..�.�k� v s,� 2 s s
a a. v .s�. �k:
'�`t�����3���
a s
4 ������a�� r g �K�v,
I �t� �����a���
w��,C��� ,*���.�v
;s��� ��c��� �sa�����
4 ���s
W�
�����'�������`��5�������������� r
��a���� ���c�
4 h4,+.+.�,. ac t�� ,q
����s `�x �s���a R
5 a �a f k�`,�
�r�� �'����s.�"�m�
�r r a a
'�7#. 5
q����.���
��y��� �r��€ �h� a
y. 3 �'s�•
I
6 ��.�i �J���' T °a �n �i
�R� ���Y,�` i
���e��
F�����3��
a, ���'��'�<'s
�'����'o fi+�'� S X�'v�'��
X 5
�v�� x
4 a�, s��s
�y�����
r� z���
��'�������`4��������'�'�
x
z� s"
at
s a�� �r
r '�t �ea�i?�"������� �r'� �t s� r
��"��.r�k��� u�� s��
�-fi a z�� '�Z
r� �'l� k` k f ��a x Sk 1 a, v '�5
7 P�f.� .�C f
�����'�°�-�'���^`�'�F s�'�.
r .t� s
z ������������������x
`e ��r a y r��
s', .e., a
sl l �4T ��E 1` z i� ``t� �k�`�'
�z*k ��`r�� uF��,��
��C�� ��,�r
_�'�'�t�"°'�_�''"`� afr���a a��r�'���£�'��}',�`��t'�"a����,�
�z� 3��w, y v�
�g� ��r� �3""r r�` 3 a a� r
s��`���' s
s� �i F aj 'z
�m �.��r
y� w ��k +t
r�
x a§� Y z�
t
������>a��,�� �CE.
F���
��z� s��� a c
°��E��� �'w� �3
�J�.��
k
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: Apri15, 2007
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Man���
SUBJECT: Utility shut off for failure to read meter
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
Final direction to staff regarding changes in our water shut off policies and practices.
BACKGROUND
The subject matter was reviewed at the last Work Session. The Council directed staff to
consider revision to the policy so that property owners would have a greater incentive to
rovide meter readin s.
P g
Penalties for Not Reading
Currently the Utility charges a fee of $2.00-First Quarter, $5.00- Second Quarter, and $14.00-
Third and Subsequent Quarters for not reading the meter.
Staff estimates that the City Cost associated with the activities related to not reading a meter
is on average $16.27. I believe these are the minimum costs to City and the City should
establish the fee for non reading at $16.00 for each event.
Show Cause Hearing
I have enclosed for your consideration a policy re-draft that allows for water shut off actions
to be heard by a hearing officer designated by the City Manager.
Water Usage Estimates
Historically, when no reading has been received our estimate for water usage has been based
upon usage from the prior similar quarter. We believe this approach too often underestimate
the actual usage. For this reason our intent is to modify our estimating procedures for future
non-reporters. We will be using a certified standard for average household usage. The current
estimating standard for residential use is 350 gallons per day. We believe that using this
standard minimizes any potential revenue loss and it is likely encourage reporting by those
who are being under billed at present.
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
Will the proposed changes in utility practices and procedures best serve the interest of the
utility operations and the customers that we serve.
SECTION II GENERAL POLICIES
City Council Code of Po/rcies
2.32 Water Utility Meter Reading Policy
Brooklyn Center Ordinance 4-105 requires that all water utility customers read their meters and
provide those readings to the Utilities Division. Section 4-202 sates that water service may be
discontinued to any property for disregard of duly established rules and regulations. The
following is the policy regarding meter reading:
1. Residential Properties: A meter reading is due 18 days after the date of mailing meter
reading cards.
2. Non-Residential Properties: Public Utilities Division employees read non-residential
property meters each quarter.
3. If a meter reading is not provided and the meter reading must be estimated, then a
delinquent meter reading penalty shall be assessed to the customer on the next utility bill.
Meter reading penalties are established annually with the utilities rate schedules.
4. Residential Properties: If after four consecutive quarters the customer has not
submitted a meter reading, the Public Utilities Division shall notify the customer that they
have 14 days to schedule an appointment for meter reading. Such notice shall also
inform the eustomer that they have a right to demand a J�earing heti�rc hearine uiticer '��e�: v�b1ic
dCSifltlalCC� h� i}1t C`it� �latla��CC j0 S}]Ow C3llSC SS t0 w}lY t�10IT w3t0P S�IOU�Cl (lOt be SI]Ut i DCIeECd:azthenextregWarlyschedule
of£ T'he demand must be made in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. If no written c°°"°'i "'ee""g
demand is received within that time period, then it is assumed the customer waives the i
right to a hearing.
5. Non-Residential Properties: If after two consecutive quarters the Public Utilities I
Division has not been able to read a meter, the customer shall be notified that they have
14 days to schedule an appointment for meter reading. Such notice shall also inform the i,
customer that they have a right to demand ahearing h�li�re a hca�•in�� ��fficcr desi�natrci ��ie�: P�e1ic
b� the Cit� Manaa��r jo show cause as to why their water should not be shut off. The �eieeed:azcne�ext�es�i�ir�nea�i�a',
demand must be made in writing to the City Clerk within 10 days. If no written demand Council meeting
is received within that time period, then it is assumed the customer waives the right to a
hearing.
