HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006 11-13 CCP Regular Session AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
November 13, 2006
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. Discussion of Work Session Agenda Items as Time Permits
3. Miscellaneous
4. Adjourn
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
City of Brooklyn Center
November 13, 2006 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.
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 available to the public. The packet ring binder is
located at the front 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
Councilmembers not present at meetings will be recorded as abstaining from the
vote on the minutes.
1. October 23, 2006 Study Session
2. October 23, 2006 Regular Session
3. October 23, 2006 Work Session
4. October 23, 2006 Executive Session
5. November 8, 2006 Special Session
b. Licenses
C. Resolution Establishing City Improvement Project No. 2007 -11, Sanitary Sewer
Lift Station No. 2 Force Main Replacement, and Awarding a Professional
i Services Contract
d. Resolution Affirming the First Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative Agreement
for the Formation of The Project Peace Joint Powers Organization.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -2- November 13, 2006
8. Presentation
Acceptance of Recognition Certificate from National League of Cities to City of Brooklyn
Center for 15 Years of Membership and Dedicated Service
9. Public Hearing
a. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning
Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard Between I -94 and
69th Avenue North)
—This item was first read on August 28, 2006; published in the official newspaper on
September 7, 2006; a Public Hearing was held on September 25, 2006, at which time
adoption of the ordinance was postponed to November 13, 2006, because the final
plat had not been filed with Hennepin County.
Requested Council Action:
Motion to open the Public Hearing.
—Take public input.
Motion to continue the Public Hearing until final plat is filed with Hennepin
County.
b. An Ordinance Relating to Discharges and Connections to the Stormwater System
—This item was first read on October 9, 2006; published in the official newspaper on
October 26, 2006; and is offered this evening for second reading and Public Hearing.
•Requested Council Action:
Motion to open the Public Hearing.
—Take public input.
Motion to continue the Public Hearing until the December 11, 2006, City
Council meeting.
10. Planning Commission
a. Planning Commission Application No. 2006 -012 Submitted by Tony Berg. Request
for resubdivision approval to uncombine or resubdivide the property at 5420 Fremont
Avenue North. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this application
at its October 26, 2006, meeting.
-Requested Council Action:
Motion to approve Planning Commission Application No. 2006 -012 subject
to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
11. Council Consideration Items
a. Proclamation Declaring November 27 through December 4, 2006, to be Childhood
Cancer Awareness Week
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt proclamation.
b. Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Center Police
Association in Support of the 2007 Safety Camp
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA -3- November 13, 2006
on Urging the League of Minnesota Cities to Reconsider Its C. Resolute g g gu Support of
Proposed Minnesota Legislation that Would Remove the Build Out Provisions in
Chapter 238, Related to Cable Service of Minnesota State Law
Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
d. Resolution Authorizing the Early Order/Purchase of a Street Sweeper, Equipment
No. 43
-Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
e. Resolution Authorizing the Early Order/Purchase of a Rotary Mower Unit,
Equipment No. 250
-Requested Council Action:
Motion to adopt resolution.
12. Adjournment
City Council Agenda Item No. 7a
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk G
DATE: November 13, 2006
SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER NIESEN: Requested Changes to Minutes
Councilmember Niesen requested the following changes to the October 23, 2006, Regular
Session:
Page 6. Paraeranh 3 under item l Of Additional Laneuaee
Councilmember Niesen inquired if the police were tracking and analyzing the source of calls and if so,
whether there were repeat calls from businesses who may be using the police inappropriately as their
security firm. Chief Bechthold responded that they had started to do this and he would be making a report
to Council in the future.
Pate 7. Para2ranh 4 and 5 under item 102.
Councilmember Niesen stated objection to kwesting in meAgage baeked iavestmeW She
ir-ed- about -i 9tis areas e the agreemefft. Mr-. jor-det- addressed herEOnsems. changing the
policy to allow investments in mortgage backed securities and inquired as to how many such investments
the City currently had. Mr. Jordet stated the City had only two mortgage -type investments both made
previous to his employment.
Councilmember Niesen stated the need to prize the eest of govef rent. she favored
maintaining use of the word minimize because it emphasized intent to hold down the costs of City
government in general.
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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
11 -13 -06
Fr: Councilmember Niesen
I
Re: Changes to Minutes
REGULAR SESSION 10 -23 -06
10L QUARTERLY POLICE REPORT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE
(p. 6 add) Councilmember Niesen inquired if the police were tracking and analyzing the source of calls
and if so, whether there were repeat calls from businesses who may be using the police inappropriately as
their security firm. Chief Bechtold responded that they had started to do this and he would be making a
report to Council in the future.
10g. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-120 ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL
POLICIES SECTION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL CODE OF POLICIES
(p.7, paragraph 4) Councilmember Niesen stated objection to changing the policy to allow investments in
mortgage backed securities and inquired as to how many such investments the City currently had. Mr.
Jordet stated the City had only two mortgage -type investments both made previous to his employment.
(paragraph 5) Councilmember Niesen stated she favored maintaining use of the word minimize because
it emphasized intent to hold down the costs of City government in general.
i
11/13/2006 1 of 1
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: November 13, 2006
SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER O'CONNOR: Requested Changes to Minutes
Councilmember O'Connor requested the following changes to the October 23, 2006, Regular
Session:
Page 3. Line 2 under item 9a.
Councilmember O'Connor asked if this was the Health and Fitness Club Ordinance. Mr.
Boganey answered "yes."
Page 4. Line 2 under item 10a.
Mayor Kragness stated she spoke to both candidates and upon those discussions, changed her
nomination to of Kimberley Meyer, 6131 Kyle Avenue North, to the Northwest Hennepin
Human Services Council Advisory Commission.
October 23, 2006, Work Session
Page 2. Paragraph 4 under: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Mayor Plan
Amendment Additional Language
Councilmember O'Connor asked what pollutants the City puts into the watershed and how we
would stop them. She said if we passed this amendment we would be out of compliance with it.
Then we would be liable for a misdemeanor.
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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
7d. SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE REDUCTION FROM $35,000 TO
$10,000 FOR NORSE MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR BRISTOL VILLAGE
TOWNHOMES LOCATED BETWEEN 67 PLACE AND 69 PLACE AT
IRVING PLACE
Motion passed unanimously.
8. RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION AND
CERTIFICATE CEREMONY
While each of the Council Members read the nominations, Mayor Kragness presented Random Acts
of Kindness certificates to those persons who were nominated as follows: Camille Worley, Gene
Hageman and George Shimshock Family, Jo Sanford, Kermit and Marilyn Klefsaas, Arthur Lenius,
Diane Sannes and Sue Tegg, Mary Slette, and Brooklyn Center High School Latino Club. Persons
who were nominated but not present were: Laura Rupp and Pastor Peter Preus.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
9a. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF MASSAGE PARLORS;
AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE SECTION 23 -1712
Mr. Boganey explained the purpose of the Ordinance and stated it is the second reading.
C ..1 ahnor- cl s ka f I tWO.T e 1�4 go( rj t'eSr Clk
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmem man seconded to open the Public Hearing.
O Y -e n c&e. Pj r bo c1 h e-1r q s r.J�r es A
Motion passed unammous
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO.
2006 -05 Relating to the Licensure of Massage Parlors; Amending Brooklyn Center City Code
Section 23 -1712.
Motion passed unanimously.
9b. CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A CURRENCY
EXCHANGE LICENSE SUBMITTED BY MONEY CENTERS HOLDINGS LLC,
6219 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
Mr. Boganey explained the request and stated the operation has submitted all appropriate items.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanim ously.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Public Hearing.
10/23/06 3 DRAFT
Motion passed unanimously. i ll s
Councilmember O'Connor requested that the Police Chief discuss the calls for service. Police Chief
Bechthold stated the list of calls from the business range from 11/05 to 9/06 and includes several
items such as forgery, fraud, civil matters, medical, alarm, disturbance, and theft.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve RESOLUTION
NO. 2006 -117 Authorizing Issuance of a Currency Exchange License to Money Centers Holdings
LLC, 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Motion passed unanimously.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES
COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION
Mayor Kragness stated she spoke to both candidates and upon those discussions, changed her
nommationtd Kimberley Meyer, 6131 Kyle Avenue North, to the Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Council Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to remove item from the
table.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to ratify Mayoral
nomination.
Motion passed unanimously.
10b. SET DATE AND TIME FOR FACILITATED CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
Mr. Boganey explained that the City Council elected to have the City Council Retreat on Nov I l
from 9 :00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to set date and time of
facilitated City Council Retreat for Saturday, November 11, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at
Earle Brown Heritage Center, 6155 Earle Brown Drive.
Motion passed unanimously.
10c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-118 SUPPORTING THE MOSAIC YOUTH CENTER
Mayor Kragness stated she received a Resolution approved by the City of Robbinsdale with regard
to the Mosaic Youth Center.
Councilmember O'Connor asked if the Mosaic Youth Center is paid for by Robbinsdale School
District 281. Mayor Kragness stated there are many funds that contribute to the Mosaic Youth
10/23/06 4 DRAFT
FVJg 7 �-`J v V
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to place the item on the next regular agenda.
Councilmember Niesen stated she has read a lot of material on this matter and she would support
the cause to prevent the City from losing local franchising control..
SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MAJOR PLAN
AMENDMENT
Mr. Boganey distributed information regarding the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission's Major Plan Amendment
Mr. Blomstrom indicated there is a November 17 deadline to formally submit comments to the
Watershed Commission. He discussed the Major Plan Amendment to the Second Generation
Management Plan. He discussed the history and current status of the Second Generation
Management Plan and the three elements of the Major Plan Amendment.
Councilmember Niesen stated the $500,000 levy is an excessive increase from the original
$75,000.
y Councilmember Carmody discussed the financial cap, projects per year, and the rationale of the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission when determining the needed $500,000
t `We- �t�.� ,c�e. .a ��v ,,��e-
,A"- the majority consensus of the City Council to review the presented materials, make notes
and for the item to be presented at the Novembq 13 Wo k Session.
4 'I SCELLANEOU a
There were no miscellaneous items discussed.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember /Commissioner Carmody moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman
seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at
11:00 P.M.
Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor/President
10/23/06 2 DRAFT
Office of the City Clerk
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: November 13, 2006
SUBJECT: COUNCILMEMBER LASMAN: Requested Changes to Minutes
Councilmember Lasman requested the following changes to the October 23, 2006, Regular
Session:
Councilmember Lasman stated on October 11 she attended the grand opening of McDonald's
where the Brooklvn Center Hieh School Band performed. She stated on Oct 16 she attended the
Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission regarding the 2007 budget. She stated on Oct
17 she attended the Special Events Committee meeting where entertainment was discussed for
the 96 birthday of the City, being held on February 3, 2007. She discussed the agenda item
expressing appreciation of crime prevention donation for the safety camp. She urged awareness
of the program and participation in crime prevention.
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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY
OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
STUDY SESSION
OCTOBER 23, 2006
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Study Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and
Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support
Services Dan Jordet, Community Development Director Brad Hoffinan, Planning and Zoning
Specialist Ron Warren, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEMS AND QUESTIONS
The following amendments were made to the proposed minutes:
September 25, 2006 Study Session
PaLye 2. Parap-ranh 2. Line 12 Additional and Replacement Language
She stated in a Memo to Council that included the proposed CM Evaluation Form, she proposed
Council review the contract as the council makeup had changed since it was first written but that
suggestion apparently died with the tabling of the proposed CM Evaluation Form until February
2007. She stated that now that she has reviewed it, the City Council, composed of new members
from the 2002 and 2004 election, must review it together and come to agreement. Mayor Kragness
stated it is a basic contract offered to a City Manager and needs to be moved forward and stated
postponing the process is unfair to Mr. Boganey. Councilmember Carmody stated she does not wish
to table the item.
Page 3. Paragraph 1, Line 1 Additional and Replacement Language
She requested a comparison table to show proposed changes from what the Council had originally
been presented.
September 25, 2006 Regular Session
Page 3. Paragrabh 2. Line 10 Additional and Replacement Language
She stated to be fair, the item should be tabled for at least 2 weeks and the Council should meet and
review the offer made between Karl Nollenberger, PAR Group and Mr. Boganey, and decide by
consensus what Council wanted to offer to their first choice candidate.
Page 15 Additional Language
Mr. LeFevere responded to Councilmember Niesen in that it is not intended to be a waiver of
unintentional acts.
10/23/06 1 DRAFT
Page 16. Paragraphs 13 and 14 Replacement Language
The reference to Section 13G was changed to 12G in two occurrences.
October 9, 2006 Regular Session
Page 1. Paragraph 4 Additional Language
Councilmember Carmody stated that she is a member of the policy making body that proposed this
change. She stated there are about 30 different policies made and she is not familiar with the
specifics of this one, however she stated that she would be willing to get more information from the
League staff that would clarify the policy.
Page 5. Paragraph 5 Additional Language
Councilmember Carmody and Mayor Kragness pointed out that it is not appropriate to point out that
Ms. Eaton is the wife of a Mayoral Candidate and that it introduced politics into the debate, which is
not allowed.
Page 7 Replacement Language
Termination for Clause was changed to Termination of Cause.
October 9, 2006 Work Session
Page 1. Paragraph 4 Additional and Replacement Language
She cited City Charter provision 7.10 Disbursements How Made and noted that the provision did
not address the process of approvals, only the process of disbursement.
Page 2. Paragraph 4 Additional and Replacement Language
Councilmember Niesen read a portion of Section 7.12 of the City Charter that discussed the financial
reporting requirements and noted specific information required to be provided to City Council that
Council is not receiving. There was discussion regarding the requirements of the City Charter.
Page 3 Additional Language at the End of the Item
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to go ahead with the negotiations for a new
agreement.
October 16, 2006 Joint Work Session with the Financial Commission
Page 4. Last Paragraph Additional and Replacement Language
Councilmember Niesen stated objection to the upgrading of the position at the liquor store in 2006
and noted Council was discussing the 2007 budget.
Page 5. Paragraph 4 Additional Language
She stated she did not think it was allowable for the City Manager to increase the number of full-
time employees without a vote of the Council and that the 2006 budget specified the number of full
time employees. She stated she was not opposed to discussing the position but she wanted this
brought to the Council for a vote if changes were to be made during this non public meeting.
There was discussion regarding the process to close a portion of the regular City Council meeting to
discuss pending litigation.
10/23/06 2 DRAFT
Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the letter included in item 10i. in that a period of 100
years is indicated. City Manager Curt Boganey explained that the 100 y ears should read 10 years.
Councilmember Lasman inquired about item 1 Of. and the number of Neighborhood Liaison Officers
(NLO) in the City. Mr. Boganey explained that the City has one NLO and a vacant position for
a
second NLO and stated the two Cadets work in partnership
with the NLOs.
P
Councilmember Carmody inquired about the public recognition of the donation for the safety camp.
Councilmember Lasman explained that she mentioned it in her last Council Report, however she
will mention again.
Councilmember O'Connor indicated that she would prefer not to participate in the reading of the
Random Acts of Kindness presentations. There was discussion on the manner in which the random
acts of kindness nominations would be read.
Councilmember Carmody inquired about page four of item IOg. regarding the 4M and Capital
Improvement Budget policies and suggested that the policies indicate that the City Council is the
body adopting such policies, rather than the "City." Mr. Boganey stated for clarification, inserting
the word Council would be preferable.
of the agenda nda in regards to the closed session. It
er Niesen inquired about the order g
Councilmember q g
was indicated that the meeting would be closed for item I Oi. Mr. Boganey explained why item 1 Oi is
being addressed by both the Council and EDA in that it is one hearing by both bodies so that the City
Council and EDA issues may be addressed.
DISCUSSION OF WORK SESSION AGENDA ITEMS AS TIME PERMITS
NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION REGARDING
RESOLUTION TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES GREGORY MOORE
Mr. Boganey explained the request regarding the Resolution to the League of Minnesota Cities.
Gregory Moore, Executive Director of Northwest Suburbs Cable Communications Commission
stated appreciation for Rex Newman and Diane Niesen for their contributions to the NWSCCC. He
explained the purpose of the requested resolution and discussed the build out language. He
distributed and discussed handouts entitled Phone firms' cable TV plans hit local obstacle, and Local
Governments Urge Congress to Vote "No" on Telecom Bill.
ADJOURN STUDY SESSION TO INFORMAL OPEN FORUM WITH CITY COUNCIL
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Study Session
at 6:45 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
RECONVENE STUDY SESSION
The Study Session was reconvened at 6:46 p.m.
10/23/06 3 DRAFT
Mr. Moore continued to explain the historical events and occurrences leading to the present request.
He stated the NWSCCC are asking that each City passed these resolutions individually.
There was discussion on the statements of Ann Higgins from the League of Minnesota Cities via a
transcribed voicemail. There was also discussion regarding local and loss of local control and Fiber
Optic equipment.
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Study Session
at 6:59 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
10/23/06 4 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
OCTOBER 23, 2006
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 Myrna
Kragness at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and
Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support
Services Dan Jordet, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning
Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Mary Tietjen, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Informal Open
Forum at 6:45 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
2. INVOCATION
Father Jimmy Pham, St. Alphonsus Church, offered a prayer as the invocation.
3. CALL TO ORDER REGULAR BUSINESS MEETING
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Regular Session and was called to order by Mayor Myrna
Kragness at 7:00 p.m.
4. ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen, and
Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and Support
Services Dan Jordet, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and Zoning
Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Mary Tietjen, and Deputy City Clerk Camille Worley.
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
6. COUNCIL REPORT
10/23/06 1 DRAFT
Councilmember O'Connor stated she attended the Park Recreation Commission meeting where
the citizen comments were discussed related to parks and the Community Center.
Councilmember Lasman stated on October 11 she attended the grand opening of McDonald's
where the high school band performed. She stated on Oct 16 she attended the Joint Work Session
with the Financial Commission regarding the 2007 budget. She stated on Oct 17 she attended the
Special Events Committee meeting where entertainment was discussed for the 96 birthday of the
City, being held on February 3, 2006. She discussed the agenda item expressing appreciation of
crime prevention donation for the safety camp. She urged awareness of the program and
participation in crime prevention.
Councilmember Carmody stated she attended the 57 and Logan Neighborhood Meeting on Oct 10
regarding soil contamination. She stated the attendance at the meeting was low, however some
residents volunteered to have their homes tested for the soil contamination. She stated she attended
the Watershed meeting and will be discussing the details during the Work Session. She stated she
also attended the Housing Commission meeting.
Councilmember Niesen discussed the City Council Retreat to be voted on at this meeting where
goals will be set. She reminded everyone that it is not too late to turn in the citizen comment cards
which the City Council will use for goal setting at the retreat.
Mayor Kragness stated on October 18 she attended the first graduation ceremony at the New
Citizens Academy Graduation. She stated it was marvelous to see the 15 students who graduated
from the program and how happy they were to receive their certificate. She stated appreciation for
being invited. She stated she attended the Visit Minneapolis North Board of Directors meeting and
discussed the projects they are working on.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA AND CONSENT AGENDA
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve the consent
agenda and agenda with amendments to the September 25, 2006 Study Session and Regular
Session, October 9, 2006 Regular Session and Work Session, and October 16, 2006 Joint Work
Session with the Financial Commission as discussed at the Study Session. The following consent
items were approved:
7a. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. September 25, 2006 Study Session
2. September 25, 2006 Regular Session
3. October 9, 2006 Study Session
4. October 9, 2006 Regular Session
5. October 9, 2006 Work Session
6. October 16, 2006 Budget Work Session with Financial Commission.
7b. LICENSES
7c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -116 EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE
DONATION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CRIME PREVENTION
PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF THE 2007 SAFETY CAMP
10/23/06 2 DRAFT
7d. SITE PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE REDUCTION FROM $35,000 TO
$10,000 FOR NORSE MANAGEMENT, INC. FOR BRISTOL VILLAGE
TOWNHOMES LOCATED BETWEEN 67 PLACE AND 69 PLACE AT
IRVING PLACE
Motion passed unanimously.
8. RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS PRESENTATION OF RECOGNITION AND
CERTIFICATE CEREMONY
While each of the Council Members read the nominations, Mayor Kragness presented Random Acts
of Kindness certificates to those persons who were nominated as follows: Camille Worley, Gene
Hageman and George Shimshock Family, Jo Sanford, Kermit and Marilyn Klefsaas, Arthur Lenius,
Diane Sannes and Sue Tegg, Mary Slette, and Brooklyn Center High School Latino Club. Persons
who were nominated but not present were: Laura Rupp and Pastor Peter Preus.
9. PUBLIC HEARING
9a. AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE LICENSURE OF MASSAGE PARLORS;
AMENDING BROOKLYN CENTER CITY CODE SECTION 23 -1712
Mr. Boganey explained the purpose of the Ordinance and stated it is the second reading.
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to adopt ORDINANCE NO.
2006 -05 Relating to the Licensure of Massage Parlors; Amending Brooklyn Center City Code
Section 23 -1712.
Motion passed unanimously.
9b. CONSIDERATION OF RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR A CURRENCY
EXCHANGE LICENSE SUBMITTED BY MONEY CENTERS HOLDINGS LLC,
6219 BROOKLYN BOULEVARD
Mr. Boganey explained the request and stated the operation has submitted all appropriate items.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to open the Public Hearing.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to close the Public Hearing.
10/23/06 3 DRAFT
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember O'Connor requested that the Police Chief discuss the calls for service. Police Chief
Bechthold stated the list of calls from the g
e usiness range
from 11/05 to 9/06 and includes several
forgery, items such as for g a fraud civil matters medical, alarm, disturbance, and theft.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to approve RESOLUTION
NO. 2006 -117 Authorizing Issuance of a Currency Exchange License to Money Centers Holdings
LLC 6219 Brooklyn Boulevard, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota.
Motion passed unanimously.
10. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEMS
10a. MAYORAL APPOINTMENT NORTHWEST HENNEPIN HUMAN SERVICES
COUNCIL ADVISORY COMMISSION
Mayor Kragness stated she spoke to both candidates and upon those discussions, changed her
nomination of Kimberley Meyer, 6131 Kyle Avenue North, to the Northwest Hennepin Human
Services Council Advisory Commission.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember O'Connor seconded to remove item from the
table.
Motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to ratify Mayoral
nomination.
Motion passed unanimously.
10b. SET DATE AND TIME FOR FACILITATED CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
Mr. Boganey explained that the City Council elected to have the City Council Retreat on Nov 11t
from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to set date and time of
facilitated City Council Retreat for Saturday, November 11, 2006, from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p .m. at
Earle Brown Heritage Center, 6155 Earle Brown Drive.
Motion passed unanimously.
10c. RESOLUTION NO. 2006-118 SUPPORTING THE MOSAIC YOUTH CENTER
Mayor Kragness stated she received a Resolution approved by the City of Robbinsdale with regard
to the Mosaic Youth Center.
Councilmember O'Connor asked if the Mosaic Youth Center is paid for by Robbinsdale School
District 281. Mayor Kragness stated there are many funds that contribute to the Mosaic Youth
10/23/06 4 DRAFT
Center.
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2006-118 supporting the Mosaic Youth Center.
Councilmember O'Connor stated the School Districts should not be involved with a youth center.
Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
10d. PROCLAMATION DECLARING NOVEMBER 19 THROUGH 25, 2006, AS
NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mayor Kragness read the Proclamation Declaring November 19 through 25, 2006, as National
Family Week.
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to approve the
proclamation.
Councilmember O'Connor stated the Proclamation is supported by School District 279 and stated
schools should not be running adult education facilities. She stated families and citizens should take
care of this stuff and too many taxes are charged to citizens for items such as this.
Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
10e. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -119 PROVIDING FOR THE COMPETITIVE
NEGOTIATED SALE OF $1,460,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION IMPROVEMENT
BONDS, SERIES 2006A
Mr. Boganey discussed the purpose of the resolution.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2006 -119 Providing for the Competitive Negotiated Sale of $1,460,000 General Obligation
Improvement Bonds, Series 2006A.
Councilmember O'Connor asked why the City is borrowing money to improve the roads. Mayor
Kragness explained the assessment process and stated this request is so that the improvements may
be paid for until the assessments are collected. There was further discussion on the process of the
sale of bonds and interest rates. Councilmember O'Connor stated the interest rate included in the
packet is not correct. Director of Fiscal and Support Services Dan Jordet explained the interest rates
and the calculation of the rates and offered to recalculate the figures at a different interest rate and
return that information at the Public Hearing. Councilmember O'Connor suggested that the
additional Local Government Aid received this year be used towards this, to reduce the amount of
money the City borrows.
Mr. Boganey explained that the bonds backed with the full faith of the City, to provide the City with
the lowest interest rate of repayment. Mr. Jordet discussed the minimization of risk to the City.
Councilmember O'Connor moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to amend the motion to
state the City reduces the total amount of $1,460,000 by $600,000, using the additional Local
10/23/06 5 DRAFT
Government Aid to be received by the City.
Councilmember Carmody stated this issue was fully discussed at the Joint Work Session with the
Financial Commission and reducing the amount was not the way the City Council agreed to proceed.
She stated she will vote against the amended motion.
Councilmember Niesen stated the City Council has not agreed in regard to the distribution of the
surplus of LGA. She stated she would prefer that the surplus goes back to the homeowners by
applying it to property tax relief. She stated she would not support this use of the additional LGA.
Councilmember O'Connor stated objection to the increase in property taxes when the City is
receiving an additional amount of LGA.
Mayor Kragness, and Councilmembers Carmody, Lasman, and Niesen voted against the same.
Motion failed.
Councilmember O'Connor inquired about the amount paid to Springsted. Mr. Boganey stated he
will collect that information and report back to the City Council.
Councilmember Carmody stated the proposal will not cost the residents and the comment
Councilmember O'Connor made to that effect is incorrect.
Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
10L QUARTERLY POLICE REPORT AND CODE ENFORCEMENT UPDATE
Police Chief Bechthold presented a PowerPomt prese ntation on the third Q uarter Police Report
which displayed comparison information from years 2003 to 2006. He discussed code enforcement
and crime trends in the City.
Councilmember Carmody requested a copy of the code enforcement details and number of citations.
There was discussion of parking, fines, and the process of citation in which warnings are not being
given to all offenders.
Mr. Boganey stated the increase in the number of citations may indicate a different approach by the
City, rather than a difference in the amount of violations.
Councilmember Carmody inquired about staff time consumed by code enforcement. Mr. Boganey
stated it is difficult to track the expense and it is spread out throughout the organization. He
discussed new software available or the better use of the existing software. He stated the City needs
to have good data so that it can allocate its resources in the best manner possible.
There was discussion of staffing needs for the Police Department.
10g. RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -120 ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE FINANCIAL
POLICIES SECTION OF THE BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL CODE OF
POLICIES
10/23/06 6 DRAFT
Mr. Boganey stated this issue was raised during the audit last year and was referred to the staff to
work with the Financial Commission to update the Financial Policy.
Councilmember O'Connor stated concern with the security of the agencies in which the City is
to invest with. Mr. Jordet stated it is his understanding that the proposed agencies were
proposing
having personnel issues, none of which affect the security of the investments. He discussed the
investments of the City and stated the returns have increased because of the increase in interest rates.
There was discussion of corporate paper, mortgage backed securities, and agency investments.
Councilmember Niesen stated objection to investing in mortgage backed investments. She inquired
about various areas of the agreement. Mr. Jordet addressed her concerns.
Councilmember Niesen stated the need to minimize the cost of government.
Councilmember Lasman stated these issues should have been discussed at the Joint Meeting with the
Financial Commission.
Councilmember Niesen suggested that the term of six years be modified to three years on the
Request for Proposals, expanding the modifying capabilities.
There was discussion on Councilmember Niesen's request.
Councilmember O'Connor moved and Councilmember Niesen seconded to accept the following
changes to the policy: Original language excluding mortgage backed securities and to keep the word
minimize instead of the words lower and control.
Mr. Boganey stated that whether the word minimize was used or if the proposed language was used
the staff would still attempt to invest City funds in a conservative and safe manner.
Mayor Kragness and Councilmembers Carmody and Lasman voted against the same. Motion failed.
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2006 -120 Adopting Amendments to the Financial Policies Section of the Brooklyn Center City
Council Code of Policies with the amendment of replacing "City" with "City Council" with regard
to the adopting body.
Councilmember Niesen voted against the same. Motion passed.
10h. DISCUSSION OF MCES CLAIMS
City Attorney Mary Tietjen stated the City has received communication from the Metropolitan
Council Environmental Services (MCES) regarding an issue of under billing by the MCES to the
City for sanitary sewer treatment charges. She stated because the issue involves potential litigation,
she recommended that the City Council enter into a closed session based on attorney /client privilege,
to discuss legal alternatives and seek advice on how to proceed.
ADJOURN CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION
10/23/06 7 DRAFT
Councilmember Niesen moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded to adjourn the City Council
meeting to closed session at 9:24 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously. is
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
The City Council meeting was reconvened at 9:50 p.m.
Ms. Tietjen briefly summarized the findings of the closed session and stated th e City Council
directed staff to commence negotiations with regards to the MCES claim.
10i. JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH EDA: BROOKLYN HOTEL PARTNERS, LLC
RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -121 APPROVING PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT
AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The EDA meeting was called to order at 9:52 p.m. (See EDA Minutes)
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded to adopt RESOLUTION
NO. 2006 -121 Approving Property Abatement Authorizing Execution of Development Agreement
and agreeing to tax abatement.
Councilmember O'Connor stated the City would get more money by selling the property and not
issuing tax abatement and therefore she will vote against the proposal.
Councilmember O'Connor voted against the same. Motion passed.
10. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded adjournment of the City
Council meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor
10/23/06 8 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
EXECUTIVE SESSION
OCTOBER 23, 2006
SHINGLE CREEK CONFERENCE ROOM
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Executive Session and was called to order by
Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 9:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, Diane Niesen,
and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey, Director of Fiscal and
Support Services Dan Jordet, Community Development Director Brad Hoffman, Planning and
Zoning Specialist Ron Warren, City Attorney Mary Tietjen, and Deputy City Clerk Camille
Worley.
The City Council discussed potential litigation regarding an issue of under billing by the
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) to the City for sanitary sewer treatment
charges.
ADJOURNMENT
The Brooklyn Center City Council Executive Session adjourned at 9:49 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor/President
10/23/06 -1- 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
OCTOBER 23, 2006
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council/Economic Development Authority (EDA) met in Work
Session and was called to order by Mayor/President Myrna Kragness at 10:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Mayor/President Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers /Commissioners Kathleen Carmody, Kay
Lasman, Diane Niesen, and Mary O'Connor. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey,
Public Works Director /City Engineer Todd Blomstrom, City Attorney Mary Tietjen, and Deputy
City Clerk Camille Worley.
NEW LAW (HF 3779, CHAPTER 240) ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT
ESTABLISHMENTS COUNCILMEMBER LASMAN
Councilmember Lasman explained that the purpose of the discussion of this item is to be
proactive and protect the City. She suggested that the requirements remain as they currently
exist.
City Attorney Mary Tietjen explained that since a law was enacted in May, there has been a
federal case in which the judge indicated the likelihood of success of a business owner who
might challenge the statute.
The majority consensus of the City Council was to leave the requirements as they currently read
and to wait and see if a problem arises.
CONTINUATION OF NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION REGARDING RESOLUTION TO THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA
CITIES GREGORY MOORE
Rex Newman explained that the League of Minnesota Cities will not accept comments on the
sc in the joint powers a
r 31 He stated there are nine cities p agreement, of which
rafter October matter
to show support. He stated the
six have taken ac pp purpose of the resolution is to maintain local
control.
information resented b
Mr.
armod indicated that she would like to verify p Y
Councilmember C y
Newman. She suggested that the item be placed on the next City Council agenda.
10/23/06 1 DRAFT
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to place the item on the next regular agenda.
Councilmember Niesen stated she has read a lot of material on this matter and she would support
the cause to prevent the City from losing local franchising control.
SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMISSION MAJOR PLAN
AMENDMENT
Mr. Boganey distributed information regarding the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
Commission's Major Plan Amendment.
Mr. Blomstrom indicated there is a November 17 deadline to formally submit comments to the
Watershed Commission. He discussed the Major Plan Amendment to the Second Generation
Management Plan. He discussed the history and current status of the Second Generation
Management Plan and the three elements of the Major Plan Amendment.
Councilmember Niesen stated the $500,000 levy is an excessive increase from the original
$75,000.
Councilmember Carmody discussed the financial cap, projects per year, and the rationale of the
Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission when determining the needed $500,000.
It was the majority consensus of the City Council to review the presented materials, make notes
and for the item to be presented at the November 13 Work Session.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were no miscellaneous items discussed.
i
ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember /Commissioner Carmody moved and Councilmember /Commissioner Lasman
seconded adjournment of the City Council/Economic Development Authority Work Session at
11:00 P.M.
Motion passed unanimously.
City Clerk Mayor/President
s ill
10/23/06 2 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
SPECIAL SESSION
NOVEMBER 8, 2006
CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER
The Brooklyn Center City Council met in Special Session as an election canvass board called to order by
Mayor Myrna Kragness at 5:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Mayor Myrna Kragness and Councilmembers Kathleen Carmody, Kay Lasman, and Diane Niesen.
Councilmember Mary O'Connor was absent and unexcused. Also present were City Manager Curt Boganey
and City Clerk Sharon Knutson.
3. CANVASS OF ELECTION RETURNS
3a. RESOLUTION REGARDING CANVASS OF NOVEMBER 7, 2006, MUNICIPAL GENERAL
ELECTION
The Brooklyn Center City Council proceeded to canvass the City election returns from all City precincts,
reporting ballots cast in the City of Brooklyn Center contests as follows:
Office of Mavor Ballot Count
Kathleen Carmody 3662
Tim Willson 4718
Office of Citv Council Member Ballot Count
Diane Niesen 3537
Dan Ryan 4753
Mark Yelich 3743
Councilmember Lasman moved and Councilmember Carmody seconded adoption of RESOLUTION NO.
2006 -122 Regarding Canvass of November 7, 2006, Municipal General Election.
Motion passed unanimously.
4. ADJOURNMENT
Councilmember Carmody moved and Councilmember Lasman seconded adjournment of the Special Session at
5:02 p.m.
City Clerk Mayor
11/07/06 -1- DRAFT
City Council Agenda Item No. 7b
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
TO: Curt Bo ane City Manager
g Y� Y g
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk
DATE: November 8, 2006
SUBJECT: Licenses for Council Approval
The following companies /persons have applied for City licenses as noted. Each company /person has
fulfilled the requirements of the City Ordinance governing respective licenses, submitted appropriate
applications, and paid proper fees. Licenses to be approved by the City Council on November 13, 2006,
are as follows:
GARBAGE COLLECTION VEHICLE
Haugen's Haulers Inc 7386 31 ST SE, Buffalo
GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
Brookdale Citgo 5710 Xerxes Ave N
Brooklyn Center Municipal Garage 6844 Shingle Creek Parkway
MECHANICAL
Fireside Hearth Home 2700 Fairview Ave, Roseville
GTS HVAC, Inc 4018 Joyce Lane
RENTAL
Renewal
Brookside Manor Apts 1121, 1300 -07 67 (5 bldgs, 90 units) Anda Construction
18 Dist. Peace, 1 Crimes Against Family, 1 Fire, 1 Drugs, 2 Obstructing Justice, 4 Auto Thefts
(There were no calls for service for the following)
6300 France Ave N (Single Family) Wade Klick
6809 Fremont Place N (Single Family) Terry Hartmann
2718 O'Henry Road (Single Family) Wade Klick
7111 Riverdale Road (Single Family) Allan Vicki Olson
6661 Xerxes Place N (Single Family) Igor Epshteyn
Initial
(There were no calls for service for the following)
3124 64 Ave N (Single Family) Brenda Wright
5509 Morgan Ave N (Single Family) Darrin Thomas
TOBACCO RELATED PRODUCT
Brookdale Citgo 5710 Xerxes Ave N
Royal Tobacco 5625 Xerxes Ave N
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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
City Council Agenda Item No. 7c
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 6, 2006
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Establishing City Improvement Project No. 2007 -11, Sanitary Sewer
Lift Station No. 2 Force Main Replacement, and Awarding a Professional
Services Contract
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The City's Capital Improvement Program includes the scheduled replacement of the sanitary
sewer force main for Lift Station No. 2 during the 2007 construction season. Lift Station No. 2
is located near the intersection of 55 Avenue and Lyndale Avenue directly adjacent to the
Mississippi River. The force main from this lift station extends south along Lyndale Avenue into
the City of Minneapolis and then crosses under Interstate Highway 94. This force main conveys
wastewater from approximately 1,600 acres of land within Brooklyn Center. The location and
service area of the force main are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2 respectively.
The force main for Lift Station No. 2 is a 16 -inch diameter cast iron pipe that was originally
installed in 1959. Although the City has not identified any significant leaks in the past, a major
rupture or leak of the force main could pose significant environmental problems given the
location of the pipeline directly adjacent to the Mississippi River. If a force main break were to
occur, staff estimates that emergency bypass pumping would require approximately 6 to 8 hours
of setup time before flows could be diverted with a temporary above ground piping system. The
upstream sanitary sewer system has about 3 to 4 hours of storage capacity before wastewater
would begin to back -up into basements and/or surcharge into the Mississippi River.
The proposed project development process would begin with the preparation of a preliminary
design report. The preliminary design report would include the evaluation of a new alignment
for the force main, options to simplify emergency by -pass pumping operations, estimates of
project cost and initial coordination meetings with the City of Minneapolis and Mn/DOT. The
findings of the preliminary design report would be presented to the City Council to determine if
the project should proceed to final design and construction.
6301 Shingle Creek eek 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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
The 2007 CIP includes approximately $7 million of infrastructure reconstruction work. A vast
majority of this work is scheduled to be designed and administered by Engineering Division
staff. However, the Engineering Division does not have the capacity to design all of the projects
identified for 2007 construction. The assistance of a consulting engineering firm is necessary to
help engineering staff complete the design work that must take place over the next six months.
Engineering staff is focused on completing the in -house design of the Riverwood Neighborhood
and Freeway Boulevard street and utility improvement projects, which represents the bulk of the
construction work for 2007.
Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc. (SEH) has provided a proposal for professional engineering
services to assist in the preliminary design of the force main. SEH prepared the engineering
design for the existing Lift Station No. 2 building and pump station equipment that was
reconstructed in 1991. SEH has several years experience with sanitary sewer force main projects
and has the technical capability to properly design the project. The proposed engineering fee for
preliminary design services by SEH is $25,500.
REQUESTED COUNCIL ACTION
The action requested of the City Council at this time is therefore to establish the Sanitary Sewer
Lift Station No. 2 Force Main Replacement Project, Improvement Project No. 2007 -11 and
award a professional services contract with SEH to provide for the preliminary design of the
project. If so authorized by the City Council, the following actions would take place:
Inspect existing force main along Lyndale Avenue and document condition
Perform a field survey of the force main corridor
Evaluate alternative alignment options for constructing a new force main
Perform analysis of potential by -pass pumping improvements
Conduct meetings with the City of Minneapolis and Mn/DOT to discuss the project and
coordinate future construction work
Prepare preliminary project cost estimates
Prepare a preliminary design report
Present findings to the City Council and provide recommendations for further action
Attached for consideration is a resolution establishing City Improvement Project No. 2007 -11
and awarding a professional services contract for preliminary design work. The proposed
resolution is not intended to approve or order the construction of the project.
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT NO. 2007 -11,
SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION NO. 2 FORCE MAIN REPLACEMENT, AND
AWARDING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvements Program identifies specific infrastructure
improvement projects for construction in 2007, including the replacement of the sanitary sewer force
main at Lift Station No. 2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the scope of proposed improvements for the force
main replacement at Lift Station No. 2; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to begin the process of information gathering and
preparation of a preliminary design report for said improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City has negotiated a professional services agreement with Short Elliot
Hendrickson, Inc. to assist with preliminary engineering design for the project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that:
1. Improvement Project No. 2007 -11, Sanitary Sewer Lift Station No. 2 Force Main
Replacement is hereby established.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a professional services
agreement in the name of the City of Brooklyn Center with Short Elliot
Hendrickson for' completion of a preliminary design report.
3. The estimated project costs for preliminary field work, technical analysis,
geotechnical investigations, and preliminary design report are authorized as
follows:
ESTIMATED COST AMOUNT
Engineering Preliminary Design $25,500
Condition Survey and Testing 2,000
Geotechnical Analysis 4.500
Estimated costs $32,000
4. The project revenue shall be derived from the Sanitary Sewer Utility.
RESOLUTION NO.
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.
VT H
,[6TH $6 H' J t 5ET
Lift t
Stati
Main
u
55 FH ?U 5TH o rce
LU
x E fii
2.
m
5 TIC O y Z �3
c3
-9E -LAJE
s� t r y c ps
53RD 2,
q l IL
a c
f
Ld
q4
1 i u 5
Jim
LU
LIJ
2 t 1�
f 1 y
4-, 7 111 tl
Job Ah 1 Ah
'FEBE¢¢11[711 ■,1,11111111 p '���'�"i'^�'• �r�� i
I�w m cu 1YY /II n O, n IIr.In 'r ��D
�Ilhi' lII ■I 111 le J- Ill^ I-
+Ii 1111 rj, 11111 I: I ul I;_I_ •r
1 ...r111
1111 %�h...�- I Gr ...0 .V
zp
d A i.. 1 1� =:1' I. AS d
E` i1i /ln�:��r�. 1 �1 I ��LI �I I 1
i Y.JN �Y 111111111 „1 ►r1� Itl� j /I: (',YY• I "�I.: I
1111 IIYt /IIIIIIIIIII�\ I Iis I I Ago
ur al■ ■r ■1 II q 11
�\111 1 r
KIM
I.
4
i1 11 ►Y ■Iillli I III.111•d� 7 1 I
:EIr 1 ant a C_G78S�tuuui. i1i'�u�111�11'.Ilr:�l�����`� 11/r /_�II
YIFI •X C :I•' 1'
1:=
EI �I i:: i 1 I =1 III
X IU.uY■■Y■n;p_r:A c
AIF
�III AIL
f�1 I�GI..
nuua.a+IS i IIIFI�!!1!/IIIIIIIJ. C v: pr 1 j W�i
nuua37FVU■ r rr
oil
i� FS IIYYIIII 111111/11111 i1� a� IIIY.YY rrr I I
nlc,.a3 €BFtenu• /y /11/1111 OIIIIIIIIIIIp �p 1111 ■Iiq rq lr I% I
nnunnuiuuAl� IIIIUYY'GaJ31JJ1.... .,,Il► "•!rr rl 1 I
noon■ ■IUUU111�■ l11■ 1,111111 IRA IIIIII. •r •.1111 1.. r A A: I
111 VIII, ,IJJJJY�111 ME. uf■ 1 p e
7 11 W �W `1111►// ri ono I E'
1 IIIIY.: •,1 IIIIILL.Y.1 i.. r p- I I-
=.1■ �-I' MM 1111// 1 ..1 1111.1.1.11." �p�� /1 I _I• i.1 =�1 I �II s:..
pan. G. j■ cl■ J� our �Ii� r iuc cFC con ►►i'ii. J 3 r
�II, ■,r �11111� YC411 �i��II11Y IIIIIO,1111 r I f ��,I /,,✓�'ll`� `I i i
>O um ■uuu■ lalsac.n:c, O L _l s_
IuIY�:..� I u1�- ul� �U■ O YYYYU:YYU:aYY uu
mill Inu11ti1 us nSf■ .a _II nuuuunw Io:ran7i7.0 I 1 i��. II
■nuul- p numllllllll uunlllllpw nuuun- i �Q
■1111111: 111111;• :111/ 111 ►11u•o. I'% iii ��'ll
•I�:Yw uul Y'IJlllll u, III YII'Iluuul rJ-���,'''
1111111 UII ►111119 7 1� �T,. GJIL11. I I�.�►'.%•► 1.3 1 �Q�� 11•'
ttaiYY4 i� =III ►11111111,; 41 r ►�IU HIII� i i lr Ar II �,I I
•1 III►/ YII 1 IIVI ►I 1 1,1 YJIIII'
►I 111 /IIIISCE7191 `�IIR n I �•1�_I 11- 1,11I
11 1111111111► 1 I
11 i11�11 i i yunlnln0� .0 I�►` /u���� z•. w I
.,111111111111„ ;I.�r r� I
:1 /IIIII'iYYYJY1111, 1•= ��I ��1 =-I-
-1
111114 2 9V
ML gg
_v
loll 7,111 r� ,�_l :_r 1
•.:iii_ .I�- I��I f -.1�
`J, 111111,111 .111 I I _I'.- .J.
1.1
15 1��1�.:::•..111 IJ y 1= I
1/ =r'-. -fig Y
3JI ■1111■ sJ 11
IEJYIYJi■ �tiQ �1 I J 1
t�'. 111 Y1/1YhJ�1111i .1:. a ?I�:1= ID llil.[•. ,it
IIIIF�I¢ ii911111��= a� I 'F�� I
11.11 III C_
1111 ■l f �1 ■■r �I as,
,11111 r r�
I Ir i 11em 11
No a
ME
U 111111 ✓J u
ii 1YYYYYIIIt 11 1 a•e
M
,1 u11E SFSuE111.. /III
�'IISA!111117 A
NOR
/111•.. ►IIIIIIIIII� i .Fars
U11117u1p
1111111111111
y` o= ���,��r��lrf� 1
rrIlk
_I
i
City Council Agenda Item No. 7ci
Note: This is the proposed Resolution for consent item:
7d. Resolution Affirming the First Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement for the Formation of the Project Peace Joint Powers Organization
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT
AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE
PROJECT PEACE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the cities of Brooklyn Center, Maple Grove, and Robbinsdale are
members of the Project Peace Joint Powers Organization (Project Peace) and pursuant to that
certain Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the formation of the Project Peace Joint Powers
Agreement (the "Joint Agreement"); and
WHEREAS, the members of Project Peace find it necessary and convenient to
enter into this "First Amendment to Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Project Peace Joint
Powers Organization" in order to address membership issues arising from the inclusion of the
City of Crystal as a member of Project Peace.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota adopts the First Amendment to the Joint and Cooperative
Agreement for the Formation of the Project Peace Joint Powers Organization:
November 13. 2006
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.
4 LI
BROOKLYN CENTER of
0 °rtra exat 1a
POLICE DEPARTMENT MN
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Scott Bechthold, Chief of Polices
DATE: November 6, 2006
SUBJECT: City of Crystal to Enter into the Project PEACE Joint Powers Organization
Attached, please find a City Council Resolution for acceptance of the City of Crystal to enter into the
Project PEACE Joint Powers Organization.
Project PEACE is a community -based domestic abuse intervention project staffed by advocates who are
available to offer support information, referrals, and options for victims of domestic abuse. Each victim is
assured complete confidentiality. Project PEACE provides civil and criminal court advocacy, a 24 -hour
crisis phone line, as well as support to battered women.
Project PEACE started in 1992 as a Joint Powers Organization with the cities of Brooklyn Center,
Champlin, Maple Grove, and Robbinsdale. In 2001, the City of Crystal asked to join the Joint Powers
Organization and was accepted by the Board. On January 1, 2002 Project PEACE began providing
services for the City of Crystal. Recently in review of Project PEACE records, it appears that no official
resolution accepting the City of Crystal into the Joint Powers Organization was drafted. In order to
correct this oversight, the member cities of Brooklyn Center, Maple Grove, and Robbinsdale find it
necessary and convenient to enter into this "First Amendment to Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the
Project Peace Joint Powers Organization" in order to address membership issues arising from the
inclusion of the City of Crystal as a member of Project PEACE.
RESOLUTION 2006 7 6
RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE FIRST AMENDMENT
TO THE JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FOR THE FORMATION OF
THE PROJECT PEACE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION.
WHEREAS, the cities of Brooklyn Center, Maple Grove, Robbinsdale are
members of the Project Peace Joint Powers Organization (Project
Peace) and pursuant to that certain Joint and Cooperative Agreement
for the formation of the Project Peace Joint Powers Agreement (the
"Joint Agreement and
WHEREAS, the City of Crystal wishes to enter into this Joint Powers Agreement
and is in compliance with and in good standing under the terms and
conditions of this agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved that the City of Crystal affirms its membership
and enters into this Joint Powers Agreement in compliance with all its' provisions
and conditions Adopted this 15 day of August, 2006.
ReNae J. Mayor
ATTEST:
Jato Lewis, City Clerk
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
JOINT AND COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR THE FORMATION OF THE
PROJECT PEACE JOINT POWERS ORGANIZATION
WHEREAS, the cities of Brooklyn Center, Maple Grove, and Robbinsdale are members
of the Project Peace Joint Powers Organization "Project Peace and pursuant to that
certain Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Formation of the Project Peace Joint
Powers Agreement (the "Joint Agreement and
WHEREAS, the members of Project Peace find it necessary and convenient to enter into
this "First Amendment to Joint and Cooperative Agreement for the Project Peace Joint
Powers Organization" in order to address membership issues arising from the inclusion of
the City of Crystal as a member of Project Peace.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Joint Agreement is amended as follows:
Section 1. Article II Definitions. Section 6, "Member" is amended to read as follows:
Section 6. "Member" means a governmental until which is a party to this agreement
as and is in compliance with and in good standing under this Agreement. The cities
of Brooklvn Center. Maple Grove. Robbinsdale. and Crystal are each a Member of
the Proiect Peace Joint Powers Oraanization.
Section 2. The Agreement is further amended by adding a new Article XI. Amendment
to read as follows:
Article XI Amendment. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by
annroval of all Members. An amendment is effective on the day that executed
conies of the amendment. accompanied by the Member resolution authorizing its
execution is filed by the Members with the Citv Clerk of the Citv of Brooklvn
Center.
Section 3. All of other terms of the Joint Agreement remain in effect.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
By:
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: Manager
293047v1 MTN CR205 -30
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
By:
Its: i yor y
By:
Its: City Administr ttor
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
By:
Its: Mayor
By.
Its: Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
Its: May
By:
Its: anager
Received and filed by the City of Brooklyn Center this day of 2006.
2930470 MTN CR205 -30
CITY OF MAPLE GROVE
By:
Its: ayor
B
Its: City Admini trator
CITY OF ROBBINSDALE
By:
Its: Mayor
By: 77
Its: Manager
CITY OF CRYSTAL
By:
Its: Mayor
By:
Its: Manager
Received and filed by the City of Brooklyn Center this day of 3 2006.
2930470 MTN CR205 -30
City Council Agenda Item No. 8
S
i
City of
BROOKLYN Office of the City Clerk
CENTER
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Sharon Knutson, City Clerk ��uvo vl
DATE: November 8, 2006
SUBJECT: Presentation: Acceptance of Recognition Certificate from National League of Cities to
City of Brooklyn Center for 15 Years of Membership and Dedicated Service
The National League of Cities has presented the City of Brooklyn Center with a recognition certificate
for its 15 years of membership and dedicated service in shaping and advocating national municipal
policy and helping to strengthen and promote communities of all sizes.
ii ;strengthen
and promote
cities as centers
of opportunity,
leadership, and
governance.
Q" October 20 2006
National League The Honorable Myrna Kragness
Of Cities
Mayor
City of Brooklyn Center
1301 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. 6301 Shingle Creek Pkwy.
Washington, DC 20004 -1763 Brooklyn Center, MN 55430
202- 626 -3000
Fax: 202- 626 -3043 Dear Mayor Kragness:
www.nlc.org Congratulations! It is with great pleasure that the National League of Cities (NLC)
zoos Officers recognizes the City of Brooklyn Center for their dedication and commitment since
President joining our organization on May 1, 1991.
James C. Hunt
Councilmember
Clarksburg, West Virginia Your dedication to NLC has not only helped us solve municipal issues, but also enhance
First Vice President leadership skills, protect community rights and resources. But most importantly, it is
Bart Peterson
Mayor only g throu h our collective efforts that we can continue to defend and advocate on your
Indianapolis, Indiana behalf. It is the power of we that enables NLC to address and help create solutions to the
Second Vice President many challenges that municipalities face across America.
Cynthia McCollum
Council Member
Madison, Alabama I am delighted to present the enclosed certificate honoring the City of Brooklyn Center
Immediate Past President for 15 years of membership and dedicated service. We look forward to your continued
Anthony A. Williams involvement, and we thank you again for your support on behalf of all cities, towns, and
Mayor
Washington, DC villages in our great nation.
Executive Director
Donald J. Borut Warmest regards,
Donald J. Borut
Executive Director
DJ•B /lag
Enclosure
Past Presidents. Clarence E. Anthony, Mayor, South Bay, Florida John DeStetano, Jr., Mayor, New Haven, Connecticut William H. HudnuL 111, Mayor, Town of Chevy Chase, Maryland Sharpe James,
Mayor, Newark, New Jersey Brian J. O'Neill, Councilman, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Directors. R. Michael Amyx, Executive Director, Virginia Municipal League Tommy Baker, Alderman, Osceola, Arkansas
Iowa Lea of Cities Nora Campos, Councilmember, San Jose, California Thomas Carlson, Mayor, Springfield,
•Vicki Barnett Mayor, Farmington Hills, Michigan •Thomas Bredeweg, Executive Director, to League p
Missouri •James Condos, Council Chair, South Burlington, Vermont •Joseph Donaldson, Mayor, Flagstaff, Arizona •Ted Ellis, Mayor, Bluffton, Indiana Makin Epre, Council Member, Cedar Hill, Texas Margaret
Finlay, Ma yor, or Duarte California Edd Y 9 Y Ford, Mayor, Farra ut Tennessee Dann George, Executive Director, Oklahoma Municipal League, Inc. Gary Graham, Mayor, O'Fallon, Illinois Matthew Grellet
Executive Director, Indiana Association of Cities and Towns •Jim Higdon, Executive Director, Georgia Municipal Association •Charles Hughes, Council President, Gary, Indiana Steven Jeffrey, Executive Director,
Vermont League of Cities and Towns Martin Jones, Council Member, Conyers, Georgia Ronald Loveridge, Mayor, Riverside. California Cynthia Mangini, Councilman -At- Large, Enfield, Connecticut Marcia
Marcoux, Councilmember, Rochester, Minnesota •Michael McGlynn, Mayor, Medford, Massachusetts James Mitchell, Jr., Council Member, C harlotte North Carolina Darryl rry Moss, Mayor, Creedmoor, North
Carolina Ed Oakley, Councilmember, Dallas, Texas James Perkins, Jr., Mayor, Selma, Alabama Richard Radcliffe, Councilman, Greenacres, Florida Dottie Reeder, Mayor, Seminole, Florida Julie Aberg
Council Member. Tucson Arizona Anne Sinclair, Council Member, Columbia, South
m' Council Memher, Sparks, Nevada Shirley cott Cou c
Robison, Council Member At- Large, Cary, North Carolina •Ron Sch rtt, C p eY
a k Executive Director North Dakota Lea ue of Cities Ken Stmbeck,. Executive Director, League of Arizona Cities and
Carolina Wafter Skowron, Council Member, Loveland, Colorado •Connie Spryncryn ty 9
Towns Charleta Tavares, Council Member, Columbus, Ohio Lynne Whalen, Council Woman, Casper, Wyoming Jacques Wiggirdon, Council Member, Lexington, Kentucky Evelyn Woodson, Councilor,
Recycled Paper Columbus, Georgia
l
6.
x} r
5
The National me of Cities
�A
Norio s ...the
t,
for
i
of Memb, ers d TSedcated Service
in Shaping and Advocatirigf National Municipal Policy
4
and Helping to Strengthen and jL'romote Communities of all sizes.
br
e. r
Don Borut Jim Hunt
Executive Director Councilmember
P,
National League of Cities National League o Cities Clarksbur& West VI
City Council Agenda Item No. 9a
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Speci st
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the
Zoning Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard
Between I -94 and 69 Avenue North)
DATE: November 6, 2006
On the November 13, 2006 City Council agenda is the continued consideration of an
ordinance amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding the Zoning
Classification of Certain Land (Easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard between 1 -94 and 69
Avenue North) from the September 25, 2006 Council meeting. This ordinance
amendment relates to a PUD /C2 rezoning of four contiguous lots located easterly of
Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69 Avenue North and development plan approval
for a two phase redevelopment and expansion of the Brookdale Dodge automobile
dealership and the former Ryan Olds property. This Planned Unit Development was
proposed by the Luther Company Limited Partnership and was approved by the City
Council on August 28, 2006 under Council Resolution No. 2006 -98.
The last action for any rezoning is to describe the property being rezoned under its new
zoning classification in the zoning ordinance. This is the purpose of the above ordinance
amendment, which also had a first reading on August 28, 2006.
The legal description used in the ordinance amendment is that which is established by the
replatting of the property under consideration. The final plat approval by the City Council
and the filing of the plat with Hennepin County are necessary to create a new legal
description. This has still not yet been accomplished and until it has been accomplished,
the legal description used in the ordinance amendment does not exist.
It is recommended that the City Council postpone and continue consideration of the
ordinance amendment until the final plat has been approved and filed with Hennepin
County.
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 25th day of September 2006 at
7:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek
Parkway, to consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances Regarding
Zoning Classification of Certain Land (easterly of Brooklyn Boulevard between I -94 and 69th
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 AMENDING CHAPTER 35 OF THE CITY
ORDINANCES REGARDING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF
CERTAIN LAND (EASTERLY OF BROOKLYN BOULEVARD BETWEEN
I -94 AND 69 AVENUE NORTH)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 35 of the City Ordinances of the City of Brooklyn Center is
hereby amended in the following manner:
Section 35 -1120. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT (R3). The
following properties are hereby established as being within the (R3) Multiple Family Residence
District zoning classification:
The easterly 751.715 601.365 feet of that part of Lot 3, Auditor's Subdivision No. 25,
g
1 'n h of
nor aline parallel with and distant 289.74 feet south from the centerline of 69
th
lying
Avenue North. formerlv County Road No. 130.
Section 35 -1190. COMMERCE DISTRICT (C2). The following properties are
hereby established as being within the (C2) Commerce District zoning classification:
That paA ef T aet A, Registered Land SuFyey No-59515ing west or the fell if
lie the west pr- eperty tine o f r ots t tt,,.,, 4 BJ4- t 22
ves...uuvu in u s t ra ight No. 5 95.
ef ti e 0
a L ets 7 t o B tL. ,t
Lots 1 �e- 4- >3- lse- k����- tk�g��c -l n
(vaeated) Halifax A-vei+ue 154ng between these twe bleeks; all within SupAise ManeF
A dd ti
rsaarczvrr.
Tr-aet B, Registered Land Stffvey No. 370.
Tfaet A, Reg ister e d Land C`... yey Ne. 10
ORDINANCE NO.
T t A .1 U R eg i s t ere d Tan Survey N 4 S
T D t A egiste -va Land S urvey N n 57
T-r-aets B and r e Registered T .,n 59 cufyey N GG
Th ,aft o f Tot A xarlt ec Subdivision N S, de ser ibed as fellows G 1e19•
t t th e \-tl, li ne f c t 2 n distant 751 '71 7 f VL t t f- the n orth
,t
r
fiem the ner-th line of Seefien 34; thenee west aleng a line par-a4lel to and 299.74
ftem the north line of Seetion 34, te the wester-ly line of Let 3; thenee flef"
aleRg c aid estedy li n e of Le 2 t I f tL+ 4 1 a i sterly li t.\ the
n o f c t 34 th enee eas a sa i d c Pet' line t o th e pe o f k g-- ai
e3ieept r-ead and highway.
Section 35 -1240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PUD). The
following properties are hereby established as being within a (PUD) Planned Unit Development
zoning classification:
4. The following properties are designated as PUD /C2 (Planned Unit
Development/Commerce):
Lot 1, Block 1, Chrvsler Realtv Addition
Lots 1 and 2. Block 1. Bri Mar 2" Addition,
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 1 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(lee indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
City Council Agenda Item No. 9b
Or City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 6, 2006
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works _r_
AV_
An Ordinance Relating to Discharges and Connections to the Stormwater System
Attached for consideration is an ordinance amending Chapter 4 of the City Code of Ordinances
relating to discharges and connections to the storm water drainage system. This ordinance was
prepared in response to storm water management requirements established as part of the City's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The City of Brooklyn Center is
required to maintain permit coverage under the NPDES permit program administered by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
The proposed ordinance would effectively prohibit, through ordinance or other regulatory
mechanism, non -storm water discharges into the municipal storm sewer system and implement
appropriate enforcement procedures.
Consistent with the City Charter, this item was first read on October 9, 2006, published in the
official newspaper on October 26, 2006, and is presented for the second reading and public
hearing by the City Council.
At the October 9 1h meeting, the City Council discussed some concerns with certain actions that
could potentially be considered violations of the proposed ordinance, but are beyond the actual
intent of the ordinance. The concerns raised by Council members included fall leaf collection,
lawn fertilizing and winter ice control practices. The City Attorney and staff are currently
discussing minor revisions to the ordinance intended to further clarify actions that would be
considered violations under the ordinance. Additional time is needed to complete this review.
Staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing on November 13 th take public
testimony and comments, and continue the public hearing until the December 11, 2006 City
Council meeting. A summary of recommended modifications to the proposed ordinance would
be provided to the Council prior to December 11 th meeting.
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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held on the 13th day of November, 2006, at 7
p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at City Hall, 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway,
to consider an ordinance relating to discharges and connections to the stormwater system.