6. �ollo���ine the sho��� causc hearin�__ thn c�arin�_ufticer shall iTiake findinas and De�eted:�ec+ryeo��o�imayaz�
administrative hearing at a regularly I
recommendation to the Ciu� M��nuacr ��hu�s �letermination shall he enf��rced. sonea�ieam����soo�g;ae�r�e�,��off
of water to a property and order staff to
7. If by the end of the 14-day period the customer refuses to schedule an appointment or if '��ss�,a�'°"5 a a�ms �e
the Public Utilities Division is unable to otherwise gain access to the building or obtain a
reading, and if the customer has not demanded a public hearing, then the water shall be
turned off immediately.
Reference: City Council Resolution No. 93-63
City of Brooklyn Cenrer 10/23/06 PaSe I
CC?UNCIL TTEM MEIVIORA�DUM
TQ: Curt Boganey, City 1blaila�er
�R4N1: Tc�dd Blonmstrom, Director of Public Works
DATE: March 21, 20L1�
����Ee�': 'Water U�ility Shut-off Policy Regarding Water M:eter Reading
Reeommendation:
Public Works staff is recommending that the City of Broaklyn Center reinsEitute the provisia��s
of City Council Policy 2.32 related to Water Uti3ity M:eter Reading. 'This policy provides for
the t�rminatie�n af water service in response to a custamer's failure to pravide nleter readin;s.
The recomrnendation is based oz1 an increasing fret�uency Qf m.eter reading issues with
custome�rs.
Baekgrotznd.
�ection 2.32 of the City Code of Policies autlines the ��rater utility m�ter reading policies and
procedures fc�r the �ity af Brc�okl}m Center. Sev�ral: years aga, the City discantint�ed t1�e
practice af water shut-affs in. res��anse to delinquent util�ty bitls and failute of custonlers ta
retum rneter readin� car�is. Delinquent utility bills are currenCly adciressed tl�rough the special.
assessment pracess. In response t� custamer failure ta return met�r reading eards, the Put�lic
Utilitic5 Division ha5 been hanci delivering noti fication daar tags tc� customers.
The F'rnance Departmex�t recently prepared a list of cusfamers ��vho have nat ret�rned meter
reading cards for more than four consecutive quarters {mare than anc year). A total nf twa
�unclrec� thirty c�ne {231) eustamers currently have not returned meter cards for mo.re than fa�ir
consecutive quarters. �Vithin thzs categary, a total of tifteezi (l. 5 j custc�mers cun entl'� have r�ot
returncd meter cards for more than ei�ht cQnsecutive quart�rs (more than two years�.
After seve�'al years of implementatic�n, Public Works staff has cc�nclud�ci that the current
praci.iee of hand cielivering noti�cation doar tags is clearly 7�ot effeetive. An increasing
amotu�t of sta�`f tirne is being consumed by delivery of i�c�tif eation doar ta�s.
Staff is availabl� to further diseuss this issue at your request.
Y�ater t;ttilit,y Meter R�ttdrrzg Poliey�
City� of Br•aaklyn E;ertte.r
SECTIC}N II GEII"�ERAL PQLI�IES
Ciry Caunctl C.ode of Palicies
2.32 W�ter Ut�Iity 1�Ieter Readinig Palicy
Brac�klyn Center Ordinance 4-105 requires that a11 water utility ��es that �wa er�ser�'�e�may be
provide thase readings to the Utilities Division. Sect�on 4-Zt}2 sa
discontinue�i to any praperty far disregard of duly e�tablished n�.Ies and regulations. The
follavving is the policy regard.ing rneter reading:
1. ResYdeutial Proper�ies: A meter reading is ciue 18 da�s after the date of maili��g meter
reading cards.
Non-Residen�iai Pr4perties; Public Utilities Divisian emplayees read na��-residential
propert� meters each quarter,
3, If a meter r�ading is not provided �d essed to the�cus�tomer� n�the nx t u�tili�y bill.
delinquent meter reading penalty shall
Meter read'zng penaltie� are established annually with the u.tilities rate sehedules.
4, R.esiden�iat Prt�perties: If after four cor�secuti��e q�� a� ��he cust mer hat they
submitted a rneter read�ng, the Public Utilities Division sh �uch notice shall also
have 14 days ta sehedule an appointment fc�r meter reading. a at the next
infe�rm th.e custc�mer that they have a rightc ��a their water sliould not be
regularly sehedule Council meetin� to shavv
shut off. The de�nand must be made in writinb eric�d� then Cle k ���umed the custorne�r
written demand is recei�ved wi#hin that t�me p
waives tl�e right to a hearing.
Nou-Reszdenti.ai Progerties: If after t�vo consecutive �I be �ot fied that ey have
Division has not been able to read a meter, the custorner sha
14 days ta schedule an appointrnent: for meter reading� c he�rin 1e at the ne�t� egu�arly
customer that they ha�e a right to demand a publ�
seheduled Council meeting to shaw cause as to C��?� w thin 10 days. �If nah�ritten
The demar�d must be made in writing to the C�ty
demand is receiued within that time periad, then it is assumed the eustamer waives the
right to a hearing.
6. The Gity Council may at an administrative hearir�g aff to take uch a t ons as i deems
consider the shut off of water to a prs�perty and order st
are necessary.
7. If b the end of the 14-day period the custorner refuses to schedule an appaint�nent ar if
Y
tl�e Fublic Utilities Division is unable tn otherwise'gain access ta the building or obtain a
reading, and if the custamer has not demanded a public hearing, then the vt�afer shall be
turned off inur�ediately.
Reference: City Cauncil Resolution h1o. 93-63
Gity af Broaklyn Center
Q8l141d6 Page 24�
CHAPTER 4— PUBLIC UTILITY AND SER�jICE DI'STRICTS
Sectian 4-101. FUNCTI01�1. There shall be in the City ofBrc�olclyn Ce.nter water uti.Iity, a
sa��t�y s�wer util.ity, a stornz drainage utili.ty, and a street light service district.
Section 4-102. MAN�UEMEN�'. The cii� nza�ia�er shall be responsible for the
managen�zent of th� �ublie utilities and service districts.
Seetion 4-103. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICE DI5TIZICT FUNDS. There shall be
mainfi;ained within tihe City ac�aunting systexn separaie funds established for each distinct utility or
service district. AIl monies co�lected by thepubiic utilities and service disiricts shall be deposited in
the a�prapriate fiu�d. Each fw�d shall be used to meet aIl the expe.nses far aperatian, rnaintenance,
repair, plant �xpansion, and administration of that utility ar serviee distirict.
Seci:ic�n 4-104. RATES, FEES, !AND CHARGES. The City Cauncil shall adopt by
resolution schedules of utility and service rates, fees, and charges which sehedules shall be kno�rn as
tl�e public utitities rate scliedules.
-1 CHARG
E
PR4CEDURES. The city7nanager sha11 establish �rocedures far
��chon 4 OS
d�tiermini.ng and collectin� customer charges consistent vvith lhe adopted rate scheciuIes.
Gharges for water serviee shall be based upon a metered quantity af t�rater wh.ich a pro�erty o��°tier or
occupant draws from'the municipal system. The praperty a��vner c�r occupa�t shali be respansrble for
reac�ing nis own meter, recarding the rneter readiz�g on a pastal card provicied t�y the public utilities
division, at�d returning the pastal card to the division withzn th� tirne liinit specified on tl�e card.
Fa�lure to return a meter ca.rd to the public utilities divisio�a �!ithin the speci��d time shall resutt ii� a
scrvice charge'as prescribed by the adopted rate schedule.
Utility and service accounts shall hecome �ue immediately fallowing billing and shall be consider�d
as an obli�;a�ian of the respecti�Te praperty. A service cl�zarge as prescribed Uy the adopiec� rate
schedule shall be added to �lie next billing an a�1y accaunt un.pald ane n�onth af�er the date of billing.
An additional service charge shall be added far each subsequer�t billin� period ii� which such.
accaunt, inciudinb accumetlated service charges re�nairrs delinquent. Any charges whicl� are
delinquent and which have l�eei� prap�rlY billed to the premises maY be Gertified by the city clerk to
the caunty auditor for collectiara fram ihe properiy o��ner. TIYe amounts so eertified, includin�
service char�es and interest conunencing from date of in.itial delin.quency, shal.l be extenci.ed by the
counry auditor on the tax rolls against prernises in the same n�anner as s�ecial assessments and sllall
be paid to the City alon� with tax. revenues. Unpaid ch.arges for operation of th.e street light system
shail be certified for co2leetion as special assessments in acc:ordance with the procedures specifieci iz�
Nfinnesata Statutes; Sectian 429.101.
�'ity Qf'ditac�race
City of Braoklyr� �erzt�r 4-1
Section 4-2Q1. VdATER CONN.ECTI�N PROCEDIJRES AND REC".xULATIQh�S.
Subdivision 1. Permit Application. Any pro�erty owner desiring a permit to connect a
d��ellin� or other b�zildin�; to the �SUblic water system af �he City of Brookl}m Center shall apply
therefar, through a Iicensed plumber, at the City cornmunity develapn�ent dePartnlent.
Subdivisio� 2. Pay�zent of Cc�nneetion Charge. Prior to issuance of a connection permit the
appl"rcant shall be required to pay the connection charge i�1 full.
SubdivisiQn 3. Connection Requirements. No water serviee line between the curb stop an.d
the plumbing system of any dwellzng or other building to be served shall be eonstructed until a
licensed plurnber has obtained a eonnection permit fram. thc �lanning and inspection department a�ad
a water. xneter fresm the public utilities division. The adopteci permit fee shall be paid to the`city
�eneral fund as payment for inspection services. In construetin� «�ater service lines plumbers shali
adhere to standards regarding locati.on, size, �,�rade, materials and warkrnanship as determined Uy the
put�lic �rc�rks director. It shall be unlawful ta cover the water �ervice line until inspected by a
repres�ntaCive of the planning and ins�ection department. A water meter shall be installed p�ic�r to
eann�cting the water service line to the prernises' s�stem fc�r consumption by thc customer.
Suhdivisio�z 4. Separation of Supplies. Wlienever any premises are cannectec� tc+ �he
m�nicipal �vater su�ply systez�i there shall be a comp.lete physicat separation between the rnunieipal
water supply system ta such premises and any private water supply system so that it is impossible,
either intentionally ar unintentionally for any wa�er produced by a private vrrater supply �ystenl to be
mixed with the niunicipal water supply.
Subdivision S. M�ter Installation Requirements. Uzttess atllerwise authonzed by the �aubIic
warks director, na t�ater shall be drawn from the municipal ��vater supply system until a«rater rr�eter
has �ieen obtained frorn the pablic utilities division dn.d insialled ta accurately measure all af tl�e
,�vater drawz� fram the s�stenl. The pubiic utilities division shall resertre the riglit to select a meter of
the proper size 6ased. on the e��ected maximum flaw tl�rough tl�e ser�rice pipe.