Auxiliary aids for handicapped persons are available upon request at least 96 hours in advance.
Please notify the City Clerk at 763 -569 -3300 to make arrangements.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO DISCHARGES AND CONNECTIONS TO
THE STORMWATER SYSTEM
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The Brooklyn Center City Code of Ordinances is amended by adding
new Section 4 -404 as follows:
Section 4 -04. CONNECTIONS AND DISCHARGES TO THE STORMWATER
SYSTEM.
Subdivision 1. Definitions. For the purnoses of this section, the following shall mean:
Authorized Enforcement Officer. The Citv Manager or the Citv Manager's designee, who is
authorized to enforce this section.
Best Management Practices (BMPs). Schedules of activities. prohibitions of practices, general
good house keenina practices. pollution prevention and educational practices, maintenance
procedures. and other management practices to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants
directly or indirectiv to stormwater, receiving waters, or stormwater convevance systems. BMPs
also include treatment practices. operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff..
spillage or leaks. sludge or water disposal. or drainage from raw materials storage.
Clean Water Act. The federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 6 1251 et sea.), and anv
subseauent amendments thereto.
Construction Activitv. Activities subiect to NPDES Construction Permits. Currentiv these
include construction proiects resulting in land disturbance of 1 acre or more. Such activities
include but are not limited to clearing and grubbing, grading, excavating, and demolition.
Hazardous Materials, Anv material. including anv substance, waste. or combination thereof, that,
because of its quantity. concentration. or phvsical, chemical. or infectious characteristics may
cause, or siznificantly contribute to. a substantial present or potential hazard to human health,
safety, propertv. or the environment when improperly treated, stored. transported. disposed of or
otherwise managed.
ORDINANCE NO.
Illegal Discharge. Any direct or indirect non -storm water discharge to the storm drain system,
except as exempted in subdivision 6 of this section.
Illicit Connections. An illicit connection is defined as either of the following:
Any drain or conveyance. whether on the surface or subsurface, that allows an illegal discharge
to enter the storm drain system including but not limited to any conveyances that allow any non-
storm water discharge including sewage. process wastewater, and wash water to enter the storm
drain system and any connections to the storm drain system from indoor drains and sinks,
regardless of whether said drain or connection had been previously allowed, permitted, or
approved by the Authorized Enforcement Officer: or
Any drain or conveyance connected from a commercial or industrial land use to the storm drain
system that has not been documented in plans. maps. or eauivalent records and approved by the
Authorized Enforcement Officer.
Industrial Activity. Activities subiect to NPDES Industrial Permits as defined in 40 CFR, Section
122.26 (b)(14).
MS4. The municipal separate storm sewer system.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPDES) Storm Water Discharge Permit. A
permit issued by EPA (or by a State under authority delegated pursuant to 33 USC 1342(b))
that authorizes the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States. whether the permit is
applicable on an individual. croum or general area -wide basis.
Non -Storm Water Discharge. Any discharge to the storm drain system that is not composed
entirely of storm water.
Person. Any individual, association, organization. partnership, firm, corporation or other entity
recognized by law and acting as either the owner or as the owner's agent.
Pollutant. Anvthing that causes or contributes to pollution. Pollutants may include, but are not
limited to: paints, varnishes. and solvents: oil and other automotive fluids: non hazardous liquid
and solid wastes and vard wastes: refuse. rubbish, garbage. litter, or other discarded or
abandoned obiects. ordinances, and accumulations. so that same may cause or contribute to
Dollution: floatables: pesticides. herbicides. and fertilizers: hazardous substances and wastes,
sewage, fecal coliform and Dathogens: dissolved and particulate metals. animal wastes, wastes
and residues that result from constructing a building or structure: and noxious or offensive matter
of any kind.
Premises. Any building. lot. Darcel of land. or portion of land whether improved or unimproved
including adiacent sidewalks and parking strips.
Storm Drainage System. Publicly -owned facilities by which storm water is collected and/or
conveyed, including but not limited to any roads with drainage systems, municipal streets,
Putters. curbs. inlets, piped storm drains. pumping facilities, retention and detention basins,
natural and human-made or altered drainage channels, reservoirs. and other drainage structures.,
ORDINANCE NO.
is
Storm Water. Any surface flow. runoff. and drainage consisting entirely of water from any form
of natural precipitation. and resulting from such precipitation.
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. A document that describes the Best Management
Practices and activities to be implemented by a person or business to identify sources of
pollution or contamination at a site and the actions to eliminate or reduce Dollutant discharges to
Stormwater. Stormwater Conveyance Systems, and/or Receiving Waters to the Maximum Extent
Practicable.
Wastewater means any water or other liquid, other than uncontaminated storm water, discharged
from a facility.
Subdivision 2. Applicability. This section shall apply to all water entering the storm
drain system generated on any develop_ ed and undeveloped lands unless explicitly exempted by
an Authorized Enforcement Officer.
Subdivision 3. Responsibility for Administration. The City Manager or the City
Manager's designee shall administer. implement. and enforce the Drovisions of this section.
Subdivision 4. Severabilitv. The Drovisions of this section are hereby declared to be
severable. If any Drovision. clause. sentence, or DaragraDh of this section or the application
thereof to any Derson. establishment. or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall
not affect the other Drovisions or application of this section.
Subdivision 5. Ultimate Responsibility. The standards set forth herein and Dromulgated
pursuant to this section are minimum standards. Therefore this section does not intend or imply
that compliance by any Derson will ensure that there will be no contamination. Dollution, nor
unauthorized discharge of Dollutants.
Subdivision 6. Discharge Prohibitions.
Prohibition of Illegal Discharges.
No Derson shall discharge or cause to be discharged into the municipal storm drain system or
watercourses any materials. including but not limited to Dollutants or waters containing any
pollutants that cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water duality standards. other than
storm water.
The commencement, conduct or continuance of any illegal discharge to the storm drain system is
prohibited except as follows:
a. The following discharges are exempt from discharge prohibitions established by
this section: water line flushing or other notable water sources, landscape
irrigation or lawn watering, diverted stream flows. rising ground water, ground
water infiltration to storm drains, uncontaminated Dumbed ground water,
ORDINANCE NO.
foundation or footing drains (not including active groundwater dewatering
systems). crawl space pumps. air conditioning condensation, springs. non-
commercial washing of vehicles. natural riparian habitat or wet -land flows,
swimming pools (if dechlorinated tvpically less than one PPM chlorine), fire
fighting activities. and anv other water source not containing Pollutants.
b. Discharges specified in writing by the Authorized Enforcement Officer as being
necessary to protect public health and safetv.
C. Dve testing is an allowable discharge. but requires a verbal notification to the
Authorized Enforcement Officer prior to the time of the test.
d. The prohibition shall not apply to anv non -storm water discharge permitted under
an NPDES permit, waiver, or waste discharge order issued to the discharger and
administered under the authoritv of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency,
provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all reouirements of the
permit, waiver. or order and other applicable laws and regulations, and provided
that written approval has been granted for any discharge to the storm drain
system.
Prohibition of Illicit Connections.
a. The construction. use. maintenance or continued existence of illicit connections to
the storm drain system is prohibited.
b. This prohibition expressly includes. without limitation, illicit connections made in
the oast, regardless of whether the connection was permissible under law or
practices applicable or prevailing at the time of connection.
C. A person is considered to be in violation of this section if the person connects a
line convevine sewage to the MS4. or allows such a connection to continue.
Subdivision 7. Suspension of MS4 Access.
Suspension Due to Illicit Discharges in Emergency Situations
The Authorized Enforcement Officer may. without prior notice. suspend MS4 discharge access
to a person when such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge that
presents or mav present imminent and substantial danger to the environment. or to the health or
welfare of persons. or to the MS4 or Waters of the United States. If the violator fails to comply
with a suspension order issued in an emereencv. the Authorized Enforcement Officer magi take
such steps as deemed necessary to prevent or minimize damage to the MS4 or Waters of the
United States, or to minimize danger to persons.
ORDINANCE NO.
Suspension Due to the Detection of Illicit Discharge
Anv person discharging to the MS4 in violation of this section may have their MS4 access
terminated if such termination would abate or reduce an illicit discharge. The Authorized,
Enforcement Officer will notify a violator of the proposed termination of its MS4 access. The
violator may petition the Authorized Enforcement Officer for a reconsideration and hearing.
A person commits an offense if the person reinstates MS4 access to premises terminated
pursuant to this subdivision. without the prior approval of the Authorized Enforcement Officer.
Subdivision 8. Industrial or Construction Activitv Discharges. Anv person subiect to an
industrial or construction activitv NPDES storm water discharge permit shall comply with all
provisions of such permit. Proof of compliance with said permit may be reauired in a form
acceptable to the Authorized Enforcement Officer prior to the allowing of discharges to the MS4.
Subdivision 9. Monitoring of Discharges.
Applicability.
This subdivision applies to all facilities that have storm water discharges associated with,
industrial activity, including construction activitv.
Access to Facilities.
a. The Authorized Enforcement Officer shall be permitted to enter and inspect
facilities subiect to regulation under this section as often as may be necessary to
determine compliance with this section. If a discharger has securitv measures in
force that require proper identification and clearance before entry into its
premises. the discharger shall make the necessary arrangements to allow access to
representatives of the Authorized Enforcement Officer.,
b. Facilitv operators shall allow the Authorized Enforcement Officer readv access to
all parts of the premises for the purooses of inspection, sampling. examination and
copvine of records that must be kept under the conditions of an NPDES permit to
discharge storm water, and the performance of anv additional duties as defined by
state and federal law.
C. The Authorized Enforcement Officer shall have the right to set up on anv
permitted facilitv such devices as are necessary in the opinion of the Authorized
Enforcement Officer to conduct monitoring and/or sampling of the facilitv's storm
water discharge.
d. The Authorized Enforcement Officer has the right to reouire the discharger to
install monitoring equipment as necessary. The facilitv's sampling and monitoring
eauipment shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating
ORDINANCE NO.
condition by the discharger at its own expense. All devices used to measure
stormwater flow and duality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracv.
e. Anv temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easv access to the facilitv to
be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the operator at the
written or oral reauest of the Authorized Enforcement Officer and shall not be
replaced. The costs of cleariniz such access shall be borne by the operator.
f. Unreasonable delays in allowine the Authorized Enforcement Officer access to a
permitted facility is a violation of a storm water discharee permit and of this
section. A person who is the operator of a facility with a NPDES permit to
discharee storm water associated with industrial activity commits an offense if the
person denies the Authorized Enforcement Officer reasonable access to the
permitted facility for the Duroose of conductine anv activity authorized or
reauired by this section.
Q. If the Authorized Enforcement Officer has been refused access to anv Dart of the
premises from which stormwater is dischareed, and he or she is able to
demonstrate Drobable cause to believe that there may be a violation of this
section. or that there is a need to inspect and/or sample as Dart of a routine
insDection and samnline Droeram desiemed to verifv compliance with this section
or anv order issued hereunder. or to protect the overall Dublic health, safety, and
welfare of the community. then the Authorized Enforcement Officer may seek
issuance of a search warrant from anv court of competent iurisdiction.
Subdivision 10. Reauirement to Prevent. Control. and Reduce Storm Water Pollutants by
the Use of Best Manaeement Practices. The Authorized Enforcement Officer will adopt
reauirements identifvin2 Best Management Practices for anv activity, operation. or facility that
may cause or contribute to pollution or contamination of storm water, the storm drain system, or
waters of the U.S. The owner or operator of a commercial or industrial establishment shall
provide, at his or her own expense, reasonable protection from accidental discharee of Drohibited
materials or other wastes into the municipal storm drain system or watercourses throueh the use
of these structural and non structural BMPs. Further. anv Derson responsible for a property or
Dremise that is. or may be. the source of an illicit discharee. may be reauired to implement, at
said Derson's expense. additional structural and non structural BMPs to prevent the further
discharize of Dollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system. Compliance with all terms
and conditions of a valid NPDES Dermit authorizine the discharee of storm water associated with
industrial activity, to the extent Dracticable, shall be deemed compliance with the Drovisions of
this section. These BMPs shall be Dart of a stormwater Dollution Drevention plan (SWPP) as
necessary for compliance with reauirements of the NPDES Dermit.
Subdivision 11. Watercourse Protection. Every Derson owning Droverty throuizh which a
watercourse passes. or such Derson's lessee, shall keep and maintain that Dart of the watercourse
within the DroDertv free of trash, debris. excessive veeetation, and other obstacles that would
Dollute. contaminate. or significantly retard the flow of water through the watercourse. In
addition, the owner or lessee shall maintain existing Drivately owned structures within or
ORDINANCE NO.
adiacent to a watercourse. so that such structures will not become a hazard to the use. function,
or phvsical integrity of the watercourse.
Subdivision 12. Notification of Shills. Notwithstandins other requirements of law, as
soon as anv person responsible for a facilitv or operation. or responsible for emer2encv response
for a facilitv or operation has information of anv known or suspected release of materials that are
resultinsz or may result in illeizal discharees or pollutants discharp-ine into storm water, the storm
drain system, or water of the U.S. said person shall take all necessary steps to ensure the
discovery. containment. and cleanun of such release. In the event of such a release of hazardous,
materials said person shall immediatelv notifv emerizencv response aeencies of the occurrence
via emerszencv dispatch services. In the event of a release of non hazardous materials, said
person shall notifv the Authorized Enforcement Officer in person or by phone or facsimile no
later than the next business day. Notifications in person or by phone shall be confirmed by
written notice addressed and mailed to the Authorized Enforcement Officer within three business.
days of the phone notice. If the discharee of prohibited materials emanates from a commercial or
industrial establishment. the owner or operator of such establishment shall also retain an on -site
written record of the discharge and the actions taken to nrevent its recurrence. Such records shall
be retained for at least three vears.
Subdivision 13. Enforcement.
Notice of Violation.
Whenever the Authorized Enforcement Officer finds that a person has violated a prohibition or
failed to meet a reauirement of this section. the Authorized Enforcement Officer may order
compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may reauire
without limitation:
a. The performance of monitorine. analvses. and reporting:
b. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges:
C. That violating discharees. practices. or operations shall cease and desist:
d. The abatement or remediation of storm water pollution or contamination hazards
and the restoration of anv affected propertv, and
e. The implementation of source control or treatment BMPs.
If abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected propertv is reauired, the notice shall set
a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. Said notice shall
further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline,
the work will be done by a desienated governmental aeencv or a contractor and the expense
thereof shall be charged to the violator.
ORDINANCE NO.
Subdivision 14. AnDeal of Notice of Violation. Any person receiving a Notice of
Violation may anneal the determination of the Authorized Enforcement Officer. The notice of
anneal must be received within ten days from the date of the Notice of Violation. Hearing on the
anneal before the City Council shall take place within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of
the notice of anneal. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
Subdivision 15. Enforcement Measures After AnDeal. If the violation has not been
corrected Dursuant to the reauirements set forth in the Notice of Violation, or. in the event of an
anneal, within ten days of the decision of the municipal authority upholding the decision of the
Authorized Enforcement Officer. then representatives of the Authorized Enforcement Officer
may enter upon the subiect private proDertv and are authorized to take any and all measures
necessary to abate the violation and/or restore the nropertv. It shall be unlawful for any Derson,
owner. agent or Derson in Dossession of any Dremises to refuse to allow the government agency
or designated contractor to enter upon the premises for the Durposes set forth above.
Subdivision 16. Cost of Abatement of the Violation. Within thirty (30) days after
abatement of the violation. the owner of the proDertv will be notified of the cost of abatement,
including administrative costs. The nropertv owner may file a written Drotest obiecting to the
amount of the assessment within ten days. If the amount due is not Daid within a timely manner
as determined by the decision of the municipal authority or by the expiration of the time in which
to file an anneal. the charges shall become a special assessment against the nropertv and shall
constitute a lien on the DroDertv for the amount of the assessment.
Any Derson violating anv of the provisions of this section shall become liable to the Citv by
reason of such violation.
Subdivision 17. Iniunctive Relief. It shall be unlawful for anv Derson to violate any
provision or fail to comply with anv of the reauirements of this section. If a person has violated
or continues to violate the provisions of this section. the Authorized Enforcement Officer may
petition for a Dreliminary or permanent iniunction restraining the Derson from activities that
would create further violations or compelling the Derson to Derform abatement or remediation of
the violation.
Subdivision 18. Violations Deemed a Public Nuisance. In addition to the enforcement
processes and Denalties Drovided, any condition caused or Dermitted to exist in violation of any
of the Drovisions of this section is a threat to Dublic health. safety, and welfare, and is declared
and deemed a nuisance. and may be summarily abated or restored at the violator's expense,
and/or a civil action to abate. enioin. or otherwise compel the cessation of such nuisance may be
taken.
Subdivision 19. Criminal Prosecution. Any person that has violated or continues to
violate this section shall be liable to criminal prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. and
shall be subiect to a criminal penalty as a misdemeanor.
i
ORDINANCE NO.
Subdivision 20. Remedies Not Exclusive. The remedies listed in this section are not
exclusive of anv other remedies available under anv avvlicable federal, state or local law and it is
within the discretion of the Authorized Enforcement Officer to seek cumulative remedies.,
Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective after adoption and upon thirty
(30) days following its legal publication.
Adopted this day of 2006.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
(Skeet indicates matter to be deleted, underline indicates new matter.)
City Council Agenda Item No. 10a
MEMO
To: Curt Boganey, City Manager
From: Ronald A. Warren, Planning and Zoning Special' t
Subject: City Council Consideration Item Planning Commission Application No.
2006 -012
Date: November 2, 2006
On the November 13, 2006 City Council Agenda is Planning Commission Application No.
2006 -012 submitted by Tony Berg requesting Resubdivision Approval to uncombine or
resubdivide the property at 5420 Fremont Avenue North.
Attached for your review are copies of the Planning Commission Information Sheet for
Planning Commission Application No. 2006 -012 and also an area map showing the location of
the property under consideration, the Planning Commission minutes relating to the
Commission's consideration of this matter and other supporting documents.
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission at their October 26, 2006 meeting
and was recommended for approval.
It is recommended that the City Council, following consideration of this matter, approve the
application subject to the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission.
Application Filed on 9 -26 -06
City Council Action Should Be
Taken By 11 -25 -06 (60 Days)
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 2006 -012
Applicant: Tony Berg
Location: 5420 Fremont Avenue North
Request: Resubdivision Approval
The applicant, Tony Berg, is seeking approval to uncombine, or resubdivide, the property at 5420
Fremont Avenue North to reestablish two platted lots that were combined for tax purposes a
number of years ago. This action would allow the two lots to be used and sold separately.
The property in question ,is zoned R -2 which allows one and two family residences as permitted
uses in this zoning district. It is located on the east side of Fremont Avenue, three lots south of
55 Avenue North. It is surrounded on the north and south by single family homes; on the east
by an alley serving this residential area with single family homes on the opposite side of the
alley; and on the west by Fremont Avenue with single family homes on the opposite side of the
street.
The combined lot is currently 80 ft. wide by approximately 128.34 ft. deep (10,267 sq. ft.). The
legal description is Lots 26 and 27, Block 2, N E Perkins Addition to Minneapolis and were
combined for tax purposes as mentioned above by the owners of the property a number of years
ago. Lot 27 (the northerly lot) is 40 ft. wide by approximately 128.34 ft. deep and contains a 22
ft. by 22.2 ft. garage and a shed. Lot 26 (the southerly lot) is also 40 ft. wide by approximately
128.34 ft. deep and contains a single family house and a garage.
The applicant has submitted a survey of the property showing the lots and structures on the two
underlying lots. His plan is to file a certificate of survey with Hennepin County to reestablish the
old underlying lots for the purpose of utilizing the lots separately.
The process of combining parcels for tax purposes is an administrative procedure that allows lots
to be combined without- the benefit of replatting. Once done, the City considers the lots to be a
single lot for building purposes and setback purposes and construction can take place on the
combined lot accordingly. The lots, once combined for tax purposes, cannot be sold or conveyed
separately without being uncombined or resubdivided, which requires city approval. Because the
lots are considered a single lot, the City requires the person requesting the reestablishment of the
lots to provide a survey to show that the reestablished lots have no property line encroachments
or setback deficiencies before the City will allow the lots to be uncombined.
A review of the survey in this case shows that the northerly lot (Lot 27) has a garage t hat has a
setback from the south lot line of .3 ft. at the southwest corner and .4 ft. at the southeast corner of
the building. An accessory structure such as this requires a minimum setback of 3 ft. from an
10 -26 -06
Page 1
interior property line. Also, if the underlying lots are to be reestablished, the existing situation
would create a non conformity in that accessory buildings are only allowed on lots which have a
principal building. The survey also indicates that the location of the garage on the southerly lot
(Lot 26) meets all setback requirements and the existing single family home on that lot is non-
conforming as to its side yard setback and front yard setback. The house is setback
approximately 6 ft. from the north property line and 20.6 ft. from the front setback line. The side
yard setback requirements for a principal building are 10 ft., however, one side yard setback can
be less than 10 ft., but no less than 5 ft. provided there are no doors, windows or openings on the
side of the building that is less than 10 ft. from the side lot line. There are openings on this wall
currently. In order for this building to be in conformance with the setback requirements, those
openings must be closed. With respect to the front yard setback, it is an existing condition which
is not affected by the reestablishment of the two lots and can continue.
It should be noted that the minimum lot requirements for a single family interior lot in an R -2
zone are 60 ft. in width and 7,600 sq. ft. in area. The 40 ft. wide lots of approximately 5,134 sq.
ft. in area do not meet the minimum requirements called for in the R -2 zone for single family
residential use. The Commission's attention is directed to Section 35 -500 of the City's Zoning
Ordinance (copy attached) relating to substandard lots and parcels. This section of the ordinance
states that a lot or parcel which was of legal record within the R -1 or R -2 zoning district on
January 1, 1976 and which does not meet the minimum requirements of this ordinance as to
width or area may, nevertheless, be utilized for single family detached dwelling purposes,
provided the width is not less than 40 ft. at the property line; the lot area is not less than 5,000 sq.
ft.; and provided that yard setback requirements for single family detached dwellings are met.
This provision would allow the two 40 ft. wide, 5,000+ sq. ft. lots to be utilized for single family
dwelling purposes.
Lots 26 and 27, Block 2, N E Perkins Addition to Minneapolis, are legal lots of records created
before January 1, 1976 and are, therefore, subject to Section 35 -500 and maybe developed for
single family detached dwelling purposes if they are allowed to be reestablished by the City.
Previous subdivisions of lots similar to this have been approved by the City Council provided
there are not encroachments or setback deficiencies created by the reestablishment of the
underlying lots. Correction to the deficiencies noted above, namely the proposed garage location
on Lot 27 (northerly lot) and the existence of accessory structures without the benefit of a
principal building, will need to be addressed prior to reestablishing the underlying lot. With
regard to Lot 26 (southerly lot), it will be addressed to meet the requirement that there be no
doors, windows or openings along the north wall where the principal building is located less than
10 ft. from the reestablished lot line. If these corrections can be made, it would appear that the
resubdivision proposed by the applicant could go forward.
The applicant has indicated that he intends to build a new single family home on the northerly lot
and is willing to relocate or demolish the garage on that site. The question of eliminating
accessory buildings on a lot without a principal building has been addressed by the City in the
past by requiring the applicant to correct the deficiency as part of a building permit process or
Page 2
agree to remove the structure within 12 months of reestablishing the underlying lots and execute
a p e rformance agreement and post an appropriate financial guarantee to assure the removal of the
accessory structures.
We have followed the procedures called for in a replatting of property and have posted a notice
of hearing on a resubdivision in the Brooklyn Center Sun/Post. It is recommended that the
Planning Commission hold a public hearing at Thursday evening's meeting.
The reestablishment of the underlying lots will mean that the southerly lot would retain the
address of 5420 Fremont Avenue North while the northerly lot would be addressed 5424
Fremont Avenue North.
RECOMMENDATION
Provided the applicant is willing to make the corrections noted above, approval of this
application would be recommended subject to at least the following conditions:
I. The legal descriptions and survey showing the reestablishment of the underlying
lots shall be filed with Hennepin County.
2. The City Assessor is authorized to process the resubdivision in conjunction with
Hennepin County.
3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action
pertaining to the use of the property.
4. No variances from city ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures
on the lots are required to meet setback requirements.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for modifying the existing single family
residential home on Lot 26 so that there are no doors, windows or other openings
along the north side of the building which is less than 10 ft. from the property line.
Said modification shall be accomplished prior to the filing of the survey to
reestablish the underlying properties.
6. The applicant shall have either made application for a building permit to construct
a single family home on the reestablished Lot 27 and to come into compliance
with the 3 ft. minimum setback for an accessory building or execute a
performance agreement and post an appropriate financial guarantee to assure the
removal of the garage and shed on Lot 27 within one year. In no event, shall there
be an accessory building or buildings on Lot 27 within one year following the
filing of the survey to reestablish the underlying properties unless there is a
properly constructed single family home on said lot.
Page 3
I
iSp
z Vi
"I s7
Vj
R
S, 0;" 1 V
i.zt
U_ I _J E�� NMI
We"r-161 t slow
MEN
son
X11 oil E P
���i r ��t� 1111 NO
'r,7
T. �i
W1
��1 r��11r�11�� r���wt�������
�r1ir1111�1 11111 -will 11111
I1 11 �����i��i�11�11■ 1�1�Irt�11�rN
FM 11 11 111mi mom
IN 11
11111H
Z 111211 AROW
Som NMI
1 11 E
LOGISMap Output Page Page 1 of 1
y
i D
VM
�f
6
a e 4
I
a
I
r
a
'dire .m. 9 �>•u4 AAiy G.�a� +4r, T6siSGiS�:�:3 7...
httn:// ais. lo, is .oriz/servlet/com.esri.esrimap. Esrimap ?ServiceName= bc_LOGISMap_OV... 10/19/2006
I
Section 35 -500. SUBSTANDARD LOTS AND PARCELS. A lot or parcel which was of
legal record within the RI or R2 zoning district on January 1, 1976, and which does not meet the
requirements of this ordinance as to width or area may, nevertheless, be utilized for single family
detached dwelling purposes, provided the width is not less than 40 feet at the property line; the lot
area is not less than 5,000 square feet; and provided that yard setback requirements for single family
detached dwellings are met.
Section 35 -510. DRAINAGE WAYS. No obstruction, diversion, bridging or confining of
the existing channel of any natural waterway, or any drainage swale approved as a part of the
drainage system of a plat in the municipality through which surface water in time of storms naturally
flows upon or across the land, shall be permitted without special permit. Before granting a special
permit, the zoning official shall first find that the diversion, bridging, etc. will carry the amount of
water usually likely to flow. The right is reserved to the municipality as an incident to the
development of the municipality, including the construction of streets and gutters, ditches, etc., to
cause considerable increases or decreases in the amount of water which would in a state of nature
flow into and through such natural water channel or drainage swale.
Section 35 -520. FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY. Every parcel proposed for
some use permitted by the terms of this ordinance shall abut a public right -of -way, provided that
where unusual circumstances prevail, the City Council may waive this requirement in favor of a
reasonable alternative.
i If a parcel does not abut a public right -of -way, the applicant may cause an appropriate right
of -way to be dedicated to the municipality provided that any such dedication must conform to the
official street layout plan, or in the event the official plan does not comprehend such an appropriate
right -of -way, the dedication shall conform to a street layout plan meeting the requirements of
Section 15 -106 of these ordinances, approved by the Director of Public Works and adopted by the,
City Council.
Section 35 -530. BUILDINGS IN R1 AND R2 DISTRICTS. In RI and R2 districts every
building hereafter erected or structurally altered shall be located on a lot, and in no case shall there
be more than one principal building on one lot. The term "principal building" shall be given its
common, ordinary meaning; in case of doubt, or on any question of interpretation, the decision shall
rest with the zoning official.
1. No accessory building, unless an integral part of the principal building, shall be
erected, altered, or moved, within six feet of the principal building, as measured from
exterior wall to exterior wall. No accessory building shall be erected, altered, or
moved within six feet of another accessory building, as measured from exterior wall
to exterior wall.
2. Accessory buildings may not be erected within the side yard adjacent to the street of
a corner lot.
3. No accessory building shall exceed 15 feet in height.
City of Brook 1Vn Center 35 -72 December 3, 2005
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: POSED AREAS:
Lots 26 and 27. Block 2, N. E. PERKINS ADDITION PARCEL A: Lot 26, Block 2, N. E. PERKINS ADDITION TO PARCEL A: 5.132 square feel a O.ttB acres. 4-P J E
TO MINNEAPOLIS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. MINNEAPOLIS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Z u E
GENERAL NOTES
PARCELS: 5,133 square feel O.ItB acres.