All meters shail be set at the nearest practical�le lacation to the pai��t where the serviee pipe enters
the building and shall be set in such a manner as ta i�e easily accessible far readir�g, remaval anc�'
resetting as determined by the su�ervisor'ditlie publ'zc utilities division.
Subciivision 6. Meter Qtivnership and iVlaintenance. The water meter shall be �urehased b}r
tl�c ovvner af'the premises fro�n tl�e public utilities di�ision at a price established in the public
utilities rate schedule. When a customer sells his prQperty, the public utilities divisior► s11aI1
repurchase the �neter from fhe custamer at the price whieh tlae cu.stoiner purchased the meter. If the
account is unpai�i at tlle tiine the customer sells his property or otheru'ise terminates water service,
the public utiliti�s d�vision shall deduct the amount of such unpaici account from the repurcl�ase }�rice
of the meter.
i
4- City Qrctira.c�t�c°�
City of 13rook13�n Cetater
The pub�c utilities divisicsn shall ba respansible ta maintain and repair ail water nleters in tlle system
dama ed throu negli�cnce of a
e��er the cost af re airing water meters
ina �e necessa How l�
as rY
Y
prop�rty owner, his tenant, ar his agent sha11 be charged to the owner of the meter. The public
utilifiie� division sha11 replace or repair meters foun.d ta t�e warn ar defective and the customer sha11
afford entry at reasonable times for such replacement ar repair.
Subdivisic�n 7.. Service Line Respansibitity. The cost of installina all water supplY Pljunbing
units, including fixtures, outiets, valves, and the supply lines between the buzldir�g and the cur1� stoP�
�hall be t�orne vvholly by the grc�perty owncT and sueh plunibing shall be subject to reasc�na�le
ins ections by representatives of th.e City community development deparlment. A�er th T ini��i�ae
P
ca��rt�ectian to the curb stop, the praperty owner shall therea�er be liable far a11 repa�r o�r
adjustments ta his water service line between the strect inain and t��e builcli.ng bein� served. T'he
public utilities division supervi:sor shal:I have final authori.ty iia determining when such xepairs or
grad.e acljustments are necessary. The supervisor shall giue written notice tc� tlie �roperty o��ner af
�he nec�ssity for repairs or adjustments and the tirne ��•ithin vvhich tliey must be compteted.
Subdivision 8. Fire Connections. AnY person, firrn, or cc�rporation ciesiriizg to connect fire
stand pipes, fire suppiy pipes, }��'ivate fire hydrants, or f'ire sprinkling pipes to the City water system
in such a manner that the ��vater supplied to, said fire system is not rec�uired to be metered, shall inake
application to the planning and inspectioil department. Where such a�plication is �ranted, ��ater
shall not be drawn for any purpose oth�r than fire suppression. A detectar check valve type meter car
ather deviee apprc�ved by the super�isor of the public util'zfii�s division shall be installecl at or near the
nectian ta the water senrice pipe, exce�t for the case af private �re hydrants. An annuat
place af con
fee shall be paid as prescribed in the adapted rate schedule ai�d annual i��rspections shall be made of
the corznection.
Subdivision 9. �hcceptance of Term�. Every praperty awner receiving ar applying for water
service fram the municipal system s�iall be deemed by such rec�rpt or app(ic�tian as cansenting ta al�l
ns an
ci sucll rules, re t,�Iatia
aild rates rel.ati.n to the public utiliti�s div�sion an
e ulatiot�s
ules r
P
rates as may fran-� time to tinle l�e established by duly canst�tuted authority.
Bvery person autharized to perfc�rm work on the municipal ti�ater system or on the praperty awner's
service Iine �r on the groperty owner's plumbin� system sllall be deemed by s�ch autharization as
consenting to ail rules and regulations relative to the public utilities c�ivision.
I T'1�e applicatio�x far or cc�ntit�ued use of any coru�ection to the Gity water supply system by tlic owner
cu ant of a re.mise shall canstitute authorization Cor any au�horized emplayee af the public
ar ac p I�
utilities divisian to enter upon the premises far the purpose of reading meters; inspectii�� facilities
to ar an other u gse reasonably necessary far th.e praper o�eration and mainte�lance
ere p rP
related th Y
of the meter and service line.
Ci�y af Brookly�z Cerite�
4-3 �`ity �p�dinunce
SeGtian 4-202. CC3NDITIC}NS QF USE.,
Subdivision i. Autharity to Restrict lise. The City af Brooklyl� �en�er hereby reserves the
right to litnit the use of water fratn the Cily water supply dnd distrib�.ition system and to prescribe
�mergeney conditzt�ns for use Qf water. The City Council may in its d'zscretion ad.opt a resal��tian
supplementin� th� sprinkling ban under Subdivision 2 u3i.tl1 a tatal prohibitic�n oii sp�i�iklin�.
Subdivisian 2. Sprinklin; Ban. To prc�tect the �lealth and safety of the c�nsumers and �he
gencral welfare of the City, and ta encourage watez� consei the Gity hereby adc�p�s the
following perman�n� sP����xri� �a�. The sprinklin� ar watering o f lawns and garcie��s is prohibitec�
frc�m May 1 ta September 30 each year; provicied, however, that odci-numbei°ed property acidresses
may water on odd-numhered days, and even-numberzd praperty addresses may �Jater on even'
numbered days.
Subdivision 3. Exceptions. The sprinlfiing ban under subciivisian 2 daes nat apply to:
property awners usin� a private well for sprinklin�;
Property awners who obtain a watering permit fram the Gity far the ��aterinb c�fs�ev�'
sad for the first tu�elve weeks after it is sodded or the waterii�g af i�zw seed far the
first twelve weeks af�er it is seeded; ancl
c. Prc►perty o��vners wl7o have received appraval fronl the City to operate a drip
irrigatian system.
Subdivisian 4. Discontinuance of Service.
a, The publ'zc t�tilities division may disco�ltinue service to any c�tstamer af �he urater
system without notice when necessary for repairs.
b, Upan r�asanable notice, s�rvice may be disconlinued for nonpayment of individual
accounts, for disregard of duly estab]ished rules and regulations pertainin� tQ the
c�perations of tl�e water distribution �ysten�, or for violatiaza r�f the s�rinkling l�an
provisions in subdivision 2.
disregarding duly
c, Whenever servic� is discantinued for na�zpaynYent of accounts,
established rules and reb tations, or fc�r vialation ofthe sprinkling ban, such service
shall not be resunzed except u�an payment of autstanding bills, �nforceme�lt fines,
fu11 compliance wi:th duly established rules and re�ulatians or sprinklingban, and the
payment ta the public utilities divisian of a service restoration charge as prescribeci
by th.e adopted rate schedule.
d. The City of Brooklyn Center ar the �ublic utilities division shall not be Iia1�Ie for ai�y
daina�e to persons ar property caused in whale or in part by tl�e discantintrance af
vvater service.
City �rdinar�ce
Cit7J af Broo�lyn Center
xr�L
r����` �������fi� i�
�.rce a 4 x a f
i�� �f y.�. �r'
s „y� r d ��a��
��;a ��r��„�� 5����, y �',f
d r'l4a S' M�'�
s
�r �����z� ���x����� ��r��`�'�,;�
�v t,s r� ''w,��� �s�� x N >k, r�
��s���
F a,� 3 �h"
�x�"� r�
���e ��h
F r
�r r �F
a��-�� a��"
4_ �r�������,'������3��� �.��r� r`� a:�,��
'u. x k
t �-r z�Y
�������F���� ���Z��
�.�'-a r g F t A
w �x c.
�a `a,�� ��,s
��z�
���h��������
3,�����
���������r,���r���` ���������a
z Z ����f�
.a �-"�`.#'a �z �t
e
k g �S�i .�^'z
��X�a��������u�� r
s ��r�� ���5���������°������������'�
���3 c �ca�� y T a z���'�
F g �,�,,,�`���Z�'.����/ "'tk��� ��'�-''-.3��
.�e �r ��E�k^ ,�:��,v� �l
S fii z "r' ;P;� c
R s ��p�� a m�e S �r
A 'a�� ��z�� L as ��F ���"���,,�u
5.,� �i an` a&���� fis� ��'y. q.�:
"�A �a` h �f- 4'r '3�
�a,�,��,��� ��a�"� ����������'�"��'�'��`�'`���s�����°�"
F a �ia
s -'e
�`l �a a°
��3. t �z��" a
�5��
u a� �rrr ,a c�
y�������r r- 4 fi�
���r
x 4 y k
p 5 ,ff?��'� �,y�,� rF �'����.,��i'S'�� B �SC �.�I
�'��^��€"�c �r �`s.
�"�����n� h.������.�� t�
'V�
u`°��
��.�����c� �rs���"'��x'�.�� ^��*�--e�
5 ;�g ��w
s ��a���
�r 4t�� a k
��-z'`v =?����sa��'c
�'������s��a a� �e �-�r��'���� ����e��`
�d,���� a�� �,1�`�n�, `��`,"c�,� g ,�3°�.
�Z �j3������' r Y 3�
��°y� �4, k ��'�'`���'�y'���'��"�,'�
p ,�p`,'�`�'���,� ��o�7tie`�a� +�'§'�,'�1 ����m�
i g �.,E�,�.,�, x"�.� �3 +�'�'��,k z'���,� h
3 a ��3������
�C ��i �C °.C�
i: 1 ��r`� �y ����,�,y b'
L��,,�"'��� �t ���i a �'a �nSY 3 K
..�c� 3�� .ti�� e
f -�a
i� ���'��,xi�.� €�t:r� R�
51�: t� �s r� i t s
k f ��ro a� ��������y c a
a s t s a �c`���� ��a'
s ��-�r� �?�r'S-�� �z 3 a� y
a`� �B �z'��" �,�4', r
F �m u ry g �,�c? �'�`xa/��� �wE�. '���'���r�
�s� ��W�������� �z�
a,� Ax �a��� �ti r y€
4E �`�'�r
Y: �°��a�' a �±�r
���`���n�����������������'�.������3 a��
a� �K
�s���`�������,��������������.��
���,�r��'
x �'�'.�,r ����?�w�'���� �..�v�a
�p� �'a��„ K� �e� a° �c�� s
3 �z,�� z ��E�r�. 3�� v
�8��4 ^x er ��*�4E�3'��
A�a
4 t��'"�
4 g E 7 t
f 8
�z���
e Sn ��4���� �i :��.a'�'`�'` 9.�.„� F
z q 4 3�� �2T ii �4 T� f y� �a �e
�r�'�- s��3� a�� �.su`�.�� .d�
z ,��'�q' ���s s��.��'p�'��,��.� ��a
CT: ��_.�'��t��.. a����.,�• S' ���'�"G� ���=4a��'�SL'��"r� L W/T Y g�
Y y
�,`,��„�u� a x� a t r
's h 4 Y P `y F 3� �l' 3
���'�,��.���t�� ����t
t��' x�,"��"��, a v�` s� �4"�
a`
.�K w t^m"� u
K N�'�. P.� 3;� �ui� E F fi Y. w" �,�i, l' f 1
��i" "_w�'����� ��,a 3 Y- <a �'k� f b f �'F' t' .j.