PARCEL B: Lot 27, Block 2, N. k E. PERKINS ADDITION TO q O u
1. The bearing system used is assumed. MINNEAPOLIS, Hennepin County, Minnesota. <t-('; ".i4 _::l.. ?f`t +.'1" Z 4 to T
c w
2. The locolion of the underground utilities shown FIN12HED FLOOR FiNiSHED FLOOR 1 W
hereon, if ony. are approximate only. PURSUANT TO E_EV.= 102.05 �I r ELEV.='00 "21 Z N 1)
MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT
(612) 454 -0002 PRIOR TO ANY EXCAVATION. I I n o too 3
N
I N 17 c m
3. Site area 10,265 square feet 0.236 acres. O I rJ I HSJ BENCHMARK,, FOUND O r- TOP OF NAIL I O n E
4. This survey was mode on the ground. 9 IRON v �XIS� /C j� i ELEV. =99.38 __y Q Q N v
BbIWWG I FOUND S o' 03 w 3
5. No current title work was furnished for the 0 0 XO O� 9_Z f IRON
preparation of this survey, legal description, recorded o,°�' EXISTING BUILDIN
I
or unrecorded easements and encumbrances ore G y I o
subject to revision upon receipt of current title Off. HO C OO O pp a ,n SET
35 5.8 -IRON I 4,[
work. 28" E 28.35
i
ut
w 1
p _SET I X1 0 �i X j BITUMINOUS �i a9S I 14
6. Elevation datum is based on assumed data. 60 z I IRON 1� 11 a�
HSJ Bench mark is located in the right of way of I _t_ j 0 r,_ n1! N 88�41� ^99, L
lb
Fremont Avenue North (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) L I- 1F;
Elevotion 100.00 I_
HSJ Bench mark is located in the adjoining alley I m r J �t0
r 'L____ 3.1w
(AS SHOWN ON SURVEY) C� g
Elevation 99.38 I c �b 9 °d 1 PA E S L "p� mo Q
7. This survey was made without the benefit of on o i O Io 4 I"
architectural plan. O O PR• OSED BUILDING N 22 0' O� w
O 4P L 0
J
CERTIFICATION: 1, ;.,Ld 0 1 9 Z l o w w
r
I hereby certify that this survey. Plan or repgr, "jY,�^�% ?L:.J .�i7 35.49 m L! I GARAGE N f t� SET p z z
f J K`
was prepared by me or under my direct su{)sI ei;•;Z SHED I �.�RON °,,o N Z
and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveypr 1 F�I I oI 1�IT I 9 la IIII n m, r n Z (t}
under the laws of the State of Minnesota I �I 99 SET IL_�P 4� r28 -_ET 1? 1., 9 q /�/22 1 f
w O
I
IRO J I °I' W a
N tl
A/ 04 r :n> U3 LA H W
Date: �1Lg11lt 25. 2006 i...I! 1 c�` 5i M o I^ I 9 g 9 I. r >-O Z
Z
G O' ,a1 a 0 y I. w
ai O O ui l�O ,.a' ➢i y99 22 1/i �.3 .J
/Thomas E Hod
wfl
Cl o X r `c• i� 0 Z W
Minn. Reg. No. 23677 I /34 %�WiUJI�t LOT 261_J X o .y O I m 0 W U
O'" STEPS a I
o, PROP: SPLIT LINE
1 �W O
LEGEND C•-
F- o II D o� z
1 i 5426 FREMOt�,Y AVE N DECK 1 GARAGE o (D a N LL
20.6 t -STORY BUILDING ;s O J� p J
FOUND Found Properly Monument (l O n
.OU ��FOOTPRINT 5 SQUARE FEET P L A
AREA o 99 O 0
SET IRON Set Properly Monument �p U 4 O ,84 ,»a 9g� N
IRON (Minn. Reg. No, 23677) G "p
1 cI c
I.(s�: Concrete LIJ I 14'
s 7 d
a� l� 9 o
Concrete Curb n o s I I H
co
m
Fence o, L `o C. t 1 i -f 00 T
J a aI
0 I- O O rn O 03
Overhead Electric Ir r I
W Power Pole X 8 128
I— S 8.41 W l 128.33 99 i� 9�1 6 v L SET
Air Conditioning Unit l SET J y 10� rv 1rn,. 9 •I `O IRON I 7 N M 0
t6' Deciduous Tree I 60 IRON V 1��� O1 STEPS Y 7.6 o N
,4
(Diameter in Inches) i j/ j j t0 0 X rl E %ISTINC
/i.
Gas Meter 0 vO L X r XOO [XISTING/ ,r /BWLOING
X 851.27G Existing Spot Elevation Gutter Z 9 i /BUILDING P GLSI'.PV c o
c y
X 934.3 Existing Spot Elevation 0 0�� 9
I— X,
m rEkI;�II N LL
i E LEV FLOOR _J 4`,4/�!� O 0
20 10 0 2 O Q ELEV. =03.32 J VVIItY
HSJ BENCHMARK I' r
I -TOP OF NAIL I` FOUND FINISHED FLOOR r N
IRON LEV =10156
SCALE IN FEET '��,yE
i
CAD File: 2006386.DwG
ReHeion Hisla•y Path; A \2006386 \0WG\
MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF
HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 26, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chair Willson at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chair Tim Willson, Commissioners Graydon Boeck, Gary Ford, Michael Parks, and Tim Roche
were present. Also present were Secretary to the Planning Commission/Planning and Zoning
Specialist Ronald Warren, and Planning Commission Recording Secretary Rebecca Crass.
Rachel Lund was absent and excused. Sean Rahn was absent and unexcused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28.2006
There was a motion by Commissioner Roche, seconded by Commissioner Ford,
to approve the minutes of the September 28, 2006 meeting as submitted. The motion passed.
Commissioner Gary Ford abstained as he was not present at the meeting.
CHAIR'S EXPLANATION
Chair Willson explained the Planning Commission's role as an advisory body. One of the
Commission's functions is to hold public hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council. The City Council makes all final
decisions in these matters.
APPLICATION NO. 2006 -012 TONY BERG
Chair Willson introduced Application No. 2006 -012, a request from Tony Berg to resubdivide
the property at 5420 Fremont Avenue North to reestablish two platted lots that have been
combined for tax purposes. This would allow the two lots to be used and sold separately.
Mr. Warren presented the staff report describing the location of the property and the proposal.
(See Planning Commission Information Sheet dated 10 -26 -06 for Application No. 2006 -012,
attached.) He explained that the process of combining parcels for tax purposes is an
administrative procedure that allows lots to be combined without the benefit of replatting. Once
it is done, the lots cannot be sold or conveyed separately without being uncombined or
resubdivided which requires approval of the City Council.
The Commission discussed various aspects of the process involved with reestablishing property
lines for lots previously combined for tax purposes. Mr. Warren provided clarification on the
resubdivision process. There was also discussion regarding setback requirements as well as
demolition or relocation of the existing garage on the parcel that does not contain a primary
residence. Mr. Warren explained how the City would handle the situation to assure that all city
requirements are met.
6 -15 -06
Page 1
PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATION NO. 2006 -012
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to open the
public hearing on Application No. 2006 -012, at 7:35 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
Chair Willson called for comments from the public.
The applicant, Mr. Tony Berg, 1142 Commerce Street, St Paul, Minnesota introduced himself
and stated that all of the issues discussed by the Commission will be addressed. He indicated
their plans involve moving the garage and building the new house at the same time.
Chair Willson asked Mr. Warren to explain to Mr. Berg what is required for a financial guarantee
on this project. Mr. Warren pointed out what forms are acceptable for a financial guarantee to
insure the project's completion.
Mr. Berg stated that he has no problem with the conditions of approval recommended by the City
Staff. He added that he plans to close up the windows /openings on the north side of the house
where the minimum 10 ft. setback will no longer exist and they plan to put an addition on the
back of the house.
Commissioner Roche asked if Mr. Berg is the owner of 5420 Fremont Avenue North. Mr. Berg
responded that his business partner owns the property and they are working together on this
project. However, Mr. Berg will be handling the building aspects of the project.
Mr. Warren interjected that the property lines would need to be reestablished and the
openings /windows on the north side of the property closed before building permits would be
issued.
No other persons from the public appeared before the Commission during the public hearing on
Application No. 2006 -012.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Ford, to close the
public hearing on Application No. 2006 -012, at 7:50 p.m. The motion passed unanimously.
The Chair called for further discussion or questions from the Commissioners.
The Commissioners interposed no objections to approval of the Application.
ACTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 2006 -012 TONY BERG
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Roche, to recommend
to the City Council that it approve Application No. 2006 -012, submitted by Tony Berg to
resubdivide the property at 5420 Fremont Avenue North to reestablish two platted lots that have
been combined for tax purposes subject to the following conditions:
1. The legal descriptions and survey showing the reestablishment of the underlying lots
6 -15 -06
Page 2
shall be filed with Hennepin County.
2. The City Assessor is authorized to process the resubdivision in conjunction with
Hennepin County.
3. The resubdivision approval does not comprehend approval of any other action
pertaining to the use of the property.
4. No variances from city ordinance requirements are implied. Any future structures on
the lots are required to meet setback requirements.
5. The applicant shall be responsible for modifying the existing single family residential
home on Lot 26 so that there are no doors, windows or other openings along the north
side of the building which is less than 10 ft. from the property line. Said modification
shall be accomplished prior to the filing of the survey to reestablish the underlying
properties.
6. The applicant shall have either made application for a building permit to construct a
single family home on the reestablished Lot 27 and to come into compliance with the
3 ft. minimum setback for an accessory building or execute a performance agreement
and post an appropriate financial guarantee to assure the removal of the garage and
shed on Lot 27 within one year. In no event, shall there be an accessory building or
buildings on Lot 27 within one year following the filing of the survey to reestablish
the underlying properties unless there is a properly constructed single family home on
said lot.
Voting in favor: Chair Willson, Commissioners, Boeck, Ford, Parks, and Roche. The
motion passed unanimously.
The Council will consider the application at its November 13, 2006 meeting. The applicant must
be present. Major changes to the application as reviewed by the Planning Commission will
require that the application be returned to the Commission for reconsideration.
OTHER BUSINESS
Chair Willson pointed out that Commissioners Boeck, Ford and Rahn are up for reappointment
to the Plannin g Commission and asked the Commissioners to let the Mayor know if they intend
to continue to serve. Commissioner Boeck said he will continue to serve and Commissioner
Ford said he was uncertain and would report back to the Chair.
There was no other business.
ADJOURNMENT
There was a motion by Commissioner Boeck, seconded by Commissioner Parks, to adjourn the
Planning Commission meeting. The motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at
8:05 p.m.
6 -15 -06
Page 3
Chair
Recorded and transcribed by:
Rebecca Crass
6 -15 -06
Page 4
City Council Agenda Item No. lla
PROCLAMATION
DECLARING NOVEMBER 27 THROUGH DECEMBER 4, 2006,
TO BE CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS WEEK
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection report
cancer as the leading cause of death by disease among children in the United
States. This tragic disease is detected in more than 13,000 of our nations young
people each year; and
WHEREAS, Steven A. Firestein, founded the
American Cancer Fund for Children, Inc. and sister organization, Kids Cancer
Connection, Inc. nearly a decade and a half ago and is dedicated to helping these
children and their families; and
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection provide a
variety of vital patient psychosocial services to children undergoing cancer
treatment at Children's Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota's Department of
Pediatrics, Hematology /Oncology and the University of Minnesota Cancer Center
Department of Pediatrics, Hematology- Oncology and Blood Marrow
Transplantation in Minneapolis /St. Paul, as well as, participating hospitals
throughout the country, thereby enhancing the quality of life for these children and
their families; and
WHEREAS, Through its uniquely sensitive and comforting Magical Caps for Kids program, the
American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection distributes
thousands of beautifully hand made caps and decorated baseball caps to children
who want to protect their heads following the trauma of chemotherapy, surgery,
bone marrow transplants and /or radiation treatments; and
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection also sponsor
nationwide Courageous Kid Recognition Award Ceremonies and hospital
celebrations in honor of children's determination and bravery to fight the battle
against childhood cancer.
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 November 27
through December 4, 2006, to be CHILDHOOD CANCER AWARENESS WEEK in the City of
Brooklyn Center.
November 13. 2006
Date Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Sharon Knutson
From: Myrna Kragness
Sent: Saturday, October 21, 2006 5:06 PM
Sharon Knutson
Subject: FW: Brooklyn Center Childhood Cancer Awareness Week
Sharon,
Will you put this on our next agenda
Thank you
From: acfckids @earthlink.net [mailto:acfckids earthlink.net]
Sent: Fri 10/20/2006 7:18 PM
To: Myrna Kragness
Subject: Brooklyn Center Childhood Cancer Awareness Week
Dear Mayor Cragness and Staff,
I am writing to request a proclamation recognizing Childhood Cancer Awareness Week
in Brooklyn Center, during the week of November 27, 2006 through December 4, 2006.
Cancer in children is the leading cause of death by disease in the United States.
More than 13,000 children are diagnosed with cancer each year.
Albert Espalin is a longtime KCC parent volunteer and area contact in Hennepin County.
e will continue to coordinate services including our popular "Courageous
IM d Recognition Award" program at Childrens Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota's
partment of Pediatrics, Hematology /Oncology and University of Minnesota Cancer
Center Department of Pediatrics, Hematology Oncology and Blood Marrow
Transplantation in Minneapolis /St. Paul
I have included sample text below for your reference. Thank you in advance for
your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven Firestein, M.A.
Volunteer Chair
American Cancer Fund for Children, Inc.
Kids Cancer Connection, Inc.
IRS 501 C 3 13- 3780954
h": /www.iewishioumal.com /home /searchview.Dht)?id =15233
httt):H www .skullbaseinstitute.com /Dress /release 18.htm
SAMPLE TEXT--
Childhood Cancer Awareness Week
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection report
cancer as the leading cause of death by disease among children in the United States.
This tragic disease is detected in more than 13,000 of our nations young people
each year; and
A WHEREAS, Steven A. Firestein, a descendent of cosmetics magnate Max Factor, founded
e American Cancer Fund for Children, Inc. and sister organization, Kids Cancer
Connection, Inc. nearly a decade and a half ago and is dedicated to helping these
children and their families; and
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection provide
10/21/2006
a variety of vital patient psychosocial services to children undergoing cancer treatment
at Childrens Hospitals and Clinics of Minnesota's Department of Pediatrics,
Hematology /Oncology and the University of Minnesota Cancer Center Department of
Pediatrics, Hematology Oncology and Blood Marrow Transplantation in Minneapolis /St.
Paul, as well as, participating hospitals throughout the country, thereby enhancing
0 quality of life for these children and their families; and
HEREAS Through its uniquely sensitive and comforting Magical Caps for Kids program,
g q Y g g p p
the American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection distributes thousands
of beautifully hand made caps and decorated baseball caps to children who want to
protect their heads following the trauma of chemotherapy, surgery, bone marrow transplants
and/or radiation treatments; and
WHEREAS, The American Cancer Fund for Children and Kids Cancer Connection also
sponsor nationwide Courageous Kid Recognition Award Ceremonies and hospital celebrations
in honor of children's determination and bravery to fight the battle against
childhood cancer; now, therefore, be it,
www.kidscancerconnection.org
(818) 702 -6422
"Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much"
10/21/2006
City Council Agenda Item No. llb
OT City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 10/24/06
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Jim Glasoe, Director of Community Activities, Recreation and Services l
SUBJECT: Resolution Expressing Appreciation for the Donation of the Brooklyn Cent tice
Association in Support of the 2007 Safety Camp
The Brooklyn Center Police Association has presented to the City a donation of five hundred
dollars. ($500.00) They have designated that it be used to support the 2007 Safety Camp
program.
The annual Safety Camp program provides safety related training to kids in grades two to four.
During this two day camp, instructors from North Memorial Hospital, the Red Cross and the
Brooklyn Center Police and Fire Departments instruct the students in issues relating to personal,
bicycle, water and fire safety.
Staff recommends acceptance of this generous donation, and asks that it be coded to the
corresponding activity budget.
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.cityofbrooklyncenter.org
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its
adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR THE DONATION OF THE
BROOKLYN CENTER POLICE ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF THE 2007 SAFETY
CAMP
WHEREAS, the Brooklyn Center Police Association has presented to the City a
donation of five hundred dollars, ($500.00) and has designated it be used to support the 2007 Safety
Camp program, and
WHEREAS, the City Council is appreciative of this donation, and commends the
Brooklyn Center Police Association for its civic efforts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota:
I Acknowledges the donation with gratitude.
2. Appropriates the donation to the corresponding activity budget.
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. 11c
i
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City M�9"
DATE: November 7, 2006
SUBJECT: Northwest Cable Resolution Request
Recommendation:
Consider adoption of the resolution urging the League of Minnesota Cities to reconsider
its support of proposed Minnesota legislation that would remove the build out provisions
in Chapter 23 8, related to cable service of Minnesota state law.
Background:
The proposed resolution has been provided to the City Council by the Northwest Suburbs
Cable Communications Commission. This topic has been discussed at two Council work
sessions and presentations have been made by Mr. Greg More and Mr. Rex Newman.
Following the last work session the staff was directed to place the item on a regular
agenda for action.
There is apparent disagreement between the League of Minnesota Cities position and the
position of the NSCCC regarding this issue and in regards to the appropriate legislative
solution. Adopting the resolution allows the City of Brooklyn Center to go on record in
support of the NSCCC position. If the resolution is adopted copies will be forwarded to
the LMC and to our State legislators.
C:
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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
Member introduced the following resolution
and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION URGING THE LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES TO
RECONSIDER ITS SUPPORT OF PROPOSED MINNESOTA LEGISLATION
THAT WOULD REMOVE THE BUILD OUT PROVISIONS IN CHAPTER
238, RELATED TO CABLE SERVICE OF MINNESOTA STATE LAW
WHEREAS, the City respectfully requests that the League of Minnesota Cities
reconsider its support of proposed Minnesota legislation which would remove the build out
provisions of Chapter 238, related to cable service of Minnesota State Law; and
WHEREAS, the City pledges to work together with the League of Minnesota
Cities and other interest groups to support policies regarding change that it is believed will
continue to protect the rights available to the City and other members of the NWSCCC and they
are also willing and open to legislative change that may accommodate the needs and interests of
others to the extent any such change is not contrary to the City or NWSCCC interests; and
WHEREAS, the City will support efforts directed against legislative change to
ensure that all persons residing in the City will have unfettered access to all forms of information
that those that use public rights-
ts to ensure
broadest range of ri p
resources in the b rights and interes
of -way and benefit from the use of public rights -of -way are continued to be obligated to provide
compensation in the form of franchise fees, public, educational, and governmental access
funding, and other support services as well as ongoing community needs requirements
notwithstanding technological changes or advancements; and
WHEREAS, the City will submit this Resolution to the Executive Director's
to Cities and such other persons as the City and members of the
office of the League of Minnesota p
NWSCCC believe are in a position to affect legal changes relating to the matters outlined herein;
and
November 13, 2006
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.
NORTHWEST SUBURBS CABLE COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
6900 Winnetka Avenue North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55428
(612) 536 -8355
TO: BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: GREG MOORE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NWSCCC
DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006
RE: RESOLUTION ASKING THE LMC TO RECONSIDER ITS POSITION
SUPPORTING STATE LEGISLATION WHICH WOULD REMOVE BUILD -OUT
REQUIREMENTS FOR THOSE PROVIDING COMPETITIVE CABLE TELEVSION
SERVICE.
Thank you again for giving me the time to explain the Northwest Suburbs Cable
Communication Commission (NWSCCC) position with respect to the state requirement
that competitors to the incumbent cable operator build -out and serve the same area as the
incumbent cable operator serves. The NWSCCC is asking all its member cities to
continue to work together, to exercise local control, and to take a position on this
important issue. To date, eight of the nine member cities of NWSCCC have passed the
resolution.
The NWSCCC requirement that cable companies must serve the entire developed
community has prevented cherry picking and has resulted in every household having
available the same cable service, the same high speed internet service and now telephone
service at the same price. The build -out requirement in Minnesota State law encourages
cities to work cooperatively and collaboratively to make sure that multi million dollar
cable and telecommunications companies continue to treat our communities and our
neighborhoods fairly. The build -out requirement makes sure no one is denied access to a
cable competitor because of the neighborhood they live in.
Removing the build -out requirement from state law will mean that some neighborhoods
will certainly enjoy the benefits of a competitive cable operator. But many if not most
neighborhoods will be at a disadvantage, especially in first -ring suburban cities like
Brooklyn Center. These neighborhoods will see a combination of higher prices and
poorer service, increasingly limited by dated technology. The NWSCCC and its member
cities have always believed this to be unfair.
Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Golden Valley Maple Grove New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale
We also believe redevelopment efforts will suffer if build -out requirements are removed
from state law. Again, communities that can boast of competitive cable service providers,
the best technology, and the lowest prices will be at a distinct advantage in attracting
development. But communities that cannot not make this claim will have another hurdle
to overcome in their efforts to redevelop older neighborhoods and commercial districts.
Removing build -out requirements will encourage powerful cable and telecommunication
companies to pit neighborhood against neighborhood, city against city as they pressure
cities to serve only the most affluent neighborhoods, thereby minimizing their investment
and maximizing their profits. This should not be allowed to happen and the LMC should
not support legislation which will certainly encourage these tactics.
The NWSCCC requests that you exercise local control, pass this resolution, and choose
in favor of treating everyone in your community fairly by retaining build -out
requirements in state law which encourages cities to work together for the good of all, not
just the most fortunate.
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: October 20, 2006
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City N05
SUBJECT: Northwest Cable Resolution Request
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
The staff requires direction regarding City Council's interest in having this resolution
placed on regular agenda for official action or if additional information is required.
BACKGROUND
Discussion of this request from the Cable Commission was postponed for two weeks so
that Ann Higgins with the League of Minnesota Cities could provide the Council with a
additional information from the Leagues perspective.
In addition to the request, I have attached transcribed notes of voice message received
from both Ann Higgins and Gregory More. I believe this information does a pretty good
job of outlining and describing the divergent views on this topic. In addition I spoke with
Mr. Moore on the phone, will be able to elaborate on his perspective, if he is unable to
attend the meeting
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
Does the policy goal of the City Council align with policies of the League of
Minnesota Cities or does it align with policies of the Northwest Suburbs Cable
Communications Commission.
Is the City of Brooklyn Center interests best served by taking a formal position on
this issue?
G: \City Mana .ger\SUBURBAN CABLE WORKSESSION.MEWRM.doc
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 PAX (763) 56.9 -3434
FAX (763) 569 -3494
www.cityolbrooklyncen ter. org
Hi Curt, this is Ann Higgens. I have a fax from Kathleen Carmody indicating that the
Council is going to discuss the issue of our league policy on competitive cable
franchising at your Oct 23 meeting and I have a copy of a resolution from the northwest
cable commission suggesting that they want you to (adopt this resolutions that legal
changes that would remove the build out requirements iin the interest of the city. That's
not a completely complete way of describing what our �osition is. We did in fact support
legislation last year and the year before that. Our pollcy position is the same as what
macta had last year and the year before that. Mact4 represents the cable franchise
authorities and their administrators, but Greg at th Northwest Cable commission
dropped out of that organization two years ago over t 's issue. What our position is, is
that the term area served which belongs in a particular part of the cable statute in state
law should be deleted in favor of requirements that ci :ies or cable commissions, multi
jurisdictional commissions, which would be Greg's, would determine for themselves so
that if a city that had a local franchising authority cor. sisting of only the City Council
wanted to have competitive service from a provider that was willing to provide it to that
city maybe on a different kind of basis than the current incumbent, they could make up
their minds whether that met the needs of that community in such a way that they could
grant it or not so that we wouldn't be bound by a straigH jacket like the law works now.
Meaning that in the past the commission in your area Chas insisted that any competitor
serve all the cities in the commission area. That has larkely been something that smaller
telephone company in particular have been unwilling to come to the table to negotiate
because they have no way to get a business plan togather that would give them any
financing from the private sector that would take such a :hance on their being able to take
on that kind of development because it is a too big of ar area. But Gregg is insistent and
the commission members have been insistent that th y do not want that area served
provision changed at all in state law and the league position is that we do so we have
position that is not in agreement with Northwest Cable! Commission. They testified last
session, Greg, and also another cable administrator that kou can't trust cities to make that
decision. We think and we have a policy that supports strongly, the idea or the concept of
the value of local control and local decision making, so we would prefer to see that
position held forward or moved forward and for some kind of compromise in light of the
fact that in MN we have a lot, over 80 small telepho�e companies that are providing
competition in fifty cities throughout the state with the icumbent cable company. Now I
know the real story behind Comcast and the big ope reators here in the good cities in
particular, they have threatened cable administrators that they will pull out of their
current franchise obligations to the extent that any changes are made for the competitor.
So it sets up the possibility for some outpoured events happening if a city in the NW
should decide on its own to negotiate terms of a franchi�e separate from the commission.
I am not even sure legally how and whether you folk$ could do that in the first place
because you are participating and have giving over authority to the commission in the
NW to do all that negotiating. I don't know, but I believT possibly that individual cities in
your area would have to withdraw from the commission in order to set up your own local
franchising authority to do it and I am not sure how :hat would even be feasible and
whether you would even would want to do that. So, I Inow that Gregg has been a very
big champion of universal service and I respect an4 know how important that is
particularly when you have a multi jurisdictional area. But the fact is that in the current
I
i
setting it appears that what is in the best interest of th� commission may not be. in the
interest of all the cities involved in it now. But I really haven't heard from any of the
cities directly on the question. I have heard from Gregg and he has been part of our
negotiations that we do have a version of the bill that I could share with you at some
point. I am going to be out of town today and tomonpw, but I could send it over on
Friday that maybe you could look over before the Oct 231' meeting.
i
i
i
i
sorry I missed our call. Let met and ex
Greg Morns o Y lain and then give p
Curt g y Y
me a call if you have any questions or I am not being too clear here. For the last
three years in a row, the Minnesota Telephone Assciation and the Minnesota
League of Cities has backed a Bill that would remove the area served language
from the level playing field provisions from Chapter F38. Now, what the level
playing felid provisions are is that a new competitorlhas to pay the same amount
of franchise fees, has the same Public Education G Access
obligations and has to serve the same area. The telephone industry and the
league reached an agreement several years ago whereby they backed a bill that
would allow for the removal of the area served tang jage from State Law which
would give the cities the option allowing a new com etitor and to serve only a
portion of the city now served by the incumbent. So a cities are interested in
doing that apparently however our group, the Nine it y group, p, The Northwest
Cable Commission has been opposed to that than a in law for the last three
years and we have lobbied against the league and lobbied at the legislature to
keep the status quo. Our group has felt, in fact we fad a proposal from a
telephone group to serve just new development in the cities of Plymouth and
Maple Grove and leaving everybody else out includ'ng the rest of the Cities of
Maple Grove and Plymouth. So, generally speaking, this group a very
thinks its
bad idea to allow telephone groups and competitors to approach cities and say
we are just going to serve these areas and leave ar as out. Now, the interesting
thing is, at the Federal level there has been major legislation sponsored this year,
or bills put forward this year for national franchising so they could avoid the cities
That bill hasn't made it yet and the
and the states all together. T at Y Y only have the
9
lame p Y duck art of the session left to try to get it done. In that legislation one of the
major provisions is what is known as build out, which is essentially building out
an entire area, which is the same issue as the area served in state law. On that
bill, the Minnesota League of Cities and the National League of Cities have both
opposed that legislation. We don't know if this bill w II come up again next year or
not, but if not, certainly state wide franchising may ome up, and again, area
served is going to be one of the key debates, so oul commission wanted us to
draft a resolution to send to the Cities to then send' o the league, you know we
are collecting them, asking the league to reconsider its position on that bill.
City Council Agenda Item No. lld
OX City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 7, 2006
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works 7;5
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Early Order/Purchase of a Street Sweeper,
Equipment No. 43
The Central Garage vehicle replacement schedule for 2007 includes the replacement of one
Street Sweeper unit (Equipment Identification No. 43). The current 1997 model sweeper is
normally on a nine year replacement schedule. Replacement was extended from 2006 to 2007
due to budget reduction measures that were instituted in 2003.
Equipment vendors with the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture anticipate a six
percent increase in the purchase price for this type of equipment in 2007 due to continued
increases in steel and manufacturing costs. However, equipment orders for street sweepers can
still be filled under the 2006 Cooperative Purchasing contract prices until December of this year.
Equipment delivery and payment would be after January 1, 2007.
The 2006 purchase price for the street sweeper is $111,521.48 including sales tax after trade.
The equipment vendor has indicated that the anticipated delivery date is in March 2007. The
Central Garage equipment replacement balance for this street sweeper is projected to have
sufficient funds to cover the purchase price noted above.
Attached for consideration is a City Council resolution authorizing the early order of one street
sweeper through the State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture.
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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EARLY ORDER/PURCHASE OF A STREET
SWEEPER, EQUIPMENT NO. 43
WHEREAS, the Central Garage vehicle replacement schedule for 2007 includes the
replacement of one street sweeper unit, Equipment Identification Number 43; and
WHEREAS, City of Brooklyn Center can place an early equipment order for said street
sweeper through the 2006 State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture to avoid a potential
price escalation in 2007; and
WHEREAS, an Elgin Street Sweeper Model Pelican-P is available on the State of
Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture Contract at a total estimated cost of $111,521.48; and
WHEREAS, equipment delivery and billing will be after January 1, 2007, more
specifically anticipated in March 2007; and
WHEREAS, the Central Garage Division will have a vehicle replacement balance for
Equipment No. 43 to cover the purchase price of said sweeper in March 2007.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED b the City Council ofthe City ofBrookl
Y Y tY Yn
Center, Minnesota that the early order and purchase of one Elgin Street Sweeper, Model Pelican-P, as
part of the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture at a total estimated cost of $111,521.48
is hereby approved.
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
woo
I
I
EL el�can
k
Ii i
I I
r II I
1
Eisin'i�eic�r+
ELGIN PELICAN STREET SWEEPER
City Council Agenda Item No. 11e
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 3, 2006
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing the Early Order/Purchase of a Rotary Mower Unit,
Equipment No. 250
In 2002, the City purchased a four wheel drive Toro rotary mower tractor unit with a 16 -ft wide
mowing deck. This mower unit is the largest mower unit in the City fleet and is used for
multiple purposes, such as mowing parks in the summer and clearing trails, sidewalks and
skating rinks in the winter. The mower unit has an equipment replacement cycle of eight years.
This equipment item has required extensive repairs over the past four years due to various
failures of the four wheel drive and hydraulic systems. The total repair costs to date are
approximately $14,000 above normal maintenance requirements. Public Works staff recently
conducted a meeting with representatives from Toro to discuss our concerns with escalating
repair costs for this mower unit.
Due to the City's concerns, the local Toro dealer, MTI of Brooklyn Center, has offered to assist
the City with replacing the unit by providing a trade -in credit of $28,602 and purchase price for a
new four wheel drive unit at the price listed on the 2006 State of Minnesota Cooperative
Purchasing Venture program. The purchase price on the 2006 State bid is $70,485. The trade -in
value for this 2002 mower would normally be approximately $17,000.
Toro representatives have indicated that their current models of large rotary mowers have been
redesigned with improved four wheel drive and hydraulic systems. The City's other (non -four
wheel drive) Toro equipment has generally exceeded our expectations for reliability and low
repair costs.
The rotary mower unit has accumulated sufficient replacement balance to allow for early
replacement based on the trade -in offer indicated above. Early replacement would allow the City
to avoid future excessive repair costs that will likely be necessary to keep the current mower unit
in operation. The attached City Council resolution would allow City staff to place an early order
for the rotary mower 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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
Member introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption:
is RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EARLY ORDER/PURCHASE OF A
ROTARY MOWER UNIT, EQUIPMENT NO. 250
WHEREAS, the City Equipment No. 250 is a 16 -ft span, rotary -type turf mower that
was purchased in 2002 with an anticipated replacement cycle of 9 years; and
WHEREAS, said mower unit has required an abnormally high level of costly repairs to
the four -wheel drive and hydraulic control systems; and
WHEREAS, the equipment manufacturer of said mower unit has offered above market
trade -in value for said mower unit to be applied towards the purchase of a replacement mower in an
attempt to partially compensate the City for past repair costs and avoid continued repair cost for the
existing mower unit; and
WHEREAS, the list price for a replacement Toro Groundmaster 580 -D rotary mower is
$70,485 on the 2006 State of Minnesota Cooperative Purchasing Venture contract and the
manufacturer is offering $28,602 trade -in for the existing mower unit, resulting in a net purchase price
of $44,605.40 including sales tax; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Support Services staff has determined that the Central Garage
equipment replacement balance has sufficient funds to cover the purchase price stated above.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Brooklyn
Center, Minnesota that the early order and purchase of one Toro Groundmaster Rotary Mower, Model
580 -D, as part of the Minnesota State Cooperative Purchasing Venture at a total estimated net cost of
$44,605.40 is hereby approved.
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.
G et down
t0 business.
When productivity is top priority, there's one
1 6'(4.9 machine people turn to more than any other: the
Toro' Groundsmasterl 580 -D. With a 16'(4.9 m)
Toro Traction Plus cutting swath, it can mow an entire acre in less than
drive system
5 minutes. No wonder it's in such high demand at
gr oss uncut parks, corporate campuses, and municipal facilities.
ACE If you mow by the acre, the
diagn s
Groundsmaster 580 -D is the
logical choice.
I
i
i
Count on The industry's toughest spindle assembly.
Durability The 580 -D spindle assemblies are tested to take a beating that
would destroy most spindle assemblies. A cast iron housing with
a massive 9 (23.8 cm) diameter base absorbs impacts and
distributes the load across the robust deck shell. Plus, Timkin'
tapered roller bearings last up to six times longer than ball bearings.'
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY WORK SESSION
November 13, 2006
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 public. The packet ring binder is
located at the front of the Council Chambers by the Secretary.
ACTIVE DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Major Plan Amendment
2. Special Assessment Policies Riverwood Neighborhood
3. Report on the Status of the Days Inn Purchase
4. AMM Proposed Legislative Policies
Pending List for Future Work Sessions
Charter Amendments Charter Commission
Revisions to Sign Ordinance Banners Council
Financial Commission Member Recruitment Councilmember Niesen
January 2007
Audit Committee Councilmember Niesen
Shin C! f reek Watershed Management Commission
!Wi�iss i
(ut[J 5f t r' i•M ,:�t.� t i l t a rs:m
3235 Fernbrook Lane N Plymouth, MN 55447
Tel: 763.553.1144 Fax: 763.553.9326
Email: Judie cNass.biz Webslte: 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 Watershed
Management Plan. The Commissions will take public comment on this Major Plan Amendment
until 4:30 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 a specific set of management actions to manage and improve those
resources;
A revised Capital Improvement Program; and
A revised Cost Share Policy that provides that 25 percent of the cost of qualifying capital projects
would be funded by the county ad valorem tax levy 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 Commissions 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 by November 17, 2006 to Judie Anderson at JASS, 3235
Fernbrook Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447, or iudiena.iass.biz. We appreciate your review and look forward
to your comments.
Sincerely,
G� G TL" Cgrstexs
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:4Shingle Creek\ManagementPlan\Major Plan Amendment 2006(1.- conveying Major Plan Amendment.doc
Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Champlin Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale
Notice of Major Plan Amendment
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions propose to amend their
joint Second Generation Management Plan to adopt a Water Quality 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 tax levy across all real
property in the watershed. This Plan Amendment also proposes revisions to clarify the conditions under
which no plan amendment would be needed to accommodate minor changes to the CIP. These revisions
to the Plan are shown as additions (underlined) or deletions (strike outs) to Sections 7 and 9 and
Appendix G of the Management Plan. The Water Quality Plan would be adopted in its entirety as a new
Appendix I to the Management Plan.
Water Quality Plan
The Water Quality Plan was prepared by the Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee. The Plan
establishes numerical water quality goals for the lakes and streams in the two 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 expand monitoring, prepare resource management plans,
increase public education and outreach activities, and construct capital improvements.
There are numerous water resources in the watersheds that have been included on the state 303(d) list of
Impaired Waters, including impairments to Shingle Creek and Bass Creek, and impairments to 13 of the
16 lakes in the watersheds. The Plan assumes that as TMDLs are completed for these water resources, the
TMDL Implementation Plans will refine water quality goals and management activities by water
resource, and the Capital Improvement Program will need to be revised to incorporate additional projects
identified in the TMDLs.
The Major Plan Amendment would adopt the Water Quality Plan as new Appendix I of the Second
Generation Management Plan.
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
The Commissions propose to revise the CIP to incorporate projects to be constructed by the member
cities to improve the water resources in the watershed. 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 process for soliciting, prioritizing, and scoring potential
projects. Projects for an Interim CIP (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 eligible for 25 percent cost participation from the county property tax levied on all real
property 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 $500,000.
2. Revision of the CIP incorporating specific projects for the years 2007 -2009.
3. Revision of the plan amendment procedure to clarify the conditions under which no plan
amendment would be needed to accommodate minor changes to the CIP.
JAShinde Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packetWotice of Major Plan Amendment.doc
-1-
Cost Share Policy
The Cost Share Policy provides that projects that meet certain scoring thresholds are eligible to be funded
25 percent from the county property tax levied on all real property within the watershed, up to a
maximum of $250,000 per project. Another 25 percent of the cost would be apportioned to the city or
cities benefiting from the improvement, and 50 percent apportioned based on contributing area.
Participating cities are free to negotiate an alternate apportionment if desired. The Commission intends to
use as a working guideline a maximum annual leery 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 capital projects, the SCWM
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 lake and stream TMDLs. The lake TMDLs are expected to
be finalized in 2007 and the stream TMDLs in 2008, providing 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 two or more
3. Do all the cities responsible for paying for the 75 percent balance of the cost of the project agree
to go forward 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 flooding.
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 would
require a minor plan amendment, and those that would not require any plan amendment. 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 revised 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 Engineering Nees 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 the clarifying language as shown in Section 9 of the
Management Plan.
JAShin_ele Creek \CCIPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packet\Notice of Major Plan Amendment.doc
-2-
SHINGLE CREEK WATERSHED AL4NAGEMENT COMIVIISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006-03
Commencing the Review Process of an Amendment
to the Second Generation Watershed Management Plan
for the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission
Adopting the Water Quality PIan
and Revised Capital Improvement Program
WHEREAS, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission, «rith advice and
assistance from its Technical Advisory Committee of representatives from its member cities and
from the Metropolitan Council, state review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil
Resources, has developed a Neater Quality Plan, which includes establishment of numerical lake
and stream water quality goals; a wetland functions and values analysis process and schedule; and
an associated management plan and Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Commission's approved Second Generation Watershed Management
Plan included general waxer quality goals and policies and specified that more detail would be
developed in a later Water Quality Plan that would be adopted as a Major Plan Amendment to the
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Water Quality Plan the Commission 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
WHEREAS, the Commission proposes that its completed Water Quality Plan be adopted
as Appendix I to its Second Generation Watershed Management Plan, and that the Capital
Improvement Program in Section 7 and Appendix G and the Plan Amendment Process in Section
9 of the Second Generation Plan be revised, and submits this Major Plan Amendment for
consideration by various reviewing agencies; and
WHEREAS, under Minnesota 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 Water and Soil
Resources for review in the same extent and manner as required for the adoption of the
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the review 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
A Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment adopting the
Water Quality Plan and a revised Capital Improvement Program has been prepared and shall be
submitted to the nine member cities and entities listed above. Said agencies shall have 60 days
after submission to return their comments to the Shingle Creek Watershed Management
RESOLUTION 2006-03 26D6- 03_Plan AmmdmentDOC
Commission. The comments shall be addressed to Ms. Judie Anderson, JASS, 3235 Fernbrook
Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447.
Chair
ATTEST:
Recording Secretary
RESOLUTION 2006 -03 2006 -03 Plan AmendmentDOC
i
WEST MISSISSIPPI WATERSHED A ANAGEA'IENT COWEESSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -03
Commencing the Review Process of an Amendment
to the Second Generation Watershed Management Plan
for the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission
Adopting the Water Quality Plan
and Revised Capital Improvement Program
WHEREAS, the West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission, with advice
and assistance from its Technical Advisory Committee of representatives from its member cities
and from the Metropolitan Council, state review agencies, and the Board of Water and Soil
Resources, has developed a Water Quality Plan, which includes establishment of numerical lake
and stream wafer quality goals; a wetland functions and values analysis process and schedule; and
an associated management plan and Capital Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the Commission's approved Second Generation Watershed Management
Plan included general water quality goals and policies and specified that more detail would be
Water Quality Plan that would be adopted as a Major Plan Amendment to the
developed ed in a later W r p
P
Q t5'
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, as part of the Water Quality Plan the Commission 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
WHEREAS, the Commission proposes that its completed Water Quality Plan be adopted
as Appendix I to its Second Generation Watershed Management Plan, and that the Capital
Improvement Program in Section 7 and Appendix G and the Plan Amendment Process in Section
9 of the Second Generation Plan be revised, and submits this Major Plan Amendment for
consideration by various reviewing agencies; and
WHEREAS, under Minnesota 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 Water and Soil
Resources for review in the same extent and manner as required for the adoption of the
Management Plan; and
WHEREAS, the review process commences with the submission of the Plan
Amendment to the five member cities and the entities listed above, and said units of government
have 60 days for comment
NOW, TIEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows:
A Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Major Plan Amendment adopting the
Water Quality Plan and a revised Capital Improvement Program has been prepared and shall be
submitted to the five member cities and entities listed above. Said agencies shall have 60 days
after submission to return their comments to the West Mississippi Watershed Management
RESOLUTION 2006 -03 J:tShingle Creel:\CIPsV jor Plan Amend- °nt\SepteTnb: r packdCOD6 -03 Plan Amendme
Commission. The comments shall be addressed to Ms. Judie Anderson, JASS, 3235 Fernbrook
Lane, Plymouth, MN 55447.
Chair
ATTEST:
.c�qC -e-vv
Recording Secretary
RE50LUnON 2006 -03 J:Zhing)e Cre- JAC1PsWajar Plan AmendmentlSept=ber packe WD6-D3 Plan Amendm a
Section 7 capital
Improvements Program and Work Plan
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 will 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 CIP 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
j Deleted. May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7 -1
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006
Section 7 Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
Strategies:
a) The Commissions will continue to control peak runoff rates at management sector boundaries
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
100 year profile will be reevaluated.
b) The Commissions' more active education and public outreach program will provide regular
information to cities and local media for distribution, useful information on the Commissions'
web site, opportunities for, and more interaction with schools.
c) The Commissions' education and public outreach program will meet minimum requirements
for NPDES Phase H 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 implementation 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.
f) The Commissions will prioritize wetlands for preservation and wetlands for potential
restoration. Buffers will be required adjacent to wetlands and watercourses as development or
redevelopment occurs. Cities that are the LGUs for WCA will perform functions and values
analyses on their wetlands in accordance with Commission standards. For those cities where
the Commissions are the LGU, the Commissions' engineer will 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 construction by the Commissions; and as match or
"seed money" to encourage local improvements.
Deleted: May 20D4
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7 -2
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan t septembi r 2(06
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 primary 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 future
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 Shingle 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 CIP.
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 city activities; provide matching grants to cities to accomplish specific
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
alternatives 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
Dlannine Durposes only.
The primary source of funds to accomplish these projects and programs is member cities. Many of the
member cities have in place a Storm Sewer 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 I
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7 -3
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan C Septempi r 2006
Section 7 Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
The annual cost of the administrative and op eratin,_programs of the WMOs is about $1.70 per capita,_ Deleted: price to the cities of
or about $4.40 per household per year. implementing the crn as well A
'(Deleted: costs
The Commissions have several -J capital projects financing_ Under the authority provided by Formatted: Font: 12 pt
J
Minn Stat 10313.251 Section VIII, Subd. 5, the Commissions have the authority to certify for payment Formatted: Font: 12 pt 1
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
funding percent of theproject cost from the Henne in Coun ad valorem tax le -1 Formatted: Font: 12 pt J
-p m Font
�Formatted: Font: 12 pt
Projects may also be 100 percent funded by cities_ The JPA provides two alternates: projects may be Formatted: Formatted: Font: 12 pt
funded through a negotiated 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
using the same 50% land area 50% tax capacity formula as the general assessments to cities. The
latter may be amended py 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 capital project funding mechanisms provided in the JPA as described above. It is the
intent of the Commissions to finance capital projects according to this policy, if agreement can be
reached with the affected cities. The policy provides as follows:
For any capital project. 100 percent funding from the ad valorem tax levy or from all cities based on Formatted: Indent: Lett: 0.25^ J
the funding formula is and would continue to be options to consider. However, the Cost Share Policy
apportions the cost between the watershed as a whole; the area that receives direct benefit; and the
contributing /indirect benefiting area.
For capital projects that have been identified in a Commission- adopted or approved TMDL or Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25
management plan:
1. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the project, to a maximum share of
$250,000.
2. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method spread across all
taxpayers within the watershed.
3. The Commission should use a maximum annual levy of $500,000 as a working guideline. Formatted: Bullets and Numbering 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 would 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 Capital Improvements Program and Work Plan
y
5. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for payment of their Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
share, for example through special assessments, storm drainage utility, general tax levy, or
watershed management tax district.
Tables 1 and 2 below show the estimated one -time cost of various tax levy levels based on the 2006 net
tax capacity of land within the two watersheds.
Table 1
Calculating the Impact of Various Levy Amounts on Average Properties
Shingle Creek Watershed
I Additional Tax Formatted Table
Tax Capacity $250,000 $500,000 $1,000,000
Levy Levy Levy
$150,000 home I $1500 $2.741 $5.49 $10.981
I $250,000 home I $2,500 I $4.58 I $9.15 I $18,31
$350,000 home I $3.500 I $6.41 I $12.82 I $25.63
I $500,000 apt I $6.250 I $11.44 I $22.88 I $45.77 I
I $500,000 C/I I $9,250 I $16.94 I $33.87 I $67.74 I
I $1,000,000 C/I $19,250 I $35.24 I $70.49 I $140.98
$250,000 $136,548,631 1 0.00183 of tax capacity
I $500,000 $136,548,631 0.00366 of tax capacity
$1,000.000 $136,548.631 0.00732 of tax capacity
*2006 Net Tax Capacity 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
I Additional Tax 1
Tax Capacity $100,000 $250,000 I $500,000
Levy Levy Levy
$150,000 home I $1,500 I $2.54 I $6.34 I $12.69 I
$250,000 home I $2,500 $4.23 i $10.58 I $21.15 I
I $350,000 home 1 $3,500 1 $5.92 l $14.80 I $29.61
$500,000 apt I $6,250 I $10.57 I $26.44 I $52.88
$500,000 C/I I $9,250 I $15.65 I $39.13 I $78.26 1
I $1,000,000 CA $19,250 $32.56 I $81.43 I $162.86
$250,000 $59,118,278* 1 0.00423 of tax capacity
I $500,000 $59,118,278* 1 0.00846 of tax capacity
I $100,000 $59,118,278* 1 0.00169 of tax capacity
*2006 Net Tax Capacity in the West Mississippi watershed as estimated by city assessors
Deleted: May 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page 7 -5
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan C Septempi r 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 annually 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 governmental
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 -6
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan �seplemb(r 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 shall 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 10, 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
amendments if the following conditions set forth in Minnesota Rules 8410.0140, Subp. 3 are
met:
1. 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 103B.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. 10:
"...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 c 5eptember 2006_
i
Section 9 Amendments
adversely affect a local unit of government or diminish a water management
organization's ability to achieve its plan's goals or implementation program."
In addition, a minor plan amendment will be required for the following situation:
1. When a capital project is listed in the approved Capital Improvement Program and the Formatted: Bullets and Numbering
Commission's share of an updated cost estimate is greater than 125,percent of the_ Deleted: 0
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 will be required for the following situations:
1. If projects listed in the approved CIP 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 Deleted: 0 f
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 reprinted, all amendments adopted by the SCWM WMC Board of
Commissioners must be printed in the form of replacement pages for the Plan, each page of
which must include:
1. 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 metropolitan area watersheds in addition to
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 Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Page 9-2
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan t 5eptember 2006_
Section 9 Amendments
Table 9 -1
Future Amendments to the SCWM WMC Management Plan
Approximate Sponsoring Description
Year Agency
Annual SCWM WMC Detailed capital improvements as they are planned and
subse4uently ordered by the Commissioners.
As necessary SCWM WMC Various amendments based for example on new
legislative requirements or policy initiatives, or
technological advances.
2003 EPA/MPCA NPDES permitting for stormwater discharges will affect
the metropolitan area. The SCWM WMC will provide
assistance in the areas of education and outreach, and
other areas as reouested by the member cities.
2003 SCWM WMC Upon completion of the chloride TMDL the Commission
will likely promulgate new rules regarding chloride use.
2004 SCWM WMC, MDH Upon completion of member cities' wellhead protection
plans, 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 Council 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 2004
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commission Page 9 -3
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2006_
Appendix G
g il
mm
E
c
o
R.
U
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -8
i
V
a z
c
c
1 2003 2004 1 2005 2006 1 2007 1 2008 1 2009 2010 12
ro MANAGEMENT PLANS 1 I I 1120
Cox Water Ouality Plan 1 $12.5001 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1
Shinzle Creek Corridor Plan 1 1 40,0001 1 1 1 1 1 I 1
Lake Manaeement Plans 1 1 1 $20.0001 1 $15.0001 1 1 1 1
N
Phase H Stream Assessment 1 1 1 1 $20.0001
N Wetland Manaeement Plan 1 1 1 1 1 1 $20.0001 1 1 1
Evaluate Creek 100 Year Elev 1 1 1 1 1 1 $20.0001 1 1
3` Generation Plan i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $125.000
m
ro CAPITAL PROJECTS I
_CL I I I I I I I I
W Shinele Creek Restoration. BBlvd $750,000
W
o
m to Candlewood
New Hoye- Wincrest Pond 1 I 1 1 1 $290.0001
n Maole Grove Pond P51 1 1 i 1 1 $1.459.0001 1 1 1 1 1
3 Crystal Lake Water Oualitv 1 1 1 1 1 1 $400.0001 I 1 1
Maple Grove Pond P57 1 1 i 1 I 1 $648.0001 1 1 1
a Twin Lake Wetland 639W Imor i I 1 1 i 1 $690.0001 1 1 1
y New Hove 45 Ave Pond 1 1 I 1 i 1 1 $550.0001 1 1
Shinele Creek Restoration, CR 10 $430,000
to 1694
Maple Grove Pond P33 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 $574.0001 1 1
Maple Grove Pond P55 I I I I 1 1 $855.0001 1 1
Subtotal. Commission $75.000 5322.500 $434.500 $496.125
Contribution
Subtotal. Citv Contribution 1 1 1 $675.0001 1 51.426.5001 $1.303.5001 $1.912,8751 1 1
Total Capital Proiects 1 1 1 $750.0001 1 L1.749.0001 $L"8,0001 0001 $2.409.0001 1 1
Note: Subtotals assume Fundinz Option 1. See vroiect descrivtions below for fundin¢ source detail.
D
v
v tD
Q-
x
Appendix G
CIP Proiects and Funding
Proiects Droposed for the Interim CIP are described below. It is the current intent of the
Commissions to finance these Droiects using Funding Option 1. the revised Cost Share Policv.
However. in the event cities are unable to agree on how to share the Citv ADDortionment. or for some
other reason the Commission determines that it is infeasible to go forward using Option 1. then the
Commission. as authorized in the Joint Powers Agreement. may go forward using Option 2 or Option
3 as described below.
Option 1 Cost Share Policv
For capital Droiects that have been identified in a Commission- adODted or aDDroved TMDL or
management Dlan:
1. The Commission's share should be 25 percent of the cost of the Droiect, to a maximum share
of $250.000.
2. The Commission's share should be funded through the ad valorem tax method sDread
across all taxDavers within the watershed.
3. The Commission should use a maximum annual levv of $500.000 as a working guideline.
4. The cities' share should be 75 percent of the cost of the Droiect. This would be apportioned
to the cities as follows, or in some other manner acceptable to them:
a. The area directly benefiting from the Droiect should be apportioned 25 percent of the
cost of the vroiect. This would be apportioned to cities based on, for example,
DroDortion of lake or stream frontage.
b. Fiftv Dercent of the cost of the Droiect should be apportioned based on contributing/
benefiting area. The basis of this aDDortionment would likelv be unique to each
project.
5. The cities can each decide the funding mechanism that is best suited to them for pavment of
their share. for example through special assessments. storm drainage utilitv. general tax levv.
or watershed management tax district.
Option 2 100 Percent Ad Valorem Tax Levv
Under the authority provided by Minn Stat 103B.251 Section VIII. Subd. 5, the Commissions have
the authority to certifv for Davment by the countv all or part of the cost of an anDroved capital
improvement. The JPA provides that if cities are unable to come to a cost sharing agreement. then
the Commission may order the Droiect by funding 100 percent of the Droiect cost from the Hennepin
Countv ad valorem tax levv.
Option 3 100 percent ADDOrtionment to Cities
Proiects may also be 100 Dercent funded by cities. The JPA provides two alternates: Proiects may be
funded through a negotiated cost share between cities having land in the affected subwatershed. Or.
Proiects may be funded by aDDOrtionine the cost of the Droiect across all the cities in the watershed
using the same 50% land area 50% tax capacity formula as the general assessments to cities. The
latter may be amended by the Commission if it is clear that one or more of the cities receive a special
benefit from the Droiect.
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -11
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan S^9 `September 2DD6
Appendix G
2007 Proiects
i
New HoDe Wincrest Pond
This proiect includes expansion of an existing pond located between Winnetka Avenue and Sumter
Avenue. north of the Wincrest Apartments into a two -cell pond system. The purpose of the nroiect is
to increase both the water ouality treatment volume and flood storage volume of the existing pond.
Stormwater treatment efficiencv will be increased. and periodic overtopping that now causes erosion,
will be eliminated. The area treated by this vond drains to Unper Twin Lake. The TMDL for that
lake reauires phosphorus load to be reduced through retrofitting the subwatershed with additional.
treatment.
Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated
New Hope Wincrest Pond Lew (Commission (Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
Share)
1 Revised Cost Share Policv 1 $72.500 I $217.500 I $290.0001
2 Ad Valorem Tax Levv I $290.000 I $0 I $290.000
3 City Apportionment I $0 I $290.000 I $290.000
Maple Grove Pond P51
Maple Grove plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction.,
volume and peak rate attenuation. and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would
serve 312 acres of new developm in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed proiect
would uosize the pond to provide treatment bevond the minimum reouired by Commission standards
and would provide an estimated additional 94 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as
reduction of other pollutants. The proiect cost here is the additional cost to uosize the pond to
achieve greater pollutant removal.
Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax Citv Apportionment Total Estimated
Maple Grove Pond P51 Lew (Commission (Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
Share)
1 Revised Cost Share Policv I $250.0001 $1.209.000 I $1.459.000
2 Ad Valorem Tax Levv I $1.459.000 I $0 I $1.459.000
3 City Apportionment I $0 I $1.459.000 I $1.459.000
2008 Proiects
Robbinsdale Crvstal Lake Water Oualin Inrorovements
The Droiect involves the construction of infrastructure that would enable the withdrawal of
u ping to an upstream point for flow back through a
hvpolirnnetic v ater from the lake. and its n m
series of vegetated ponds prior to re -entry into the lake. The numose is to reduce high internal
phosphorus loading of the lake by withdrawal of phosphorus -rich hvpolimnetic water. resulting in the
prevention of excessive algal blooms and imorovement in water ouality. This proiect is in the Initial
TMDL Management Recommendations for Crvstal Lake.. i
Commissions Page G -12
i i Watershed Management
Creek and West Mississippi
Shingle PP
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan e ptWRbBF 20D6
Appendix G
Fundina Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated
Crystal Lake Water Ouality Levy (Commission
Improvements Share) (Cities Share) Proiect Cost
1 Revised Cost Share Policy $100.000 I $300.000 $400,000
2 Ad Valorem Tax Lew I $400,0001 $0 I $400,000
3 City Apportionment I $01 $400.000 1 $400,000
Maple Grove Pond P57
Maple Grove nlans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction..
volume and oeak rate attenuation. and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would
serve 93 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The i)roposed oroiect
would upsize the pond to provide treatment bevond the minimum reauired by Commission standards
and would provide an estimated additional 14 pounds of annual phosphorus load reduction as well as
reduction of other pollutants. The Proiect cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to
achieve greater pollutant removal.
Ad Valorem Tax
Fundina Options Levy (Commission City Apportionment Total Estimated
Maple Grove Pond P57 Share (Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
1 Revised Cost Share Policy I $162.000 I $486,000 I $648.000
2 Ad Valorem Tax Levy I $648.000 I $0 $648.000
3 City Apportionment I $01 $648.000 I $648,000
Twin Lake Wetland 639W Imvroveinents
The Twin Lake Manaeement Plan and TMDL both identified restoration of this wetland as kev to
reducing subwatershed phosphorus loading to Unner Twin Lake. The wetland is located north of
Upper Twin Lake in Brooklyn Center and Crystal: a maioritv of the wetland is located on propertv
owned by the Metr000litan Airports Commission and is commonly referred to as the MAC Nature
Preserve. Three alternatives for achievine this reduction have been identified: 1) partial diversion of
flow around the wetland: 2) dechannelization and increased storage within the wetland; and 3) an
alum ferric chloride treatment system. The initial Proiect Phase will.be the cornDletion of a feasibility
study to determine the most appropriate and cost effective option for achieving the desired
phosphorus load reduction. followed by construction of the recommended solution.
Fundina Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated
Twin Lake Wetland 639W Levy (Commission (Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
Share
1 Revised Cost Share Policy 1 $172.500 I $517.500 $690.000
2 Ad Valorem Tax Lew $690.000 I $0 $690.000
3 City Apportionment I $01 $690.000 I $690,000
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -13
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Se ptembeF 2006
Appendix G
i
2009 Proiects
New Hove 45` Avenue Pond
The vroiect would convert an existing dry pond on 45` Avenue between Winnetka and Xvlon
Avenues to a wet Dond to provide DhosDhorus removal from an 80 acre subwatershed. The purpose
of the Droiect is to reduce pollutant loading to downstream water bodies. This subwatershed drains to
the Crvstal Memory Lane Pond system. which ultimately discharges to Lower Twin Lake.
Increasing the size of the Dond will also provide additional flood storage for the subwatershed. The
TMDL for the Twin Lake system mauires phosphorus loads to be reduced through retrofitting the
subwatershed with additional treatment.
Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated
45th Lew (Commission Pro'ect Cost
New Hope 45 Ave Pond
Share
(Cities Share)
1 Revised Cost Share Policv I $137.500 I $412.500 $550.0001
2 Ad Valorem Tax Levv I $550,000 1 $01 $550,000
3 City Apportionment I $0 $550,000 1 $550.000
Shingle Creek Restoration, CR 10 to 1694
The moiect would construct stream corridor improvements on Shingle Creek as recommended by the
Shingle Creek Corridor Studv and as anticipated will be recommended improvements in the Shingle
Creek dissolved oxvgen and impaired biotic TMDLs to be completed in 2007. The reach to be
improved is from Countv Road 10 to Interstate Hiahwav 94/694. The following improvements are
proposed: streambank stabilization in eroding areas: removal of select trees to reduce canoav density;
establishing or enhancing buffer vegetation: and installation of rock vanes and varied substrates..
Funding Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated
Shingle Creek Restoration, CR Levv (Commission
10 to I694 Share) (Cities Share) Proiect Cost
1 Revised Cost Share Policy I $107.500 1 $322,500 1 $430,000
2 Ad Valorem Tax Levv $430,000 I $0 1 $430.000
3 City Apportionment 1 $0 $430.000 $430,000
Maple Grove Pond P33
Maple Grove Dlans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction,
volume and Deak rate attenuation. and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This pond would
serve 123 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The Dromsed Droiect
would upsize the pond to provide treatment bevond the minimum reouired by Commission standards
and would provide an estimated additional 17 pounds of annual Dhosvhorus load reduction as well as
reduction of other pollutants. The Droiect cost here is the addition al co to upsize th e p ond to
achieve greater Dollutant removal.
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -14
1 Second Generation Watershed Management Plan G�,;;e; 29Q5 Seotember 2006
Appendix G
Funding Options
Ad Valorem Tax City Ap p ortionment Total Estimated
Levy (Commission
(Cities Share) Proiect Cost
Maple Grove Pond P33
Share
1 Revised Cost Share Policy $143.500 $430.500 $574.0001
2 Ad Valorem Tax Levy $574.000 $0 $574.0001
3 City ADnortionment $0 $574.000 $574,000 1
Maple Grove Pond P55
Maple Grove Plans to construct a series of regional ponds to provide pollutant load reduction,
volume and peak rate attenuation, and infiltration to meet Commission standards. This *pond would
serve 96 acres of new development in the Arbor Lakes area of Maple Grove. The proposed Proiect
would upsize the pond to provide treatment bevond the minimum required by Commission standards
and would Provide an estimated additional 25 hounds of annual Phosphorus load reduction as well as
reduction of other Pollutants. The nroiect cost here is the additional cost to upsize the pond to
achieve -areater pollutant removal.
Fundine Options Ad Valorem Tax City Apportionment Total Estimated
Maple Grove Pond P55 Levy (Commission
Share) (Cities' Share) Proiect Cost
1 Revised Cost Share Policy $107,625 $747.375 $855.0001
2 Ad Valorem Tax Lew $855,000 $0 $855,000 1
3 City Apportionment $0 $855.000 $855,000 1
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -15
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Sepiembep 29^B Seotember 2DD6
Appendix G
T a ble G
2093 E Budget and GID(Tetal Cf`\A M \AfMG)
2894 I 2895 28 288
flnenann::a tit x �i� X31 I.&„ 86
1A1�9�14€ 989 4 $44B1A89 $54 90 $49 X 09 $485 ,900 J 00
Assessment&
Q
Othe 62 0 09 i
Ad Valerem Tax L evy ggg
CYD AI $5 8 $59 9 U 22 250
CPe/Arlm4 epaWirG* $fig $262 $274$9 $2 ;8,-�0 $287,04
Qrn -r )w Z 92.sW S 9:7.5C)v $49:7, $444,999 $429 c 5?