�c E� f
Y° s x� z
a ������a���.����..��� .,r.r... ..s�
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: Apri15, 2007
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Man��
SUBJECT: Council Policy Regarding Work Session Items
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
Council direction regarding the proposed council policy modification establishing a
method adding work session Items to the Council Agenda by individual Council member
Request.
BACKGROUND
The subject policy was reviewed at the last work session. Modifications have been
prepared based on Council feedback.
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
Will the proposed policy changes facilitate a better agenda preparation process serve the
interest of the Council as a body?
WORKSESSION.MEM.council items.doc
I
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICIES;
SECTION 1.6 TO GUIDE CITY STAFF ON HOVV TO E S ON AG NDA IN AN
MEMBER I1�iITIATED ITEMS INTO THE WORK S
ORDERLY AND EQUITABLE MANNEK
WHEREAS, Council 1Vlembers may have numerous Work Session agenda items
vying for attention; and
WHEREAS, Council Members want an equal opportunity to bring forth Work
Session agenda items for discussion and consideration; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has requested guidance on how to schedule Council
Member agenda items for Work Sessions.
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, that Section 1.6 of the City Council Code of Policies be and hereby is
amended as follows:
1.6 Agenda
The agendas for regular Council meetings and Work Sessions are prepared in the City
Manager's office. Typically, agenda items are submitted to the City Manager by the
City departments by Monday preceding the Council meeting. Council Memhers ma��
also submit a�enda items b�� Noon of the �recedin� Monda� for inclusion on the next
Work Session a�enda. Sufficient time will be allocated to Work Session a�endas
such that each Council Member mav submit at most one item for discussion.. Up to
five (S) minutes will be nrovided for the item to be introduced bv the Council
be allowed or Council discussion and
inu
tes wall
additional m
member and ten
draft a enda is
disnosition of'the item. On Monday preceding the Council meetmg, a g
prepared and discussed by City Staff.
Aori19. 2007
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
The motion for the adoption of the foregoing resolution was duly seconded by member
and upon vote being taken thereon, the following voted in favor thereof:
and the following voted agamst the same:
whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted.
r ��.���e n 3� �s�'� �f pc��
Pg ���fr L
s���,„��" z� k
Y.� �s s t� k a`��� r
..,.�w, b�� k�
JY.� ��YSZU���'` '�����'S� a �y�,:
���e��' 3� a �f ��'�t �".:3
r' r a `r �S. a` �,.���y� a
����'��,�����L��������,����.
4 x
���v ��z���-� ��K�
�R���`�� �t� �n.�.�r a,
z s� ���r� a������� �*s ��j�
�i �"�rc� �a ��a�c�a ��i t t
�.t� ����t�����,�K"����'��'y sr^r�%��,��� ��.4�f a a�
y �,r,��r��r''�L��z�� �,�-s.. ��3
v,, `�n �e r,
�+.,m a� �z.
f x. �t a" 1 7 r a t
�'����'�c�� ��n° ��s:
��X�
f
r i
a���
4 �'.��F��" s
��z �.a� '�r r
ve��� 's� g
z ``¢,3� u� 5
���������������r� s���� ����a� ����t.
a
��,���s �r s� �e��� 1; a
.'��"����x� ��'���Y"��y�
a z
�i������*
Y r
g��������
����Y� ?3�
2
��c a t��'�������
�y. a ��s
k x
s� �cc����� �'��,�c
g 5 kc�� s x
x F �y; �G Q ��w���+q� 2 S�'�����,��" ai,. �*y���'��a's�� i�'.
a q��'�,'� e.��'�§ �,...s� �°r�i �r`
�g���� `���,���ak��-���� ��f��.z�,
�f �ai w
e 9 �����P��� ����'�'�����-�^x��
��3 �a� ����a��
x
r� ��'c a€
��ra� zws g
�f 3` s '3' k k �i 2 'i fi
�'a i q�t'��F�S��+'
�Y�'� �s�� -i
o ��r� r �`�`��,t i"�--���"
������..��i ��e���� �2��� �����.��3z� y�-�
r�. u '���y�� q
�Sr r
�,i��'�'��������,�, �'a�� g
i� �k v Z Pk sd' �Y"�'u�„�^k 'Y 5�
'���a�� z
r �a�,� r
4 '��"����c �.n ���r
x �r"��'�.�` i° .3 `a a
'r y �a���h�,`�k�-�� ��'k� E
v a'� �3�� k�
r
fs�`�:���`�w ���a�y
a�
,����'�`��.'���r^�:�'�'"������ r.�
l e a�.� a y d
E ���'��.�a� �r���"� �'z�.� -�`x�' y
7 �S r;-� s
�'��a'� °�k� ���m b �s��-v�� yt� �,3�'i��.e�
�?k ��`'�z rt 3 n
F Y �c
E a ��r �v���
�"x���� v��
z�
4
�S� v �1 �T,
'sn: i �n� �?,'w.�..�� 3". 5��-..�. �Z`
����a��
����r�.�
r��� s �����5�
�`�t���� �r'�'-
v z
t �i��
s� r�.� 'a v �S �'re �'�s�'. ��3
k.- r
�`a���� Z
'fi� `�'r�' ��r y �yh� fi� i
II o .w�
��,',�,u�� v j 1�� ��r�„�K��'�� �°���'�,��,���s �i'-�- s��
.,,a� ��,''�''a�"� v,� ��'r' '��..'c �'�r r �r�s �c W a ,s 3
X s .�afr w t'
s��
a .�a
r vm a� ��3
a
y �z�'�3 �"€s
h g �,�e'� y,� �3�
���s,�������.��� �'��5� �s� r�y���
s�
�2���u���'��
�����`����������r���°����������
a�.���� ���n� y.����� �v'��'��,,�'�`' h�� a k a d�
e �,�s ���`�.f���� �����w^�'`� t-�'f�'� �a
�r �g YY������� �y `U,�y ,�L.� ��5` p Z 3
d�. n# Ak"�r k, ,Y. z ss' R �k k
�,r:��� ��.a�� x�������._�� v ���c �:r
`g .�`c a
3�� �s E
�1 �����:a������������'�i� .'�e� 4
����u ���`L,��,�� �'r A r','�,.