VGIUnteer_a ninterl mpniterinn 1 1 50() D 29, 22,WQ 22,9W
22,900 22,990 -4 2 °,549 39,9 X1,569 4' 2 2 14 9
E 1 19- +i n d n aR web s4a ��8 4Q Q 42 44 4 O 990 �29
—NP 4
E d, iratinn nra RtS -11 9��O 'F' 9w 5�5r�,g -V r_ r- --,q9H
Qese area Mnmt Dr9ientc $29 1- 4 2,50 9 0 Q -4:7.50
7nrd neneratien plan t 5C,?59
TbA I,�I r t w d y ,()ggg
T i TAp 1 G rcc�+ hem per ea Q -�cyr
.TITp111T ��IIGI GG
w ater reseurne mnm+ plan
Water quality nlaP $�g
e
Shingle Greek mnmt plan ..,gg,0gg
e
Draetie'.I u Sd. peals plan 40,9g.g
a
T MDl Implementation -2
Wetlaned mem+ Plan $-g.g�
e
-PAR eyal ea +inn 'Q r �5,990
F nreelr i ON) yr ale ea +inn 40 40
W9 6 t LAin a rncpeeifierd prnient 5, 900
AARIQA A Tier s ta tus 509
t 11 e
29,999 49,09 75.000 5 69,999
Assu 2 r eRt aR R w al amh I I I
Nu`*�.s' u� 7
{31#,x56AF}#fi l l X -49,908 -,9 99 5,999 -69
TWin Lake Qentera +inn .gAB
e
Shingle Greek Qesteratien �4 79,999
Drnientc from GIP
Wetland rectoratlnn
l 41 25,
-.aqa 4 7*
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -16
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Se,:tembeF 2006 Seotember 2006
Appendix G
Table Q-3
I
2802012 Estimated Oudse d GIP (T cGWM WMG)
I
2-99 2449 204-9 2941 2042 244-3
�t i i ai tl i 777 ..E
I u a. i ...a;.x....ay 'k Mt` 'ar�... «rv.n Q�c�c�//�� +.x: @@CC nn /n '►/n'� r 605 99 W9 7 90
Assessme;#s $509,990 $520,090 $540,009 $569,999 t-7r-,W4) $599,090
I
ate -3g,ow -m,00 -3e,gee 3g,QaA 3Q,QQ 30
Cnn /Arlmin /I n aV�Aisn+ 42 $242 Q`9
I
Drn ms
rj i A.9i7 p/1 p. Ei d� t7 �-rT� 79 $149 439
1/
147 C�v /1
916 in+eer a mnnitnring 24,900 4 25 9 49 $26 2-
,009 888 2 ?,98 0
�r 34 36,5 40 42 44
Crluna +inn and web site 9 0 54 190
x- $-4-� 49 $--9 -is. --56,999
PlR$ €L _s#v4ieS 16,620 E,238 16,009 46,809 4:7,640
Cdr Ana +inn gran +s $�99 $,580 000 Z,008
I v w V,yVV
Desnllrne f,/UR4 Dreients 40 Q' 's 9
Vy a+er r ese erne mgmt plan 40
I Water rnsnurne mnm+ nlnn $8
2 ,08
rra genera +inn slag -$1 may 00 79,948
I
I
I
69:898 -66 988 -$-§6 8X88 $-�A 888
I
w k a iii X71 QD`�AAi
a .'7�'Y -7""� fir ;d r
♦Asswm Q C nersen+ anneal grg..hh
Fund
12 nQ! t W
s "..ax 4
Sad R -68,o89 66 988 79 898
I
f'anital Drniea+s
r_rnnn 4. Ghann„I 59 009
I nnnl r�rnies+ ma +nh 2G, 909 2 999 g 09 2E 9
I
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -17
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Sep;embe= 2^9 September 2006
Appendix G
Table G -3
Approved Budgets 2003 -2006 and Estimated Budgets 2008 -2012
(Assumes 3% Annual Increases)
Approved Approved Approved Approved Proposed Additional
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2007
1 Application fees $20.000 $24.000 $24,000 $24.000 $24,000 $0
2 Wetland reviews
3 Interest income 10.00D 2.000 2,000 1.800 3.000
4 Contribution to Reserve (7.300),
5 Contribution from Reserve 51.920 43.250 26750 12.550
6 I TMDL Grants 90.950 105.339 5.000 65.000 200.OD0
7 I Other Grants 20,000
8 Assessment 324.000 338,950 361.140 386.850 411,500 1.050
9 Assessment above can 17.050
10 Ad valorem
I TOTAL REVENUE $489,570 $533,539 $418,890 $490.200 $638.500 518100
OPERATIONS
Administration:
11 Administrative Services $7D.000 $70.000 $71.400 $84.500 $87.700
12 Enaineerina Support 11.500 11.500 11.730
Enaineerina:
13 Administration 63.000 63.OD0 64.260 65.200 58.600
14 Management Plan 10.000 10.000 10.200 10.200 10,000
15 Grant Writino 10.000 10.000 10.200 10.200 8.500
16 TMDUCIP Enaineerina 8.000
17 Field Inspection 5.000
Leaal.
18 Lena] Services 25.920 20.000 20.400 20.500 20.500
Proiect Reviews:
19 Enaineerina 48.000 48,000 48.960 49.000 52.500
20 Administration 7.000 7,000 7.140 7.300 7,450
Miscellaneous:
21 Bookkeeping 4.000 4.000 4.D80 4.150 4.250
22 Audit 3.000 3.000 3.000 10,000 10.000
23 Continaencv 7.500 8.500 6.5D0 6.000 6.500
24 Insurance Bondino 5.000 5.OD0 5.000 5.000 5,600
25 Meeting Expense 3.700 3.700 3.770 3.850 4.000
SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS 5268.620 $268,700 $266.640 $275,900 $283.600 SO
MONITORING AND INFO GATHERING
26 Commission stream monitorino $22.500 $30.000 $35,000 $35.000 $38.800 $00
27 USGS site monitorina, 2.800 3.200
28 Chloride TMDL annual report 5.000
29 Volunteer lake monitorino 7.000 7.000 6.500 6.500 6.500
30 Volunteer stream monitorina 5.000 5.000 5.D00 4,000 4.000
31 Volunteer wetland monitorina I 5.000 4.000
32 Volunteer aouatic plant monitorina 1 2100
SUBTOTAL MONITORING I 539.500 542.000 $46,500 $48.300 552.500 511,1D0
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -18
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan S^ 2995 September 2006
Appendix G
ARDroved Approved Approved AnDroved Pr000sed Additional
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2002
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
33 Education Program I $30.000 $30.OD0 $34.000 $50.000 $51.400
34 Web site 10.000 7.500 6350
35 NPDES 13.000 5.000 5.000
36 Education and ImDI Grants 5,000 5.000 5,000 6.000 6.000 6.000
37 Chloride TMDL annual workshoD 1.000
SUBTOTAL EDUCATION $58,000 $47.500 $50,750 I $56.000 I $57.400 $7.000
MANAGEMENT PLANS
TMDLs:
38 Shinale Cr Chloride $90,950 $20.000 $5.000
39 Lakes Phase 1 85339
40 Lakes Phase II 65.000
41 Shinale Cr DO /Biotic Inteoritv 200.000
Manaoement plans:
42 Water Qualitv Plan 12.500
43 Shinale Creek corridor studv 40.000
44 Chloride /lake ohase I TMDL imol plan 20.000
45 Stream assessment phase II 20.000
46 Lake Dhase II TMDL imDI olan 15.D00
47 Future Wetland Mamt Plan 5.000
SUBTOTAL MGMT PLANS I $103.450 $145,339 S 25.000 I 85.000 I 5220,D00
48 Contribution to constr /orant match 20.000 30.000 30.000 25.000 25,000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE $489.570 $533,539 5418,890 I $490,200 5638.500 $18,100
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1 AoDlication fees $25.000 $25,000 $25.000 $25.000 $25,000
2 Wetland reviews
3 Interest income 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000 3.000
4 Contribution to Reserve
5 Contribution from Reserve
6 TMDL Grants
7 Other Grants
8 Assessment 423.850 436,570 449.670 463.160 477.050
9 Assessment above cap 8,090 7.500 8.150 2.970 100.000
10 Ad valorem
TOTAL REVENUE $464.940 5472.070 $485.820 $494,130 5605.050
OPERATIONS
Administration:
11 Administrative Services $90330 $93.040 $95.830 598700 $101.660
12 Enaineerino SuoDort (incl above)
Enaineerino:
13 Administration $60.360 562.170 $64.040 $65.960 $67.940
14 Manaoement Plan 10.300 10.000 10.000 10,000
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -19
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan September 2D05 SeDtember 2006
Appendix G
Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
15 Grant Writing 8.760 9.020 9,290 9.570 9.860
16 TMDUCIP Enaineerina $8.240 $8.490 $8,740 $9,000 $9.270
17 Field InSDection
18 Leoal Services $21.120 821.750 $22.400 $23.070 $23.760
Proiect Reviews:
19 Enoineerino $54,080 $55.700 $57.370 $59,090 $60,860
20 Administration 7.670 7.900 8.140 8.380 8.630
Miscellaneous:
21 Bookkeeoino $4.380 $4,510 $4.650 $4.790 $4,930
22 Audit 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000 10.000
23 Continoencv 6.500 6,500 6,500 6.500 6.500
24 Insurance Bonding* 5.600 5.600 5,600 5.750 5,750
25 Meetino Expense 4.000 4.000 4.000 4100 4.100
SUBTOTAL OPERATIONS $291.340 $298,680 $306.560 I $314,910 $313.260
MONITORING AND INFO GATHERING
26 Commission stream monitoring $39,960 $41.160 $42390 $43.660 $44,970
27 USGS site monitorino 3.200 3.200 3.200 3,200 3.200
28 Chloride TMDL annual report 5.000 5,000 5.000 5.000 5.000
29 Volunteer lake monitorino 6.500 6.500 6.500 6,500 6.500
30 Volunteer stream monitorino 4.000 4.000 4.000 4.000 5,000
31 Volunteer wetland monitorino 4.000 4,000 4.000 4,000 6,000
32 Volunteer aouatic plant monitorino, 2.000 2,000
SUBTOTAL MONITORING $62.660 I $65.860 $65.090 I $68,360 I $70,670
EDUCATION AND PUBLIC OUTREACH
33 Education Proaram $52.940 $54.530 $56170 $57,860 $58120
34 Web site (incl above)
35 NPDES (incl above)
36 Education and implement grants 12.000 12,000 12,0D0 12.000 12.000
37 Chloride TMDL annual workshop 1.000 1.000 1,000 1.000 1.000
I SUBTOTAL EDUCATION $65.940 $67.530 $69.170 $70,860 $71,120
MANAGEMENT PLANS
TMDLs:
38 None anticipated
Management plans:
39 Commission lake monitorino 15,000 15.000
40 Wetland Momt Plan 20.OD0
41 Creek 10D -Yr Elevation 20,000
42 3rd Generation Plan 125,000
I SUBTOTAL MGMT PLANS 20,000 I 15,000 20.000 15.000 I 125,000
48 Contribution to constr /orant match 25.000 25.000 25.000 25.ODO 25.000
TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE $464,940 I $472.070 I $485,820 I $494,130 I $605.050
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Management Commissions Page G -20
Second Generation Watershed Management Plan Sepie^:bcr 299S Seotember 2006
Water Quality Plan
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
P.O. Box 249 Y
Maple Plain, Minnesota 55359 -0249
(763) 479 -4200
Table of Contents
TABLEOF CONTENTS ..............................I
1.0 WATER RESOURCE PRIORITIZATION ..............................1
1.1 Introduction ..............................1
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
1.2.1.1 303(d) Listed Lakes ..............................2
1.2.2 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 to 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
JAShingle Creek \CTs\Ntajot Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Watet Quality Plan_Sept.doc
I
Table of Contents (Cont.)
2.2.4 Aquatic Plant Monitoring .............................36
2.3 MANAGEMENT PLANS .............................36
2.3.1 Lakes .............................36
2.3.1.1 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
2.3.2.3 Stream TMDLs .............................38
2.3.3 Wetlands .............................38
2.3.3.1 Wetland Management Plan Objectives .............................38
2.3.3.2 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 1. 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 1 I
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
Table14. Use Class Score by Lake 17
JAShingle Creek\CIPMajor Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
it
Table of Contents (Cont.)
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
Table21. Lake Grouping 22
Table 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 1. Lakes and Streams ..............................4
Figure2. DNR Public Waters ..............................8
Figure3. 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
JAShingle Creek \CIPAMajor Plan Amendment September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
iii
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 Management 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 oxygen TMDLs for Shingle Creek;
Establish numerical water quality goals for lakes;
Complete and implement thirteen lake 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) is intended to:
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.
Provide philosophical guidance for completing water resource management plans and
TMDLs; and
Provide direction for the ongoing water quality monitoring programs that will be essential
to determining if the TMDLs and implementation program 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
JAShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment�September packetlFINAL Water Quality 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 chapter 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 comparability 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
g PP
1). Twin Lake is comprised of three basins and is considered as three separate lakes even though
they are one chain of lakes. Table 2, Shingle Creek Watershed Lake Data, details the general
lake physical, water quality, and recreational information.
1.2.1.1 303(d) Listed Lakes
Table 1 lists the impaired lakes in the Shingle Creek watershed. According to the State 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 Minnesota 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 Lake 4 Affected use Pollutant or Year Target*
stressor Listed Start/Completo
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
JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment`,September packet'F'INAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Lake DNR Lake Affected use Pollutant or Year Target*
stressor Listed Start/Completo
Eagle 27- 0111 -01 Aquatic recreation Excess nutrients 2002 2008/2012
Eagle/Pike 27 -0111 Aquatic consumption 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 consumption 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.
*MPCA will complete regional or statewide TMDLs 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 northeastern 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 forming Shingle Creek. Information
regarding storm sewer systems and discharge 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 River.
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
JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
CI rnphn
Brooklyn Park
Ouwwd
Sep Fliwbwd OIw
Hwd
Maple
Grove
trr.w�
a Br klyn
a Ce er
FW
u
Plymouth
New Bvpe 4fimk
Lw:dr 7..iw
g.
4 Cry
Mi neapo
o .r
R bb
N
Hennepin
Cwny, w
ASnnemm
1 0 1 2 3 Miles
Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions W enck DEC 2003
Lakes and Streams in the SCWM Watersheds Werr Associates, k¢. teo OPio wCraak career
ErMronmereal Engineers MwIe Nun, MJ 55359.0429 Figure 1
4
JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTrNAL 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
Location Plymouth Maple Robbinsdale Plymouth Maple Brooklyn New Brooklyn
Grove Grove Park Hope Center
DNR Lake Number 127 0098 1 27 -0119 27 -0034 127 -593W i 27- 0111 -01 1 27 -0065 27 -0057 127 -0059
Ordinary High 906.1 902.4 847.5 N/A 874.2 DNR 885.9 N/A 842.8
Water (OHW) (ft) 873.8 plan
Lake Area (acres) 1 175 1 81 78 14.5 1 291 1 10 111 1 25 i
Shoreline (ft) 11,950 1 12,150 7,450 2,220 16,700 2,990 3,790 7,390
Shoreline' 1.22 1.82 1.14 1.41 1.32 1.28 1.54 2.00
Development Factor
Littoral Area 143(82 81(100 53(68 4.5(100 199(68 10(100 11(100 25(100
(acres)(
Maximum Depth (ft) 1 31 1 7 1 39 1 10 1 34 7 1 5 4
Mean Depth (ft) 1 9.5 14.6 1 10 1 N/A 12.5 N/A 1 N/A 1 2
WATERSHED INFORMATION
Drainage Basin Area 3,183 642 1,238 283 2,879 62 121 17,954
(acres)
Drainage Basin to 17 :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)
Last CAMP Report 2003 2003 1997 2002 2003 1999
ard Grade C F D N/A C F F N/A
ecchi Depths 1.2/3.9 .6/2.0 1.1/3.6 N/A 1.6/5.2 .6/2.0 .3/1.0 N/A
(meters /feet)
Phosphorus (ppb) 1 35 1 123 1 179 1 N/A 1 19 1 117 1 230 N/A
Chlorophyll -a (ppb) 1 20 1 79 1 58 1 N/A 119 1 45 1 78 1 N/A
RECREATION INFORMATION
Public Access 1 Yes No 1 Yes No I Yes i No 1 No I No
Adiacent Park 1 Yes Yes 1 Yes 1 No I Regional 1 No I No 1 Yes
Fishing Fishing pier
Other Amenities pier None Fishing pier None Long teen None None None
plan: beach
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Last Fish Survey, BLG 1998 1999
Most Abundant Fish N/A BLC, BLG, N/A BLC, BLG, N/A N/A N/A
Species BLC, YEP, NOP YEP, GSF
Other species noted LME WAE TME, Carp N/A ME, WAE, N/A N/A N/A
NOP Caro
Exotic Plants Milfoil None None N/A Milfoil 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 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 15 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).
'CAMP is the Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring Program.
s Secchi 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 SUN Sunfish species BLG Bluegill GSF Pumpkinseed Sunfish LMB
argemouth 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
5
JAShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan AmendmentlSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
I
Pike Pomerleau Ryan Schmidt Success Lower Middle Upper Twin
Twin Twin
GENERAL LAKE INFORMATION lei
Maple Brookl n Brooklyn
P Y Y
Minneapolis Brooklyn Robbins-
Location Grove Plymouth Plymouth Center Center
Plymouth Robbinsdale Y Park dale Crystal Crystal
DNR Lake Number 27 -0111- 27 -0100 27 -0058 27 -0102 27 -634W 27-0042- 27- 0042 -02 27- 0042 -03
02 01
Ordinary High 874.2 937 849.6 DNR 925 N/A 853.1 853.1 853.1
Water (OHW) (ft) E50.5 fDhn)
Lake Area (acres) 158 130 120 37 15 130 156 1 118
Shoreline (ft) 1 7,780 1 4,170 1 3,195 8,390 1 2,385 1 6,450 1 7,250 1 14,890 I
Shoreline 1 1.38 1.03 1.14 1.86 1.44 1.59 1.31 1.85
Development Factor
Littoral Area z 55(95 20(67 10(50 34(92 N/A 25(83 32(57 118(100
(acres)(
Maximum Depth (ft) 122 126 133 27 I N/A 21 142 110
Mean Depth (ft) 17 19 1 15.6 15.6 I N/A I N/A I 16 I 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 71 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 1.7/5.6 1.2/3.9 1.9/6.2 2.2/7.2 1.1/3.6 1.7/5.6 .48/1.6
(meters /feet)
Phosphorus (ppb) 90 189 154 158 110 93 60 1 137
Chlorophyll -a (ppb) 131 116 16 115 19 39 128 156
RECREATION INFORMATION
Public Access ET hr Curb cut No Curb cut No Yes Yes Yes
Adjacent Park I Regional I No Yes I Yes I No I Yes I Yes I Yes
Other Amenities I None I None I Fishing vier I None I None None I Beach I None
ECOLOGICAL INFORMATION
Last Fish Survey, 1993 1990 2002 2 002 2002
Most Abundant Fish BLG 1994 1986 BLB N/A BLC, BLC BLG, BLC, BLG,
6 GSF, LMB BLB BRB BLG,
Species YEP BLG, YEP, BLB YEP, BLB .YEP, BLB
Other species noted NOP NOP, SUN N/A NOP N/A COP' NOP, Carp NOP, Carp
Exotic Plants Poss curly Poss curly Poss curly
Present None None None Milfoil None leaf leaf 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.
Littoral area is that part of the lake less than 15 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.
'Secchi depth is a measure of transparency and refers to the depth to which a patterned disc is visible from the surface.
6 BLC Black Crappie WHC White Crappie SUN Sunfish species BLG Bluegill GSF Pumpkinseed Sunfish LMB
Largemouth Bass SMB Smallmouth Bass NOP Northern Pike WAE Walleye BLB Black Bullhead BRB Brown Bullhead
TIv1E Tiger Muskellunge ME Muskellunge YEP Yellow Perch VHS White Sucker
6
JAShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
1.2.2.1 303(d) Listed Stream Segments
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 Creek
Watershed.
Table 3. Streams In The Shingle Creek Watershed On The Impaired Waters List (303(d) List).
Stream Segment Affected use pollutant Listing Year TMDL Target*
or stressor Start/Complete
Shingle Creek 07010206 -506 Aquatic Life Chloride 1998 2002/2006
Shingle Creek 07010206 -506 Aquatic Life Low Oxygen 2004 2004/2006
Shingle Creek 07010206 -506 Aquatic Life Impaired 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 Department 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
JAShingle Creek\CIPsNajor Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
I.
i
5
i
4v
1 0 1 2 Miles I i N
Data Source: Minnesota DNR
Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions enc DEC 2003
Venck AssDdates, Inc, 1800 Power Creek Center Figure
DNR Public Waters
Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 553530429
S
J:\Shingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
NWI Circular 39 Classification
1- Seasonally Flooded_
2 Wet Meadow
1 13 Shallow Marsh
4 Deep Marsh
5 Shallow Open Water
6 Shrub Swamp
l 7 Wooded Swamp
90 Riverine
Streams
Lakes'-
IN JL I
r`
o
a
'A
L
r eo
F
15 ea 4
s e e A
4 ^rte
a d
i eIL�,
a a c�a1 a
e e
F4 s
1 0 1 2 Miles N
Data Source: Minnesota DNR
Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions �l�/e�1C�C DEC 2003
Wenok Associates, Inc 1800 Pioneer Creek Cents
NWI Wetlands F 3
Environmental Engneers Maple Plain, MN 55359.0429 9
9
J:\Shingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
I
Table 4. NW1 Wetland Area b Tye Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watersheds Combined.
Y Type, g P
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
(UB)
5- Shallow Open 1,408 3.2 Unconsolidated Shore 5 0.0
Water (US)
6 Shrub Swamp 385 0.9 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 1 86.4
Grand Total 44,674 1 100.0
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 grouping within classifications was:
Helps to establish appropriate water quality criteria for lakes
Helps identify lakes where restoration funds will be most effective
0 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
JAShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 5. First Generation Management Plan Water Resources Classifications.
Recreational Gro D Aesthetic GrouD Runoff Management Groun
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 Lake Success Lake waterbodies other than DNR
Twin Lake All other DNR Protected Waters Protected Waters
Schmidt Lake Streams or ditches tributary to
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 recommended to the Commissions 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
J:\Shingle Creek \C1Ps\Major Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
par ameters were scored and the scores summed to devel an overall rou in
These individual par p g g rouping.
Each of these parameters are described in more detail below, followed by a table illustrating
application to the 16 lakes in the watersheds.
1.3.3 Watershed to Lake Area Ratio
The watershed to lake area 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 Score
20 I 4
10 to 20 I 3
4 to 10 2
<4 1
Table 7. Watershed to Lake Area Ratio Score by Lake.
Lake I Class I WA/LA I Score
Bass I Recreational I 17 I 3
Cedar Island Recreational 8 2
Crystal Recreational 16 3
Curtis I Aesthetic 70 4
Eagle Recreational 10 3
Magda Aesthetic 6 2
Meadow Aesthetic I 11 3
Palmer Aesthetic 722 4
Pike Recreational 16 3
Pomerleau Recreational I 38 4
1
Ryan Recreational 266 I 4
Schmidt Recreational 6 2
Success Aesthetic 36 4
Twin Lower I Recreational 176 4
Twin Middle 4 Recreational 72
I I
Twin Upper I Recreational 31 4
12
J:`uShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
i 1.3.4 Stormwater Treatment Capability
Stormwater treatment capability is defined as the amount of watershed area available to put in
stormwater BMPs for water 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 percent of wetland area within a
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, 5 percent, 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 currently 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 undeveloped land.
To calculate stormwater treatment to tm nt potential, land use in each lakeshed was evaluated using the
National Wetlands Inventory and the Metropolitan Council's 2000 land use AreView 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 he same logic as above it was assumed that a target stormwater treatment potential would
g g g P
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 Capability Score Range.
Range I Score
<2% 4
2 to 4% 3
4 to 6% 2
>6% 1
13
JAShingle Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\.September packetTINAL Water Quality 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 Capability Score by Lake.
Lake Class Acres Available of Total Score
For Treatment Acreage
Bass Recreational 188.8 6.0 1
Cedar Island Recreational i 12.3 I 2.0 I 3
Crystal Recreational I 4.8 I 0.4 I 4
Curtis I Aesthetic I 27.0 8.6 I 1
Eagle I Recreational I 219.1 I 6.9 I 1
Magda I Aesthetic I 0.6 1.0 I 4
Meadow I Aesthetic 1.2 1.0 I 4
Palmer I Aesthetic 887.2 I 5.0 I 2
Pike I Recreational I I I I
Pomerleau I Recreational 29.6 I 10.1 I 1
Ryan I Recreational 130.7 I 2.3 I 3
Schmidt I Recreational I 3.0 I 1.5 I 4
Success I Aesthetic I 5.4 I 3.1 I 3
Twin Lower I Recreational 113.8 I 2.2 I 3
Twin Middle I Recreational 88.5 I 2.2 I 3
Twin Upper Recreational I 52.2 I 1.4 I 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.
i
14
):\Shingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
■s r O> >3r G >6D b
1 ppb ZO ppb ppb PP
100 i°
90%
80 °k mild"
70%
"nuisance"
a' 60%
U
g "severe nuisance"
LL
40%-
30
s 4,
20 7:
10%.
"very severe nuisance"
0% 7
0 10 20 30 40 48 55 63 70 75 80 90 100 130
7P 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 3
Nuisance I 40-50 2
Mild I <40 I 1
15
J:\Shingle CreekUPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 11. Water Clarity: Total Phosphorus Within Nuisance Category 20% of the Time or More
Score by Lake.
Lake Class Phosphorus Score
(Ppb)
Bass Recreational 35 I 1
Cedar Island I Recreational I 123 4
Crystal Recreational I 179 I 4
Curtis Aesthetic N/A I 4
Eagle Recreational 19 I 1
Magda I Aesthetic I 117 I 4
Meadow I Aesthetic I 230 I 4
Palmer I Aesthetic I N/A I 4
Pike I Recreational I 90 I 4
Pomerleau Recreational I 89 I 4
Ryan Recreational 54 3
Schmidt Recreational 58 3
Success I Aesthetic I 50 I 3
Twin Lowe I Recreational 93 I 4
Twin Middle I Recreational I 60 3
Twin Upper I Recreational 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 current 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 public 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 (sailing, fishing, boating) 2
Full Body contact (swimming beach) 1
16
JAShingle CreekUPsWajor Plan Amendment\September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 13. Use Class: Access Score Range.
Category (Scores
No Access 1 4
Carry on access on public lands or curb cut I 3
Public access, no parking lot I 2
Public access with parking lot I 1
The scores in this category are intended to represent watershed significance. An individual
member city may choose to score lakes within their community on a different basis. For
example, some cities may classify lakes based on the size of an adjacent park, or the amenities
within the park. Results of the scoring are shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Use Class Score by Lake.
Lake Class Public Access Adjacent Other Amenities Access Score Use Score
Bass Recreational I Yes I Yes Fishing pier 1 2
Cedar Island I Recreational No I Yes I None I 4 2
Crystal Recreational Yes Yes I Fishing pier I 1 I 2
Curtis I Aesthetic No I No I None 4 I 4
Eagle Recreational Yes Regional Fishing pier: beach 1 1
planned
Magda Aesthetic I No I No I None I 4 4
Meadow I Aesthetic No I No I None I 4 I 4
Palmer Aesthetic No I Yes I None I 4 I 4
Pike Recreational Thru Eagle Regional None 1 2
Pomerleau Recreational I Curb cut I No I None I 3 I 2
Ryan I Recreational No I Yes Fishing pier I 4 I 2
Schmidt Recreational I Curb cut I Yes I None I 3 I 2
Success Aesthetic No No I None 4 I 4
Twin Lower I Recreational Yes Yes I None 2 2
Twin Middle I Recreational I Yes I Yes I Beach I 2 I 1
Twin Upper i Recreational Yes I Yes I None I 2 2
1.3.7 Fisheries Status
A study prepared by the Department of Natural Resources was 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 quality 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 Creek CIPs'Major Plan Amendment September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
a
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 with desirable species.
Group 1: Northern Pike, Yellow Bullhead, White Sucker
Group 2: Walleye, Yellow Perch, Bluegill
Group 3: Black Crappie, Black Bullhead, White Crappie
I
Figure A4 Statewide Dish Abundance versus Trophic 5+ ate Index
gp
L I�
.?o
ii 30
20 25 30 35 40 45 Sp 55 50 l5 ?ff 83
Trophic Stae Index (5e:: ti Disk)
Group 3 Croup 2 Group I
Figure 5: Fish Abundance By Species Group Compared To Trophic State Index
((Plymouth Water Resources Plan, 1999 after Schupp, 1992).
Table 15. Fishery Status Range of Scores.
TSl Range Scores
>65 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 16 notes the most abundant fish species found during the most recent fish survey as well as
the current Trophic State Index (TSI).
18
JAShingle Creek\CIPsWaJ 'or Plan Amendment' Se Pt ember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 16. Fishery Status Score by Lake.
Lake Most Abundant Fish
Class Species Other species noted TSI Score
Bass Recreational BLG, BLC, BLB LMB, NOP 56 3
Cedar Island Recreational WAE 74 4
Crystal Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, NOP TME, Carp 78 4
Curtis Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4
Eagle Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, GSF ME, WAE, Carp 52 3
Magda Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4
Meadow Aesthetic N/A N/A 83 4
Palmer Aesthetic N/A N/A N/A 4
Pike Recreational BLG, YEP NOP 69 4
Pomerleau Recreational GSF, LMB NOP, SUN 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 Lower Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, BLB NOP, LMP 71 4
Twin Middle Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, BLB NOP, Carp 65 3
Twin Upper Recreational BLC, BLG, YEP, BLB NOP 75 4
BLC Black Crappie WHC White Crappie SUN Sunfish species BLG Bluegill GSF—
Pumpkinseed Sunfish LMB Largemouth Bass SMB Smallmouth Bass NOP Northern Pike WAE—
Walleye BLB Black Bullhead BRB Brown Bullhead TME Tiger Muskellunge ME Muskellunge
YEP Yellow Perch W11S White Sucker
1.3.8 Connectedness
A final factor to be considered is connectedness, or the relative importance of the lake within the
watershed. 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 important
function is the amount 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.
Per Ra Sc ore
0 to 5 4
5 to 10 3
10 to 20 2
>20 1
19
J"Shingle Creek\CIPsJvtajor Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 18. Connectedness: Percent of Watershed Acreage Draining Through the Lake Score by Lake.
Lake Class Drainage Basin percent Score
Area (acres)
Bass Recreational 2 7 3
Cedar Island 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 <l 4
Palmer Aesthetic 18,047 40 1
Pike Recreational 919 2 4
Pomerleau Recreational 293 1 4
Ryan Recreational 5,323 12 2
Schmidt 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 Lake Scores for Recreational Lakes.
Lake WA/LA Treatment Water Recreation Access Fisheries Watershed Total
Capability Quality Significance Score
Eagle 3- 1 1 I 1 I -1 I 3 I 3 i 13
Bass 3 1 1 2 1 3 3 14
Pike 3 1 4 2 1 4 4 19
Twin Middlel 4 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 1 19
Ryan 4 3 3 2 4 3 2 21
Schmidt 2 4 3 2 3 3 4 21
Twin Lower 4 3 4 2 2 4 2 21
Crystal 3 4 4 2 1 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
JAShinele Creek Plan AmendmentSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_sept.doc
I
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 lake priority (Table 20). It is important to note that both Magda and Meadow lakes
are on the State's 303(d) list of impaired 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 quality 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 WA/LA 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 1 4 4 4 4 4 25
Magda 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 26
Meadow 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 27
1.3.12 Water Quality Goals
The primary purpose of grouping lakes was to assign water quality goals that are achievable and
that reflect the lakes' current use. As a first step the total scores were grouped into three
categories: 1, 2, and 3 (Table 21).
Table 21. Lake Grouping.
Lake Class Total Score Group
Eagle l Recreational T 13 1
Bass Recreational 14 1
Pike Recreational 19 1
Twin Middle Recreational 19 1
Ryan Recreational 21 2
Schmidt 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 was assigned a set of water quality goals, including total phosphorus and
chlorophyll -a concentrations and a Secchi depth goal (Table 22).
21
JAShingle Creek CIPsWajor Plan Amendmen' September packeffINAL Water Quality Plan _SeptA oc
Table 22. Lake Water Quality Standards.
Group Total Phosphorus Chlorophyll -a Secchi Depth
(ppb) (ppb) (meters)
1 I <35 I <10 I >1.4
2 I 35 to 45 I 10 to 18 1.1 to 1.4
l 3 /Aesthetic I <78 I <48 I >0.7
Table 23. 2002 Lake Water Quality Data Compared to Water Quality Goals.
Phosphorus Chlorophyll -a Secchi Depth
Lake Group (ppb) (ppb) (meters)
Currentl Goal ICurrentl Goal ICurrentl Goal
Eagle I 1 I 19 I <35 1 19 i <10 1.6 1.4
Bass 1 1 35 1 <35 I 20 I <10 1 1.2 >1.4
Pike 1 1 1 90 I <35 i 31 1 <10 1 1.2 >1.4
Twin Middle I 1 I 60 1 35 -45 I 28 I <10 I 1.7 1 >1.4
Ryan 2 1 54 I35 -451 16 1 10 -181 1.2 11.1 -1.4
Schmidt 1 2 1 58 1 3
5 -45 1 15 1 10 -18 1.9 11.1 -1.4
Twin Lower I 2 I 93 1 35 -45 1 39 1 10 -18 1 1.1 11.1 -1.4
Crystal I 3 1 179 I <78 l 58 1 <48 1.1 I >0.7
Pomerleau I 3 1 89 I <78 1 16 1 <48 1.7 1 >0.7
Cedar Island 13 1 123 I <78 I 79 I <48 1 0.6 1 >0.7
Twin Upper 3 I 137 I <78 I 56 1 <48 I 0.5 I >0.7
Palmer I Aesth 1 N/A 1 <78 1 N/A 1 <48 1 N/A 1 >0.7
Success I Aesth I 10 I <78 I 9 I <48 I 2.2 1 >0.7
Curtis I Aesth I N/A <78 I N/A 1 <48 1 N/A 1 >0.7
Magda I Aesth i 117 <78 I 45 <48 I 0.6 I >0.7
Meadow I Aesth 1 230 1 <78 1 78 1 <48 1 0.3 1 >0.7
The water quality goals for lakes in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are:
Stabilize water quality in lakes. No further degradation of lake water quality as measured by
total phosphorus and chlorophyll -a.
Meet lake water quality standards. The WQP establishes water quality standards by lake
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 management plans. Each lake and watershed is unique, and different
strategies may have to be developed for achieving water quality goals. Developing a lake
management plan may lead to an adjustment in the numerical goals for that lake based on
individual diagnostic analyses.
22
JAShingle Creek \C1Ps\Major Plan Amendment\September packet\PINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
1.4 STREAMS
Goals were established for the streams in Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds. The
goals established were 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;
Class 2Bd Cool and warm water fisheries;
Class 2B Cool and warm water fisheries (not protected for drinking water);
Class 2C Indigenous fish and associated aquatic community; and
Class 2D Wetlands.
Shingle Creek is designated by the state as a Class 2C stream and all others are Class 2B.
Recent monitoring in the Shingle Creek watershed suggests that the streams are not currently
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 T hres ho ld Shingle Creek
Chloride 230 mg/1 Winter exceedances
Summer exceedances
Dissolved oxygen 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 samples at the
outlet exceeded 200 organisms
Fecal coliform 92 1 2000 org /100 m] water Exceeded 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 (mg/L), 2005
average at SC -0= 24, SC -2= 20
The water ual' a
q ity goals for streams in the Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds are:
Meet the State's stream eater quality standards. The goal of the Shingle Creek Watershed
Management Commission is to have all streams in the watershed meet state standards for the
protection of the stream's designated beneficial use.
Monitor streams to evaluate the
e cu rent status of water quality 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:'Shinole Creek\CIPs\Major Plan Amendment',September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
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 will
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 Commissions would require cities
to complete functions and values analyses for high- priority wetlands according to a schedule
established in the WQP and evaluate 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 all:
Wetlands within 25 meters of a lake;
Wetlands within 25 meters of a stream;
Wetlands adjacent to or within a biodiversity site identified by the Hennepin County Biological
Survey (HCBS); and
Wetlands within three "development areas" where development is expected to occur in the next
ten years: northern Brooklyn Park; the Arbor Lakes area of Maple and the area around
Pomerleau Lake in Plymouth.
Table 25 and Figure 6 shows the results of application of these prioritization factors. While the
majority of wetland acreage was identified as high priority, only about half the wetlands were
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 permit from the appropriate Local Government
Unit. Thus some of the wetlands identified as high priority may be gone or replaced by new
wetlands.
24
JAShingle Creek \CIPs'Major Plan Amendment September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 25. Priority Wetlands.
Total NWI Wetlands I Priority Wetlands
Type Number Acres Percent Number Acres Total
I Seasonally Flooded I 49 I 130 I 0.3 1 27 96 74
2- Wet Meadow I 27 I 132 I 0.3 I 18 I 104 I 79
3 Shallow Marsh I 721 i 2,444 I 5.5 I 362 I 1,966 I 80
4- Deep Marsh I 209 I 231 I 0.5 I 124 I 167 I 73
5- Shallow Open Water I 44 I 1,408 I 3.2 I 38 I 1,401 I 99
6- Shrub Swamp I 1.13 I 385 I 0.9 I 75 I 302 I 79
7- Wooded Swamp I 194 I 1,034 I 2.3 I 129 916 I 89
90- Riverine 4 I 277 I 0.6 4 277 I 100
Grand Total I 1,361 I 6,041 I 100.0 I 777 I 5,229 I 86
1.5.2 Functions and Values 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 through permit, or prior to the
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
JAShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packet\PINAL Water Quality Plan— Sept.doc
N
Priority wetlands
1- Seasonally Flooded
2 Wet Meadow
3 Shallow Marsh r,.
4 Deep Marsh ►y� ice'
5 Shallow Open Water
I
Swamp
6 Shrub
7 Wooded Swamp
90 Riverine
o I
r� t t -rt
0
I Ak L.�
In
Shingle Creek/West Mississippi Watershed Commissions DEC 2003
g Wen
Wetlands: Priority for Functions and Values Analysis WenckAssociates, Inc. 1800 Pioneer Creek Center Figure 6
Environmental Engineers Maple Plain, MN 55359 -0429
26
JAShingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
This page left intentionally blank.
J:\Sbingle Creek CJPsNajor Plan Amendment'September packet \FINAL Water Qual:t} Plan Sept.doc
2.0 Implementation Plan
2.1 INTRODUCTION
The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Watershed Commissions' Water Quality
Implementation Plan is composed of four parts:
A monitoring 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 Commissions 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 Commissions' and cities' budgets permit.
The 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 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.'4Shingle Creek\CIPslMajor Plan Amendment', September packetTINAL Water Qualm Plan_Sept.doc
Table 26. Implementation Plan Activities.
Action I Description I Outcome I Cost 1 Comments/Notes
Monitoring /Information Gathering'
Information needed to track overall Not currently perfot7red.
Commission lake monitoring etailed monitoring of surface and water quality and internal loading Estimated at
g bottom conditions of lake. and evaluate effectiveness of TMDL $15,000 per lake Recommend every 3 -5 years for
group 1 lakes
implementation
Volunteers monitor water quality Better understanding of lake quality, $550/ lake Every other year for group 1
Volunteer lake monitoring of lake surface through the CAMP Current budget and 2 lakes and every 3 years
program.
more involved and informed citizens $7,000 /yr for group 3 and aesthetic lakes
Measure streamflow, water quality Information needed to maintain Current budget: Flow and quality monitoring at
Commission stream monitoring p arameters hydrologic model and track changes $30,000 /yr two sites on SC. USGS
in watershed pollutant loading. monitoring site is separate.
Citizens, generally students, Better understanding of stream water HCES: $1,000
Volunteer stream monitoring provide macro invertebrate and habitat quality, more involved per site Currently 3 locations in SC, 1
monitoring through the and informed citizens Current budget: in WM
RiverWatch program $5,000 1yr
Citizens monitor plants and Better understanding of wetland plant $3,750 for four
Volunteer wetland monitoring invertebrates through the WHEP and habitat quality, more involved Not currently performed
program. and infonned citizens sites
Aquatic plant monitoring Survey of composition of plant Information needed to manage Estimated at May be possible for volunteers
community and abundance of aquatic plants, evaluate control $5 to conduct some monitoring;
various species. measures, plan for future actions. ,000 per site would require training.
Management Plans
Detailed understanding of i
Approx $10,000 To date have been paid for by
Lake TMDLs Complete TMDLs as required impairment causes and options for
improvement each MPCA
Comprehensive review of lake water Approx $10,000
Develop a management plan for quality, beneficial use, recreation, depending on Com lete concurrent with
Lake management plans fish and wildlife needs; set specific amount of p
each lake in concert with TMDLs 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 impairments and options for $100- 200,000 MPCA
improvement
29
JAShingle Creek\C MMajor Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Action Description Outcome Cost Comments/Notes
Conduct a series of assessments of Identification of potential problems Shingle Creek Corridor Plan
the major streams to evaluate
Stream assessments and and solutions; establish a Approx $5,000 completed in 2004; assessment
channel ca
management plans capacity and erosion, comprehensive strategy for managing per mile of tributaries to be completed in
water quality and habitat, and across city boundaries 2006
potential for improvement
Assemble functions and values Identification of high value wetlands
Wetland protection and analyses developed by the cities for preservation; amendment of rules Estimate $10-
preservation plan into an overall plan for the and standards if necessary to protect 15,000
watershed and preserve wetlands based on
function and value
Capital Improvement Plan
Implementation of management Projects to meet water quality Depends on project, city and
plans standards Improved water quality Variable consultant staff time, capital
costs, grants to property owners
Additional studies identified in Additional or refined data revised Depends on study, city and
Special studies as needed management plans, new goals and policies Variable consultant staff time
requirements, etc.
Decreased erosion; decrease impacts Depends on project, city and
Shore line /streambank restoration Return of native plants to shoreline to lakes and streams fiom lawn Variable consultant staff time, capital
and erosion control areas. maintenance, storm water runoff; costs, grants to property owners
improve habitat
Education and Public Outreach
Maintain rules that require water M aint e impa of year flood upstream increased City and Most costs of treatment/
Management rules and standards quality treatment, rate and volume Impervious surface; buffer runoff to consultant staff meeting the rules and
control on new and re- development wetlands and watercourses; increase time ordinances are borne by
and update as necessary infiltration and recharge developers
Variety of activities that meet Increased awareness of lake water Currently
Education and public outreach Commission objectives and the quality issues, changes in behavior budgeted at
programs NPDES Phase II Education and that reduce runoff of sediment $30,000
Public Outreach requirements nutrients to the lakes and streams.
Increased awareness of homeowners' City and Involve lake associations,
Encourage homeowners to adopt homeowners, commercial
BMP demonstration projects practices that protect water quality. Impacts on lake water quality, consultant staff property owners, students,
reduced runoff and erosion time, grants
youth groups, etc.
30
JAShir9ek \CIPs \Major Plan Amendment \September packet \FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
2.2 MONITORING/INFORMATION GATHERING
Water quality monitoring is performed to provide information on possible water quality
problems that may require intervention and to document future changes (improvement or
deterioration) 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 further 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 expenditure of
limited funds for monitoring. Linking the monitoring activities to the monitoring objectives is
the most important aspect of a monitoring plan.
One of the Commissions' goals is to coordinate all monitoring efforts in the watershed. Data
collected by other agencies will be documented and incorporated into a single database.
2.2.1 Lake Monitoring
2.2.1.1 Lake Monitoring Objectives
The most important 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 lakes in the watershed in comparison to state water quality
standards established for nutrients.
To quantify changes over 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 the protection of water quality.
2.2.1.2 Commission Lake Monitoring
The Commission 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 years.
Because the high priority 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
monitoring 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'Major Plan AmendmenrSeptember packeffINAL water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.1.3 Volunteer Lake Monitoring
O
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 small 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 conducting 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
exceed the eight lakes budgeted; in most years fewer than eight would be monitored.
Table 27. CAMP Lake Monitoring Schedule.
Historical Recommended
I Group 191 192 193 194 195 96197198199100 101102103104105106107108109110I
Bass 1 I I Ix) Ix s l IxI IxI Ixl (x► ►xi I
Eagle 1 Ix1s1xlslslxlx x s l Ixl 1x1 Ixl 1xI
Pike I 1 I Ixlxlx Ix xI IxI
Twin Middle 1 IM1 IMIxI IX I xI 1x1 Ixl Ixl
Ryan 12 1 1 1 I 11x( IxI IxI Ix I Ixl I Ixl
Schmidt 2 I 1xlslsixlslxlxl IxI Ixl IxI
Twin Lower 2 IM1 IxI 1MI IxI IMI IxI IxI Ix xI
Cedar Island 3 IxlsIsIsIs xI Ixl Ixl IxI
(Crystal I 3 I I I IxI I IxI I I IxI I I IxI IxI IxI
lPomerleau I 3 I I 11 IxI I IxI IxI IxI I I IxI IxI
ITwin Upper 1 3 IMI x I IMI x IxI IxI IxI IxI IxI IxI
(Curtis I Aesth I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
(Magda I Aesth I I I I I I I IxIx I Ix IxI I IxI I
IMeadow I Aesth I I I I I IxI IxI Ix I x I I I IxI
(Palmer I Aesth I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I, I I
ISuccess I Aesth I I 1 I 1 I x I I I I(( I x I I x I I l x l l
*Added to schedule for 2006 because sampling not completed in 2005 due to lack of volunteer.
x volunteer monitored
M Met Council monitored
S Secchi depth monitored only
32
J:'Sbingle Creek\ClPsWIajor Plan Amendment September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.2 Stream Monitoring
2.2.2.1 Stream Monitoring Objectives
The following objectives have been established for stream monitoring in the Shingle Creek and
West Mississippi watersheds:
To quantify the current status of streams in the watershed compared to state water quality standards.
To quantify changes over time and space, or trends, in the water quality status of stream in the
Shingle Creek and West Mississippi watersheds.
To quantify the effectiveness of implemented BMPs for the protection of water quality.
2.2.2.2 C07nnission Stream Monitoring
The existing stream monitoring program 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 USGS at Queen Avenue (SC -1). Streamflow 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. Temperature 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 water quality goals.
Two amendments to the stream monitoring program should be considered. First, additional
parameters were added in 2005 to better characterize the Creek. Adding carbonaceous biological
oxygen demand (CBOD), ammonia, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) will help better
understand dissolved oxygen in the Creek. The added cost of these parameters is $5,000 per
year, increasing the Commission stream monitoring budget to $35,000 per year.
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 would 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
JASbinele CreekUPsMajor Plan Amendment'September packefFINAL Wafer Quality Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.2.3 Volunteer Stream Monitorin
g
The current volunteer stream monitoring activities are limited to macroinvertebrate monitoring
as described below. This activity has provided useful information and is a good opportunity 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, appearance. The most
efficient means of implementing further volunteer monitoring would be to form partnerships
with specific schools to develop monitoring strategies, especially on smaller tributaries.
2.2.2.4 Biomonitoring
Biomonitoring adds an important dimension to stream water quality assessment. The presence
or absence of various macroinvertebrate and fish species can provide supplementary information
about water quality.
The Commissions 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 program is limited both by the number of student groups that can commit to ongoing
participation and by the number of sites that are suitable for sampling. If additional sites are
identified through the stream assessments discussed below, the Commissions should work with
Hennepin County Environmental Services to recruit schools to monitor theirs.
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
performing a fish survey is $4 -5,000 per site.
2.2.3 Wetland Monitoring
The Commissions currently do not conduct any wetland monitoring. 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
priority wetlands for preservation are identified the Commissions should consider enrolling those
wetlands in this program.
34
P,Shingle CreekCClPsUvlajor Plan Amendmenf;September packetTINAL Waler Quality Plan_Sept.doc
2.2.4 Aquatic Plant Monitoring
Aquatic plants protect water quality by absorbing nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen that
could stimulate algal blooms. Plant beds stabilize soft lake and river bottoms 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 watermilfoil.
Aquatic plants provide important reproductive, food, and cover habitat for fish, invertebrates,
and wildlife.
Lake aquatic plant monitoring provides information needed to manage a uatic plants, evaluate
gp q
control measures, and lan
p for future actions. Aquatic plant communities are surveyed for
composition of plant community and species abundance and to documents the location and
extent of aquatic plants. This monitoring is especially useful as water quality management
activities are implemented and 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 years. The estimated cost of implementation would
be $4,000 per site, depending on lake size. An aquatic plant management plan is estimated to
cost $5,000 each. After the initial inventory is complete properly trained volunteers can monitor
aquatic vegetation at a much lower 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 Management Plan Objectives
The following objectives have been established for lake management plans in the Shingle Creek
watershed:
To establish specific water quality and beneficial use goals for each lake and a detailed plan for
P q
g P
achieving them.
To refine Commission rules and standards for new development within the lakeshed to prevent
further degradation of and to improve lake water quality.
35
J:`Shingle Creek CIPsWajor Plan Amendment`September packetTINAL Water Qualily Plan_Sept.doc
2.3.1.2 Lake Management Plans
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 Commission 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 lake management
plans: Plymouth (Bass, Pike, Schmidt, 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 Commissions' Management Plans
would present both city and Commission plans in a unified format 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 would 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 Minnesota
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 date, the
TMDLs have been funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2.3.2 Streams
2.3.2.1 Stream Management Plan Objectives
The following objectives have been 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:` hkOe Creek \CIN Major Plan AmendmentSeptember packef)FINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
To establish specific goals for each stream and a detailed plan for achieving them.
To establish a comprehensive strategy for managing across city boundaries.
2.3.2.2 Stream Assessments
Stream assessments provide a comprehensive review of stream water quality; beneficial uses;
carrying 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 Commission
extended that stream assessment from the Brooklyn Center border to the head of Shingle Creek
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 infonmation; 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 preparing a stream assessment is $3,000 per mile.
2.3.2.3 Stream 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 stream 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 TMDLs 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 monitoring required. To date, the TMDLs have
been funded by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
2.3.3 Wetlands
2.3.3.1 Retland Management Plan Objectives
The following objectives have been established for the wetland management plan in the Shingle
Creek and West Mississippi watersheds:
37
]:\Shingle CreeklCIPsWajor Plan Amendment.September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
To identify high priority wetlands for protection and preservation;
To establish management strategies and priorities for wetlands based on their watershed
significance.
2.3.3.2 uTetland Protection and Preservation Plan
This plan will compile the wetland functions and values assessments for high priority wetlands
conducted by the cities. From these results the Commissions will develop management
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 Protection and
Preservation Plan to follow. The estimated cost of preparing this Plan is $20,000.
2.4 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
2.4.1.1 Management Plan Implementation
Implementation of this Water Quality Plan will generate the various management plans and
studies as well as specific improvement projects intended to improve water quality. These
would be incorporated into the Commissions' annual Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs).
Implementation of most of these projects would be at the city level, with Commission 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 Shoreline /Streambank Restoration
Correcting shoreline and streambank erosion problems was identified in the Second Generation
Plan and the Shingle Creek Corridor Study as being an important issue. Residential properties
along Shingle Creek in Brooklyn Park are experiencing significant erosion problems, and a
recent project in Maple Grove and Plymouth addressed erosion on Pike Creek. Additionally,
Shingle Creek is experiencing low dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations that may be directly
related to stream structure. 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
):`Shingle Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Aster Quality P1an_Sept.doc
2.5.1 Watershed Management Rules and Standards
The Commissions have enacted Rules and Standards regulating the treatment of stormwater
runoff from development and redevelopment projects in the watershed. The Commissions will
modify these rules as necessary to address new concerns or as the individual resource
management plans or TMDLs require.
2.5.2 Education and Public Outreach
The Commissions currently sponsor a series of education and outreach activities that meet both
Commission objectives as well as the NPDES Phase II Education and Public Outreach
requirements of nine of the ten cities in the watershed (Minneapolis falls under the requirements
of NPDES Phase 1). These activities raise awareness of lake crater quality issues and provide
opportunities for residents and commercial property owners 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 program will be integrated with the resources management plans and with the TMDLs, not
only to provide public input and review of the plans but also as an important component of
implementation. Many nonpoint sources impairments will require change in management
practices, not only by riparian property owners but by all property owners in the watersheds.
The current education and public outreach budget is $30,000 per year. The Commissions also
participate in the Metro Watershed Partners consortium as well as informal alliances with other
commissions to maximize effectiveness of message. As additional resource management plans
and TMDLs are conducted, this 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 will be encouraged to assist
cities and property owners to adopt practices that protect water quality. These will include
establishing native shorelines, buffer strips, planting 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 Activities
The Commissions currently undertake several activities in this Plan:
Volunteer lake monitoring (CAMP);
39
J:`Shingle Creek\CTsMajor Plan AmendmenPSeptember packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Commission stream monitoring;
Volunteer macroinvertebrate monitoring;
Education and public outreach; and
Maintenance of management rules and standards.
Several lake and stream TMDLs are also underway, 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
monitoring 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 funded through the regular budget, that is from the general allocations from the
cities, and which should be funded by alternative 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
PShingle CreekUPs'Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 28. implementation Plan Costs.
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Monitoring /Information Gathering
Commission stream monitoring 1 22,500 1 30,000 I 35,000 1 35,000 38,800 1 40,000 1 41,000 1 42,000 1 43,000 I 45,000
Commission lake monitoring 1 I I I I I 15,000 I 1 15,000
Volunteer lake monitoring 1 7,000 1 7,000 1 6,500 1 6,500 1 6,500 1 6,500 1 6,500 I 6,500 1 6,500 1 6,500
Volunteer stream monitoring 5,000 5,000 1 5,000 4 4,000_1 4,000 I 4,000 j 4,000 I 4,000 I 5,000
Volunteer wetland monitoring I 1 I I 4,000 1 4,000 1 4,000 1 4,000 I 4,000 1 6,000
Aquatic plant/fish monitoring I 1 1 I 1 2,100 1 1 2,000 I 1 2,000 1
SUBTOTAL 1 $34,500 I $42, 000 1 S46,500 I $45,500 1 $55,400 1 $54,500 1 $72,500 1 $56,500 1 $74,500 1 $62,500
Education and Public Outreach
Management Rules and Standards 1 Maintain existing, may be future cost unknown at this time
Education and public outreach programs 58,000 47,500 1 50,750 1 56,000 1 64,400 1 66,000 1 67,500 1 69,000 1 71,000 1 71,000
BMP demonstration projects 1 10,000 I 1 I I 25,000 1 25,000 1 25,000 1 25,000 1 25,000
Management Plans'
Lakes
TMDLS Phase I (U, M, L Twin, Ryan, 85,300
Crystal)
TMDLS Phase 11 (balance) I 1 1 63,200
Lake management plans Phase I 1 1 1 20,000 1 I 1
Lake management plans Phase 11 1 I I 1 1 15,000 1
Streams
Stream TMDLS 130,000 chloride 1 200,000 DO/ Biotic Integrity
1 Shingle Creek Corridor Study 40,000 1 I 1
Phase II Stream Assessment (Bass, Eagle, 20,000
Pike, Twin, Oxbow, Mattson)
Wetlands
Wetland protection and preservation plan 1 1 1 1 I 1 20,000 1 I 1
Capital Improvement Plan To Be Determined
Brooklyn Park Shingle Creek Restoration I I 1 750,000 1 1
New Ho e- Wincrest Pond 290,000 1 I 1 1
p I 1 1 I 1 I 1
Maple Grove Pond P51 1 1 1 I I 1,459,000 1 1 I 1
Robbinsdale Crystal Lake Water Quality 1 1 1 1 I I 400,000 1 1 1
41
):\Shingle CreekTIPAMajor Plan Amendment \September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Maple
Brooklyn Center 648,000
Wetland 639W 1 I I I I
I I I I 690,0001
New Hope 45 Ave Pond 550,000
Brooklyn Center- Shingle Creek 430,000
Restoration
Maple Grove Pond P33 1 I I I I 1 574,000
Maple Grove Pond P55 I I I I I I 855,000 1
SUBTOTAL I 1 $750,000 1 1 $1,749,000 1 $1,738,000 i $2,409,000 1 To Be Determined 1
Total Estimated Cost: $92,500 $109,500 $117,250 $121,500 $131,800 $165,500 $165,000 $150,500 $170,500 $158,500
Commission, city assessments
Total Estimated Cost: $75,000 $322,500 $434,500 $496,125 To Be Determined
Commission, capital levy
Total Estimated Cost: Cities, $675,000 $1,426,500 $1,303,500 $1,912,875 To Be Determined
capital projects
Total Estimated Cost: Grant
Funds plus Commission match $lo,000 $20,000
Total Estimated Cost: MPCA d $148,500 lake TMDLs
TMDL funding $130,000 chloride TMDL
$200, 000 D0 /Biotic TMDL
Items in Bold print are partially or entirely funded from grant funds
42
1aSh ek\CIPs \Major Man AmendmertASepternber packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
References Cited
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. (2003). Guidance Manual For Assessing the Quality of
Minnesota Surface RVaters For the Determination ofbnpairment: 345(b) Report and 303(d) List.
St. Paul, MN: Environmental Outcomes Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
htti): /v.rw NN7.nca.state.mn.us /publications /manuals /tmdl- zuidancemanual.Ddf (April 22, 2004)
City of Plymouth Water Resources Plan.
Schupp, D. (1992). An Ecological Classification of Minnesota Lakes T� Associated Fish
Communities. St. Paul, MN: Section of Fisheries, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.
Investigational Report 417.
43
JAShin_le Creek \CIPs\Major Plan Amendmenf September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Appendix A Field Monitoring Protocols
Lakes
Field Collection Sites and Procedures
The Shingle Creek Watershed Commission does not currently routinely monitor lakes. Should
the Commission choose to begin this practice, field collection procedures similar to those
established for stream monitoring will be developed to assure quality assurance and control.
Routine Lake Monitoring Parameters
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 Resppaonssible Analyses
Chlorophyll -a Surface Bi- weekly SCWMC Lab
Total P Surface,bottom Bi- weekly i SCWMC Lab
Ortho P I Surface,bottom I Bi- weekly I SCWMC I Lab
TKN Surface,bottom I Bi- weekly I SCWMC I Lab i
Total Fe I Bottom I Bi- weekly I SCWMC I Lab
Temp/DO /conductivity Profile Bi- weekly SCWMC Field probe
profile
Secchi depth Profile I Bi- weekly SCWMC Field reading
Zooplankton I Counts I Spring, summer, fall I SCWMC I Field reading
Phytoplankton I Counts I Spring, summer, fall SCWMC I Field reading
Fish I Summer, winter I DNR? I Field reading
I I I I I I
44
J:`Shingle Creek \CTs''Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan— Sept.doc
Streams
Field Collection Sites and Procedures
All sampling will follow Wenck Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) for grab and automated
sampling (Appendices A and B). Automatic sample collection will only occur at the SCWMC
continuous monitoring sites at Zane Avenue (SC -2) and the watershed outlet (SC -0).
Samples will be analyzed by a state certified laboratory (Braun Intertec, MDH Certified
Laboratory). Quality assurance and quality control procedures will be followed including
collecting field blanks, rinsing collection buckets with distilled water, sampling duplicates, and
analyzing samples within 24 hours of collection.
Discharge measurements will follow the Wenck SOP for stream discharge monitoring
(Appendix C). Measurements will occur across numerous flow regimes to develop accurate
rating curves. Flow measurements will be made using a Marsh McBimey velocity meter and
Solinst Level Loggers or ISCO submerged probes or bubblers for stage measurements.
Routine Stream Monitoring Parameters
The following table identifies the parameters to be monitored and the frequency at which
monitoring should occur.
45
]:`Shingle Creek CIPs'Major Plan Amendment'September packetTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
Table 30. Stream Monitoring Parameters And Frequency
Parameter Sites Frequency ResPpaonsible Analyses
Flow SC -0, SC -2 During all sampling trips (10 SCWMC Field Probe
USGS to 20 samples) USGS
Total/Volatile SC -0, SC -2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
Suspended Solids composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Carbonaceous SC -0, SC -2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Biochemical
Oxygen Demand
Fecal Coliform, E. SC -0 6 storm events SCWMC Lab
coli Biweekly May though
October
Ammonia SC -0, SC -2 I As needed for special projects I SCWMC I Lab
Chloride SC -0, SC -2 I Biweekly I SCWMC I Lab
Nitrate +Nitrite SC -0, SC -2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Soluble Reactive SC -0, SC -2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
Phosphorus composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Chemical Oxygen SC -0, SC -2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Demand
Total Phosphorus SC -0, SC -2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Chlorophyll -a I SC-0, SC -2 I As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Total Kjeldahl SC -0, SC -2 2 storms (1 pollutograph; 1 SCWMC Lab
Nitrogen composite)
Biweekly May through Oct
Total Dissolved SC -0, SC -2 As needed for special projects SCWMC Lab
Solids
PH SC -0, SC -2 Biweekly May through SCWMC Field Probe
October
Dissolved Oxygen I SC -0, SC -2 I Biweekly May through Oct I SCWMC I Field Probe
Conductivity SC -0, SC -2 Biweekly May through Oct; SCWMC Field Probe
USGS Monitored at 15- minute USGS
intervals annually
Temperature SC -0, SC -2 Biweekly May through Oct; SCWMC Field Probe
USGS Monitored at 15- minute USGS
intervals annually
0
):\Shingle Creek CIPsUajor Plan Amendmenf,September packefTINAL Water Quality Plan_Sept.doc
i
Monitoring for other pollutants of concern is also necessary for identifying potential stressors
associated with urban environments. For example, oil and rease may resent a potential
g YP P
problem since much of the watershed is urbanized. Previous sampling for these parameters does
not suggest these areas 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 limitations associated with sample results. Quality
assurance objectives are outlined in the following table.