����r��°���� �f��: e
a a yf,�.
s�n �c �a a� "`e�,���' t a
"�C
��T 3�i� a
�y��*. �r 4
L� 1
F �Y'�, X� .a t��� �'u�".'�`� �S e� �f 8* 4 L n.
s a s �.�r �s��� �'�r� e
�z� �h g,
N X e.., LL sp a� '�.0 c' r
��w r s� fr,_.._
�k� ,r,,,, a c ,..s._ ,.v h_
z.,. r,.,w� w =v.�da��.�.,., v �i. �:��„��3C ua'x�
OUNCIL/E
DA WORK SESSION
MEMORANDUM C
DATE: Apri15, 2007
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City Manag��
SUBJECT: 57�' and Logan Redevelopment Plan
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
The purpose of the item is to provide the EDA with a status update regarding the
proposed development agreement with Steiner Development Inc.
BACKGROUND
In June of 2006 the EDA accepted the subject proposal and authorized the staff to enter
into negotiations for the purpose of creating a development agreement that would
facilitate the implementation of the plan.
I have enclosed relevant sections of the proposal submitted by Steiner Development at
the time. Since that time an extraordinary amount of time has be spent in attempt tom
reach an acceptable agreement for EDA consideration. On Tuesday we met with all
parties and were able to clearly define the outstanding issues.
On Monday, I will outline the issues for you and provide my best forecast regarding our
ability to reach an acceptable agreement for this project.
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
G:\City Manager\WORKSESSION.MEM.FRM.doc
Steiner
Development, Inc.
8. PROPOSED TIMEFRAME
Proposals due
Review/evaluate proposals; recommendation to City Council
Discussion and final action on exclusive development rights
Final development plans approved by Ciry of Brooklyn Center
Break ground for construction
Delivery of completed retail space and housing
i
1
1
1
1
1
City of Brooklyn Center Logan and 57th Redevelopment-56
Steiner
Development, Inc.
4. CAPITAL PRO FORMA
I Land (8.47 acres $S.00/sf) I�g45�oo
Development Costs and Site Improvements g
I ommerciaURetail Building (4,00o sf) z,65o,000
One C
Two Retail Buildings�" (32,85o sf) 4�795�
Housing (67 units) $ri,893,000
2 000
Project Soft Costs 3�93
Contingency 39z,000
Total Project Value $25�472�Soo
I
Includes grocery store.
Equity 5��94�5��
Debt
$zo�378,000
Total $25�472�So�
1. No public assistance is requested.
2. The financial proforma and purchase of the property is con-
tingent on the Buyer:
Obtaining a current Phase II environmental assessment certi-
fied to Buyer.
Receiving "no association" and/or "no further action" letters
(as deemed necessary by Buyer and its environmental consul-
tants) from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Seller to pay for all costs associated with the Phase II assessment, as
well as the "no association/no further action" letters.
City of Brooklyn Center Logan and 57th Redevelopment-33
._...:�a;:e.n�r
T
Steiner �_�w_.,
Development, lnc.
2. DESCRIPTION The best of neighborhoods create a sense of continuity in both the
quality of its street edge and the scale and quality of its buildings.
The integration of these components, when sensitively designed,
contributes to a higher overall quality of life for all individuals in
the neighborhood.
A cohesive neighborhood is sustainable in all aspects. Our proposal
for a mixed-use commercial and residential development addresses
the neighbors to the east of Logan Averiue and to the south of 5 �th
Avenue. Northbrook Village will integrate a variery of housing
types with neighborhood retail uses. The complex will be oriented
to take full advantage of the visibility, access, and convenience this
site offers for retail, with residential development as a transitional
buffer to the adjacent existing neighborhood.
The scale of the retail buildings will be pedestrian-friendly with a
series of small, one-story buildings. Connections will be created
with walkways to the storefronts, housing, and central pond.
Other ponds on the site will treat water run-off, as well as provide
an amenity and buffer between the commercial and residential
developments. They will be highly landscaped and feature foun-
tains for sound effects to create a memorable theme for the entire
development.
The architecture will have a village character with rich natural-
colored masonry, cornices, awnings, maximum use of storefront
glass, and ornamental light fixtures. There will be outdoor patios
for dining with umbrella tables. These features will provide gath-
ering spaces for the community.
The main thoroughfare and other drive-throughs will be contained
and buffered by landscape features. Signage will adhere to strict
guideline for size, rype, and placement. Parking areas will be lim-
ited to small, connected "rooms." Architectural themes, materials,
colors, and landscaping will be cohesive between the retail and
residential components.
The overall master plan will present a charming, pedestrian-friendly
village as an asset to the gateway site for Brooklyn Center.
City of Brooklyn Center Logan and 57th Redevelopment-3
Steiner
I Development, Inc.
2. DESCRIPTION
The commercial aspect of the development will be housed in three
distinct buildings that create a village cluster environment. The
s
cale and character of each building will be in keeping with its
individual use.
The main entry to the site will be located on 57th Avenue. Devel-
oped in the form of an arc, this main traffic artery will create a
view corridor that allows visitors to see all three retail buildings
at once and will connect the complex. Two secondary entry points
located on Logan Avenue will connect the development to the
existing peighborhood.
In the southwest corner of the site, the first 53,00o square foot
I� parcel will house a 4,00o square foot, one-story building with
parking for thirty cars and is planned with an amenity drive-thru
(if needed). The next 48,00o square foot parcel will have an 8,000
square foot, one-story building that features an amenity drop-off
oo s uare foot arcel on the
and an outdoor patio. The third z4g�5 q p
east side of the site—with a one-story, two-part building (9,200
and i5,65o square feet)—will share its z86 parking stalls with the
adjacent 8,00o square foot building. A large pond at the center of
the development will provide green space as well as drainage for
storm water run-off.
Parking "rooms" will be broken up into clusters connected with
in and sidewalks. These rooms will form an
landsca ing, light g,
P
edge to the north of the site, creating a buffer between Highway
ioo and the new residential neighborhood.
1
P
1
1
i
1
City of Brooklyn Center Logan and g7th Redevelopment-4
Steiner
Development, Inc.
2. DESCRIPTION
We will continue the existing residential neighborhood adjacent to
the site with a new owner-occupied, multi-family housing project.
The development will be sited to allow open space, green spaces,
and walking paths.
Our team proposes a total of 6� units, within a combination of
both townhomes and condominiums. Located along Logan Avenue,
the townhomes will be of a scale that respects the existing homes,
yet steps up one story to accommodate condominiums above for
owners who want the convenience of one-level living.
We will offer a variety of housing choices to accommodate the
needs of three main groups of home buyers:
Seniors: One-level condominiums will serve the needs of
seniors wishing to remain in the community, but not wanting
to continue maintenance on a single-family residence.
Small Families: Townhomes will provide enough space for
small families.
First-time Homebuyers: The combination of both con-
dominiums and townhomes will accommodate first-time
homebuyers.
Units will range from 7 5 o square feet to z,400 square feet, with park-
ing also provided. Prices will range from $Iso,000 to $275,000.
City of Brooklyn Center Logan and S7th Redevelopment-5
Steiner �-�s:�
Development, Inc.
7. DESCRIPTION OFTHE
PUBLIC BENEFITS As a natural transition point from the existing residential neigh-
borhoods of Northbrook to the commercial areas of Brookdale,
our proposed Northbrook Village provides an inviting gathering
place for the residents of Brooklyn Center. Pedestrian connections
invite interactivity between neighbors; benches and open space near
sparkling water create the opportunity to strengthen personal ties.
Sip on a cup of coffee or casually browse offerings from interesting
shops just steps from your home.
The commercial vision for Northbrook Village will include two
individual pad sites, anchored by a grocery store and retail center.
The 4,00o square foot freestanding commercial building is located
near the new entrance to the development. An 8,00o square foot
multi-use building with one drop-off and outdoor courtyard seat-
ing will be adjacent to the commercial building. The center will
be anchored by a z5,65o square foot neighborhood grocer and
approximately 9,zoo square foot of neighborhood retail uses. The
design of each building will cornpliment the village and the resi-
dential component and will be integrated with pedestrian friendly
walkways. The design of the village is infended to compliment the
existing neighborhood.
Greater Brooklyn Center will benefit from the highly visible project
on this important corner of the city. Successful redevelopment of
this site will encourage others to initiate new ventures nearby. The
increase in property value on the redevelopment site should carry
over to the neighborhoods surrounding Northbrook Village.
Wouldn't it be nice to live, work, and play in your existing neigh-
borhood? Northbrook Village provides 'that opportuniry.
City of Brooklyn Center Logan and 57th Redevelopment-54
1
Steiner
n_
Development, Inc.
7. DESCRIPTION OFTHE
PUBLIC BENEFITS The addition of attractive housing extends the existing residential
neighborhood from the east and offers a new variety of housing
options within a mixed-use communiry setting.
Our proposed housing options include both townhomes and condo-
miniums in a range of prices to fit the income of current Brooklyn
Center residents. These choices reflect a range of markets, including
first-time home buyers, small families, middle age residents, and
seniors who desire maintenance-free living. The market range will
enable current senior-age Brooklyn Center residents to sell their
single-family homes to younger families, and remain living in the
community.
The land
purchase for this development will return a large portion
of the Ciry's initial investment. During construction, hundreds of
prevailing wage jobs will be available and purchases from local
merchants will increase with the construction activity. Finally,
the City of Brooklyn Center will benefit from an increase of over
$i6,000,000 in tax base.
City of Brooklyn Center Loean and c�t}i RPrIPVPInnmPnr_«