Table 31. Monitoring Quality Assurance Objectives
Parameter Method Target Detection hon Prec> Ion Accuracy Completeness
Limit
Total/Volatile EPA 160.2 5.0 mg/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Suspended Solids EPA 160.4 5.0 mg/L
Carbonaceous SM5210B 2 mg/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Biochemical Oxygen
Demand
Fecal Coliform, E. coli SM9222D 1 cfu/100 ml NA I NA 195%
Ammonia EPA 350.2 0.05 mg/L 20 %RPD 175-125% 1 95%
Chloride EPA 325.1 1 mg/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Nitrate Nitrite EPA 353.2 0.02 mg/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Soluble Reactive EPA 365.2 10 gg/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Phosphorus
Chemical Oxygen EPA 410.4 3 mg/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Demand
Total Phosphorus EPA 365.4 10 4g/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Chlorophyll -a SM10200H 0.5 ug/L 20 %RPD 75 -125% 95%
Total 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
JAShingle Creek\CIPsMajor Plan Amendment\september packetTINAL Rater Quality Plan_Sept.doc
I
Field duplicates are separate samples that are collected as close as possible in ace and time.
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.
Analytical duplicates are created by analyzing two sub samples from a single homogeneous field
sample. The purpose of analytical 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 sample is the "true value."
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 sample. Standards will be run for all parameters at a rate of 10 percent.
Accuracy will be calculated as percent recovery of the known value.
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 blanks will be used in this study:
reagent and rinseate.
A reagent blank is a sample composed of all reagents (in the same quantities) used in preparing a
sample for analysis. It is carried through the same sample preparation steps as the sample.
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.
Rinseate blanks are filled in the field using contaminant -free laboratory water. The lab water is
poured into the sampling device and then into the sample 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.
Representativeness
Representativeness is a qualitative measure of the extent to which the data collected actually
represents the true environmental condition or sample population. Sample event timing will
occur over a range of conditions including rainfall and dry weather periods.
I
48
JAShingle Creek \CIPsMajor Plan Amendmerrt \September packcfTINAL Rater Quality Plan Sept.doc
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 7, 2006
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Todd Blomstrom, Director of Public Works Tr,4�
SUBJECT: Special Assessment Policy Riverwood Neighborhood
City Council Work Session Item
City staff will be conducting a neighborhood informational meeting for the Riverwood Area
Neighborhood Street and Utility Improvement Project on November 14, 2006. One of the primary
questions from residents expressed at these informational meetings pertains to the amount of their
special assessments. A vast majority of properties within past neighborhood project areas have been
standard R1 zoned residential lots. The guidelines for special assessments of standard R1 lots are
clearly established in the City's Special Assessment Policy.
The Riverwood Area neighborhood contains some unusual lot configurations and non- standard
construction conditions that result in difficulties with the interpretation of the City's Special
Assessment Policy. Staff is seeking guidance from the City Council for the following three issues to
assist in the completion of a preliminary assessment role for the Riverwood Project.
1. Special Assessments alone West River Road
West River Road between 66 Avenue and 73r Avenue was reconstructed in 1990. This
segment of roadway was paved with a standard Mn/DOT bituminous mixture that is no
longer used for road construction within Brooklyn Center. Unfortunately, the top layer of
pavement is rapidly deteriorating and requires frequent patch work.
Many of the properties along West River Road received special assessments in 1990 for the
reconstruction of West River Road. This assessment was levied over a period of 20- years.
Some residents are still paying off the special assessment.
Engineering staff is evaluating options for milling off the top surface and overlaying the
roadway with 1 '/2 inches of pavement. New street pavement has an expected service life of
25 years or more. Given that the existing pavement along West River Road is only 16 years
old, the proposed overlay work is generally considered as an unscheduled surface treatment
maintenance project. It may not be reasonable to consider the overlay as an improvement
that would qualify for special assessments. Staff recommends that special assessments not be
levied against adjoining properties for the proposed overlay work along West River Road.
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.cityolbrooklyncenter.org
I
2. Estates of Riverwood Townhome Develovment
The Estates of Riverwood development includes the new detached townhomes located along
Riverwood Lane. The street and public utilities along Riverwood Lane were constructed in
2001. All lots within the development have their frontage along Riverwood Lane and are
addressed off of Riverwood Lane. The development is bounded by Willow Lane and 65
Avenue, which are scheduled to be reconstructed with the project. A site map is attached to
this memorandum.
Staff is seeking guidance to determine if special assessments should be applied to properties
within the Estates of Riverwood. The City may have difficulty demonstrating an actual
benefit to the property should a property owner within the Estates of Riverwood appeal the
special assessment.
3. Definition of a "Subdividable Lot"
Section 2.B of the City's Special Assessment Policy states "For properties which may be
legally, subdividable into two or more lots, the assessment to be applied shall equal the
maximum number of lots allowable times the unit assessment Within the Riverwood
Neighborhood, there are some lots that could be subdivided while maintaining the existing
homes and other lots that could only be subdivided if the existing home were removed in
order to meet setback and lot frontage requirements provided in the City's zoning code.
Staff is seeking guidance to interpret if the definition of "legally subdividable" should
include only those lots that could be subdivided while maintaining the existing structure on
the site, or any lot that could be subdivided under the minimum requirements of the City's
zoning code, assuming that the existing home is removed and shifted to the new lot.
ni
m
R
O
O
O.
O,
CD
0
�D
c
i
m
U)
rr
0)
ML
CD
U)
O
C
O
O
Q
V691 8AA n' zg
z"Z
MEMORANDUM
TO: Curt Boganey, City Manager
FROM: Brad Hoffman, Community Development Director
DATE: November 7, 2006
SUBJECT: Days Inn
At the September 11, 2006 work session, staff discussed the possible
acquisition of the Olive Garden and also the possibility of acquiring the Days Inn
hotel. With the acquisition of the Days Inn, the EDA would have available for
redevelopment approximately 13.5 acres along the freeway. The owner of the Days
Inn, through his representative, had approached staff to see if there was an interest
in purchasing the hotel. Mr. Peter Vang, the owner, indicated that he would make
the property available for $4,750,000. Mr. Vang had purchased the hotel in the
spring of 2005 for $4,500,000.
In response staff engaged the services of Patrick Riley of Riley Real Estate,
Inc to provide the EDA with an appraisal of the hotel property. Mr. Riley, who has
extensive experience appraising hotels, established the "as is" market valued of the
subject property at $3,850,000. The EDA staff made an offer in the amount of
$3,475,000 for the property for the owner' consideration. The owner rejected the
offer and countered with $4,500,000. On Monday the 6 the representative
inquired as to the interest of the EDA in the site. He was informed that the EDA
was still interested in acquiring the site, but the owner should consider offering the
property on the open market to help establish its value given the current gap
between our positions in excess of $1,000,000. Mr. Vang has now counted with
$3,90000 "as is (See attached letter). I believe that Mr. Vang's offer is
reasonable en our g i appraisal and would recommend that staff be directed to
proceed with a purchase agreement for EDA approval.
Growth Resource Partners, LLC
Office: 612.529.0900 Fax: 612.522.3663
November 6, 2006
Mr. Brad Hoffman
Community Development Director
City of Brooklyn Center
f 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
RE: My letter dated October 27, 2006 (counter offer) and our conversations today
Bruce Farrington
140 Birnamwood Drive Dear Mr. Hoffman:
Burnsville, MN 55337
612.991.4456 Thank you for contacting me last Monday in response to the letter highlighting Mr.
farrcons @aol.com Vang's counter offer. As we discussed, the City was not willing to pay $4,500,000 for
the Days Inn property, FF &E, and business operations. Mr. Vang was informed of that
Lynn Hauger decision.
5147 Humboldt Ave. N
Minneapolis, MN 55430 However, Mr. Vang is a motivated seller. In discussing the City's offer, your letter
612.554.9024 dated October 25, 2006, with his financial advisor, he would be willing to sell the
Imhauger@yahoo.com property/real estate to the City for $3,900,000 on an "AS IS" basis.
Therefore, Mr. Vang kindly requests the City's Economic Development Authority to
reconsider its offer in relation to a further reduction in the asking price. On behalf of
Mr. Vang, I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter. Thank you for
your consideration.
Kindest regards,
Lynn M. Hauger
CC: The Honorable Mayor Kragness and
City nil
Cou c Members
Economic Development Authority Board
Mr. Tom Bublitz, Community Development Specialist
Mr. Curt Boganey, City Manager
Mr. Bruce Farrington
Mr. Peter Vang, Days Inn owner operator
...brokerage, advisory and development services for the real estate community
City of Brooklyn Center
A Millennium Community
MEMORANDUM COUNCIL WORK SESSION
DATE: November 8, 2006
TO: Brooklyn Center City Council
FROM: Curt Boganey, City
SUBJECT: Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED
On November 16` the City will have one vote at the AMM Policy Adoption Meeting on
the proposed legislative policies (attached). Each Council member is asked to review
these policies to determine if there are policies that we as a City would not wish to
support or if there are alternative polices that we should to bring before the body.
If you have proposed changes please come prepared to present them to the Council at the
work session. If there are no proposed changes the City representative should be
authorized to vote in favor of the policies as presented.
BACKGROUND
COUNCIL POLICY ISSUES
GACity ManagerMORKSESSION.MEMIRM.doc
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.cityofbrooklyncenterorg
Association of
letropolitan
lunidpa ities
DATE: October 24, 2006
TO: AMM City Managers /Administrators, Mayors and Councilmembers
FROM: AMM Staff
RE: 2007 Proposed Legislative Policies
Enclosed are the proposed AMM Legislative Policies for 2007. The proposed policies
were created through AMM's inclusive Policy Committee process and reflect the
consensus of the participants in that process. The policies will be adopted by the full
membership at our annual Policy Adoption Meeting, as described in the attached
brochure. Please review the policies and equally important, please be sure to attend
the Policy Adoption Meeting on November 16, 2006 at the Holiday Inn East in St.
Paul.
Each mayor, councilmember and manager /administrator has received a copy of the
Proposed Legislative Policies. If you would like additional copies please call the
AMM office at (651) 215 -4000. Thank you.
145 University Avenue West
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044
Telephone: (651) 215 -4000
Fax: (651) 281 -1299
E -mail: amm @amm145.org
January 2007
Legislative
PO LI C I ES
Q
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
145 University Ave. W. St. Paul, Minnesota 55103 -2044
Phone: (651) 215 -4000 Fax: (651) 281 -1299
Website: www.amm 145.org
Table of Contents
Municipal Revenue Taxation (1)
-A State and Local Fiscal Relationship 1
-B Levy Limits 1
-C Local GovernmentAid (LGA) 1
-D Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC) 2
-E Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution 2
-F Limited Market Value (LMV) 2
I-G Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits 2
I-H State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property 3
NClass Rate Tax System 3
I- J Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility 3
-K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases 4
-L City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance 4
-M Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA) 4
-N Aggregate Mining Fee 4
-1-0 State Program Revenue Sources 4
General Legislation (II)
II -A Mandates Local Authority 5
II -B City Enterprise Activities. 5
II -C Firearms on City Property 5
II -D 911 Telephone Tax 5
II -E 800 MHz Radio System 5
II -F Impaired Waters 6
II-G Building Codes 6
II-H Administrative Fines 6
Housing Economic Development (III)
111-A City Role in Housing 7
III -B City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing 8
III-C Inclusionary Housing 8
III -D State Role in Affordable Housing 8
III -E Federal Role in Affordable Housing 9
III -F City Role in Economic Development 9
111 -6 Development 10
III -H Redevelopment 10
2007 Legislative Policies i
Contents
1114 Tax Increment Financing 10
III-J Eminent Domain .............................11
III-K This Old House/This Old Shop 12
III -1.. Business Subsidy Policy 12
III-M Internet Technology 12
Metropolitan Agencies (IV)
IV A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance 13
IV B Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council 13
IV C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members 14
IV D Funding Regional Services 14
IVE Regional Systems 14
IV -F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans 15
IV G Local Zoning Authority 15
IV -H Regional Growth 15
IV-1 Comprehensive Planning Schedule 16
IV -J Natural Resource Protection 16
IV K Federal Clean Water Mandates 17
IV L Inflow and Infiltration (1 /1) 17
IV -M Water Supply 18
IV N Service Availability Charge (SAC) 19
IV-0 Funding Regional Parks Open Space
IV -P Livable Communities 19
IVQAffordable Housing Need 20
Transportation (V)
V A Transportation and Transit Funding 21
V B Regional Transit System 22
V -C Transit Operating Subsidies 22
V -D Road Access Fee 22
VE Street Utility 22
V -F Highway Turnbacks; Funding 23
V G "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role 23
V -H Red Light Cameras 23
V I Airport Noise Mitigation
23
V J Cities Under 5,000 Population 24
V -K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula 24
V L Municipal Input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads 24
VM PlatAuthority 25
V -N City Speed Limit Control 25
V -O MnDOT's Maintenance Budget 25
ii Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Ili
Committee Rosters
Municipal Revenue Policy Committee 27
Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee 28
Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee 28
Transportation and General Government Policy Committee 29
AMU MISSION STATEMENT
To serve as the primary representative of the collective interests of all metropolitan
cities on metropolitan issues and statewide issues with metropolitan significance.
AMU MEMBERS
1. Albertville* 26. Fridley 52. Plymouth
2. Anoka 27. Golden Valley 53. Prior Lake
3. Apple Valley 28. Hastings 54. Ramsey
4. Arden Hills 29. Hopkins 55. Richfield
5. Bayport 30. Hugo 56. Robbinsdale
6 Blaine 31. Independence 57. Rosemount
7. Bloomington 32. Inver Grove Heights 58. St. Anthony
8. Brooklyn Center 33. Lake Elmo 59. St. Francis
9. Brooklyn Park 34. Lakeville 60. St. Louis Park
10. Burnsville 35. Lauderdale 61. St. Michael*
11. Champlin 36. Long Lake 62. St. Paul
12. Chanhassen 37. Mahtomedi 63. St. Paul Park
13. Chaska 38. Maplewood 64. Savage
14. Circle Pines 39. Medicine Lake 65. Shakopee
15. Columbia Heights 40. Mendota Heights 66 Shorewood
16. Coon Rapids 41. Minneapolis 67. South St. Paul
17. Cottage Grove 42. Minnetonka 68. Spring Park
18. Crystal 43. Minnetrista 69. Sunfish Lake
19. Dayton 44. Mound 70. Three Rivers Park District*
19. Eagan 45. New Brighton 71. Waconia
20. Eden Prairie 46. Newport 72. Wayzata
21. Edina 47. North St. Paul 73. West St. Paul
22. Excelsior 48. Oak Park Heights 74. White Bear Lake
23. Falcon Heights 49. Oakdale 75. Woodbury
24. Farmington 50. Orono 76. Woodland
25. Forest Lake 51. Osseo
Associate Member
2007 Legislative Policies iii
Municipal Revenue
Taxation (1)
I -A State and Local Fiscal Relationship
The AMM supports a strong state and local fiscal partnership that emphasizes the following principles:
Strong financial stewardship and accountability for public resources that emphasizes m aximizin g
efficiencies in service delivery and effective communication between the state and local units of
government, and to the public, about state and local roles and responsibilities;
Certainty and predictability in revenue sources including the property tax and local government aids;
Adequate revenue sources available to cities that allow the needs of cities to be met, mandates to be
funded, and that maintain our state's economic vitality and competitiveness;
Recognition that a `one size fits all' system that limits cities to the property tax as the major non -state
aid revenue source does not fit all and to permit access to other tax and revenue sources that are
not currently accessible as well as oppose reductions or limitations on the use ofvarious license,
development, or other general fees to pay for related services;
An equitable revenue and finance system that values all citizens receiving adequate levels of city
services at similar levels of taxation, provides financial assistance to compensate cities and their
taxpayers for overburdens created by non taxpaying users of services and reduces tax burden
disparities among cities.
I -B Levy Limits
The AMM strongly opposes levy limits and urges the legislature to not re -enact them. The AMM also
opposes the imposition of artificial mechanisms such as valuation freezes, payroll freezes, reverse
referenda, super majority requirements for levy, or other limitations on the local government budget and
taxing process. Expenditures for capital improvements such as infrastructure reconstruction should not
be subject to levy limits.
I -C Local GovernmentAid (LGA)
Local GovernmentAid (LGA), the only remaining form of general purpose state aid to Minnesota cities,
has been systematically reduced and modified by previous legislatures, at a significant cost to most
metropolitan communities. As a result of these changes a majority of the metropolitan area's cities no
longer receive any LGA.
AMM supports the restoration of previous LGA cuts to fully fund the current LGA formula.
AMM supports the continuation of LGA to assist those cities whose public service needs and costs
exceeds their ability to pay.
2007 Legislative Policies 1
Revenue Taxation
AMM supports modifying LGA formula floors and caps for the purpose of reducing annual payment
distribution volatility.
AMM supports a state- conducted analysis of the impact of including the unique needs of rapidly
growing cities on the LGA formula.
AMM supports the inclusion of inflationary factors in the LGA formula.
I -D Market Value Homestead Credit (MVHC)
The Market Value Homestead Credit is intended to be a state aid to individual homestead property
taxpayers. However, the MVHC reimbursement structure undermines accountability in a number of
ways, most directly by enabling the state to reduce or even eliminate the reimbursement to local units of
government while preserving the benefit of the credit to the homeowner.
To promote transparency, the credit should be structured as a direct credit to the taxpayer rather than a
reimbursement to local units of government. Further, any savings to the state resulting from reductions in
the MVHC should be spread proportionally to all benefiting taxpayers.
I -E Fiscal Disparity Fund Distribution
The AMM opposes the use of fiscal disparities to fund social or physical metropolitan programs since it
results in a metropolitan-wide property tax increase hidden from the public.
The AMM supports the continuation of the fiscal disparities program until such time as an appropriate
replacement is developed.
I -F Limited Market Value (LMV)
The AMM strongly opposes extension of artificial limits in valuing property at market for taxation
purposes to additional property classes since such limitations shift tax burdens to other classes of
property and create disparities between properties of equal value. The Legislature should monitor the
effects of the LMV phase -out to avoid excessive tax burden increases to currently benefiting properties.
The AMM believes that enhanced targeting for special circumstances better serves the tax system.
I-G Constitutional Tax and Expenditure Limits
The AMM strongly opposes including tax and expenditure limits in the state constitution. This would
eliminate any flexibility on the part of the Legislature or local governments to respond to unanticipated
critical needs, emergencies, or fluctuating economic situations. When services such as education, public
2 f Metropolitan Municipalities
Association o Metropo
Revenue Taxation
safety and healthcare require increased funding beyond the overall limit, experiences in at least one
other state indicate that other publicly funded services receive less than adequate resources. Constitu-
tional limits result in a reduced base during times of economic downturn and the inability to recover to
previous service levels when economic prosperity returns.
1 -H State Property Tax: Oppose Extension to Other Property
The 2001 Properly Tax Reform Act shifted general education funding to the state, and funded it, in part,
with a state property tax on commercial/industrial and cabin property. Since cities' only source of
general funds is the property tax, the AMM strongly opposes extension of a state levied property tax to
additional classes of property.
1 -1 Class Rate Tax System
The AMM opposes elimination of the class rate tax system, or applying future levy increases to market
value, since this would further complicate the property tax system.
1-J Personal Property Taxation: Electric Utility
The Minnesota Department of Revenue is reviewing it's regulations for calculating the taxable market
value of electric and natural gas utility property. This affects property taxes paid by investor -owned
utilities (IOUs) not only to the state, but also to local governments. Provisions in the current regulations,
such as depreciation limits and prescribed weights for the cost and income approaches to value, help to
preserve the taxable value of this property over the many decades it is in service.
Investor -owned utilities enjoy a guaranteed rate of return on their capital investments, but host cities
experience the costs of environmental damage, nuisance and lost economic development as the result of
this property. IOUs argue that their property is over valued and that depreciation limits should be
removed. However, substantial changes to the utility property valuation rules could drastically reduce
the taxable market value that helps compensate host cities for hosting base load electric generation
facilities.
The AMM opposes changes to the utility property valuation rules that would result in a significant
decline in the taxable market value of utility property. In the event new utility valuation rules produce a
decline, the Legislature should step in to help keep host cities financially whole as a way of compensat-
ing for the economic and environmental costs of hosting base load electric generation facilities, rather
than through increases in property class rates or other mechanisms.
2007 Legislative Policies 3
Revenue Taxation
I -K Sales Tax on Local Government Purchases
The Legislature should reinstate the sales tax exemption for all local government purchases without
requiring a reduction in other aids.
I -L City Revenue Stability and Fund Balance
The AMM opposes state attempts to control or restrict city fund balances. These funds are necessary
to maintain fiscal viability, meet unexpected or emergency resource needs, purchase capital goods and
infrastructure, provide adequate cash flow and maintain high level bond ratings.
I-M Public Employees' Retirement Association (PERA)
The AMM supports employees and cities sharing equally in the cost of necessary contribution increases.
The AMM also supports state assistance to local governments to cover any additional contribution
burdens placed on cities over and above contribution increases required by employees. Cities should
receive sufficient notice of these increases so that they may take them into account for budgeting pur-
poses. Further, the AMM will monitor legislative proposals and when necessary and appropriate,
respond in a manner that supports this policy and provides for the fair treatment of employees and the
protection of municipalities' interests.
I -N Aggregate Mining Fee
In order to provide an incentive for the extraction of local aggregate resources prior to urbanized
development, and in order to help offset the negative impacts of aggregate mining on local communities,
the state should authorize cities and townships to collect a per ton host community fee from the opera-
tors of aggregate mines with the fee proceeds to be deposited in the municipality's general fund.
O State Program Revenue Sources
The AMM supports continued development of the Metro area in a manner that is responsive to the
market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and the Metro area. The
AMM supports the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Le ac Act. However, the pp g J g Y opposes
any attempt by the state to finance state agencies, personnel, programs or services through municipal
utility collection or municipal property tax mechanisms. Municipal utility rates are created to operate
and maintain municipal utilities. Local property taxes are created to finance local government programs
and services. The programs and services financed through the Clean Water Legacy Act, or any future
state program, should be financed through traditional state revenue raising sources such as income or
sales taxes.
4 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
General Legislation
11-A Mandates Local Authority
The AMM opposes statutory changes which erode local control and authority or create mandated
additional tasks requiring new or added local costs without a corresponding state appropriation or
funding mechanism. New unfunded mandates cause increased property taxes which impede cities'
ability to fund traditional service needs.
II -B City Enterprise Activities
The AMM supports cities' authority to establish city enterprise operations in response to community
needs, local preferences, state mandates or to ensure resident's quality of life. Creation of an enterprise
operation allows a city to provide the desired service while maintaining financial and management
control. The state should refrain from infringing on this ability to provide and control services for the
benefit of community residents.
II -C Firearms on City Property
Cities should be allowed to prohibit handguns in city -owned buildings, facilities and parks. This would
allow locally elected officials to determine whether to allow permit- holders to bring guns into municipal
buildings, liquor stores, city council chambers and city sponsored youth activities. It is notAMM's
intention for cities to have the authority to prohibit legal weapons in parking lots, on city streets or city
sidewalks.
II -D 911 Telephone Tax
Public safety answering points (PSAP's) must be able to rely in the fixture on a continuing source of 911
revenues at the state level to pay for upgrades and modifications to local 911 systems, maintenance and
operational support, and dispatcher training. State funding should also support the technology and
training needed to provide the number and location of wireless and voice over internet protocol (VOID)
calls to 911 on computer screens and transmit that data to police, fire and first responders.
11 -E 800 MHz Radio System
The AMM supports the work of the Metropolitan Emergency Services Board (previously the Metro-
politan Radio Board) in implementing and maintaining the 800 MHz radio system, as long as cities are
not forced to modify their current systems or become a part of the 800 MHz Radio System until they so
2007 Legislative Policies 5
General Legislation
choose. The AMM further urges the Legislature to provide cities with the financial means to obtain
required infrastructure and subscriber equipment (portable and mobile radios) as well as provide funding
for operating cost, since the prime purpose of this system is to allow public safety agencies and other
units of government the ability to communicate effectively.
II -F Impaired Waters
The AMM supports continued development of the Metropolitan area in a manner that is responsive to
the market, but is cognizant of the need to protect the water resources of the state and Metro Area.
Insufficient resources for impaired water assessments, total maximum daily load (TMDL) analysis, and
capital projects threaten the Metro Area's ability to respond to market demands for development and
redevelopment. Consequently, AMM supports continued funding of the Clean Water LegacyAct, with
an on -going review to assure that Clean Water Legacy Act funds are properly distributed between
assessment, TMDL development and capital projects to ensure both protection for our water resources
and support for future development and redevelopment of the Metro Area. AMM further supports the
continued use of capital funds for both storm water and wastewater projects.
II-G Building Codes
Approximately 20,000 new housing units are constructed annually in the Metro Area. Structural and
water intrusion problems have surfaced in many homes and commercial buildings that have been built
within the past 20 years. These problems have resulted in dissatisfied homeowners and conflicts
between the state, builders and cities. At the same time, the building permit surcharge, a fee collected
by cities and deposited with the state for the purpose of financing building related information, research
and training, has been diverted to the state general fund for budget balancing purposes.
The AMM supports the rededication of the building permit surcharge for local building and construction
management purposes. AMM further supports a j oint effort by the state, cities and builders to collec-
tively identify the appropriate uses of the fund including education and analysis of new materials and
construction techniques, building code updating, building inspector training, development of performance
standards and identification of construction "best practices." AMM does not support legislative solu-
tions that fail to recognize the interrelationships between builders, state building codes and cities.
II -H Administrative Fines
Traditional methods of citation, enforcement and prosecution have met with ever increasing cost to local
units of government and the use of administrative fines is a tool to moderate those costs. The AMM
supports the use of administrative fines for local regulatory ordinances, such as building codes, zoning
codes, health codes, minor moving violations up to 10 mph over the limit and public safety and nuisance
ordinances. The AMM supports the use of city administrative fines, at a minimum, for regulatory
matters that are not duplicative of misdemeanor or higher level state traffic and criminal offenses. AMM
also endorses a fair hearing process before a disinterested third party.
6 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing Economic
Development (III)
Introduction
While the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market driven activity, all levels of
government federal, state and local have a role to play in facilitating the production and preservation
of affordable housing in Minnesota.
AMM's housing policies recognize and support the intergovernmental nature of this issue including
participation from federal, state, regional and local governments. Policies Athrough C outline the role of
cities. Cities are responsible for much of the ground -level housing policy in Minnesota including land
use planning, building code enforcement, and often times the packaging of financial incentives. How
ever, the state and Metropolitan Council must also play a major role by empowering local units of
government and providing a variety of funding programs and tools. Policy D addresses the state's
responsibility to provide financial resources and establishes a general direction for housing policy.
Finally, Policy E speaks to the urgent need for the federal government to increase its financial support
for the production and preservation of affordable housing.
III -A City Role in Housing
In the state of Minnesota, the provision of housing is predominantly a private sector, market -driven
activity. However, all cities facilitate the development of housing via responsibilities in the areas of land
use planning, zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. Many cities choose to play an additional
role by providing financial incentives and regulatory relief, participating in state and regional housing
programs and supporting either local or countywide housing and redevelopment authorities. Cities are
also responsible for ensuring the health and safety of local residents and the structural soundness and
livability ofthe local housing stock via building permits and inspections.
AMM strongly opposes any effort to reduce, alter or interfere with cities' authority to carry out these
functions in a locally determined manner.
2007 Legislative Policies 7
Housing and Economic Development
111 -13 City Role in Affordable and Life Cycle Housing
AMM supports affordable and life cycle housing and recognizes that it is key to the economic and social
well being of individual communities and the region. Cities can facilitate the production and preservation
of affordable and lifecycle housing by:
Applying for funding from applicable grant and loan programs;
Working with developers and local residents to blend affordable housing into new and existing
neighborhoods;
Expediting review processes; and
Working to reduce locally imposed development costs.
III -C Inclusionary Housing
AMM supports the location of affordable housing in residential and mixed -use neighborhoods through-
out a city. However, AMM does not support passage of a mandatory inclusionary housing law that
would require a certain percentage of units in all new housing developments to be affordable to house-
holds at a particular income level because these units can't be produced without a deep developer
subsidy or cross subsidization from the other houses in the development.
While AMM believes there are cost savings to be achieved through regulatory reform, density bonuses,
and fee waivers, AMM does not believe a mandatory inclusionary housing approach can achieve the
desired levels of affordability solely through these steps. The Metropolitan Council, in creating its
affordable housing targets, must recognize both the opportunities and financial limitations of cities. The
Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct financial
assistance and/or advocating for additional resources through the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency.
III -D State Role in Affordable Housing
Primarily through the programs of the Minnesota Housing Finance Agency (MHFA), the state estab-
lishes general direction and prioritization of housing issues. The state financially supports a variety of
housing types including homeless shelters, transitional housing, supportive housing, senior housing, and
family housing. The state must continue to be an active partner in addressing lifecycle and affordable
housing issues.
Particularly, the state should:
Increase funding, including state general funds and, possibly, alternate sources of revenue for
programs that support lifecycle and affordable housing, including the proposed Housing Solutions
Act;
Support housing programs that assist housing development throughout the low -to- moderate income
range, including the Economic Development and Housing Challenge Program.
8 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing and Economic Development
As a means of reconciling affordable housing with community development goals AMM supports
housing programs designed to develop market rate housing in areas with high concentrations of
affordable housing, where the private market might not otherwise invest;
Continue the policy of using MHFA's investment earnings for housing programs;
Amend the tax exempt bond allocation statute to maximize its availability for affordable rental
housing;
Provide exemptions from, or reductions to sales, use and transaction taxes applied to the develop-
ment and production of affordable housing; and
Authorize cities to amend their comprehensive plans, in order to facilitate increased lifecycle and
affordable housing, with a simple majority vote of the city council, rather than a super majority.
III -E Federal Role in Affordable Housing
AMM encourages the federal government to maintain and increase current levels of funding for afford-
able housing. Federal investment in affordable housing will increase the supply of affordable and life
cycle housing as well as increase the inter jurisdictional collaboration between the two levels of govern-
ment. Federal funding plays a critical role in aiding states and local governments in their efforts to
maintain and increase affordable housing throughout the state. AMM strongly encourages the following:
To preserve and increase funding for the Community Development Block Grant Program, which is a
catalyst for creating more affordable housing;
To create and implement a more streamlined procedural method for local units of government to
participate and access federal funding and services dealing with grants, loans, and tax incentive
programs for economic and community development efforts;
To preserve resources to sustain existing public housing throughout the Metro Area; and
To commit resources to Section 8 funding. It is a flexible, cost effective, and successful program
that has helped nearly two million families find housing through promotion of self- sufficiency and
stability.
III -F City Role in Economic Development
The State of Minnesota should continue to recognize cities as the rim unit of government res on-
primary g
P
sible for the implementation of economic development and redevelopment policies and land use con-
trols. However, the state should begin to shift its focus from addressing economic needs based on
population or location to a broader statewide perspective, which is based on economic development
strategies, economic development priorities and economic impact. The state should also recognize the
p
additional cost cities bear when undertaking redevelopment vs. development projects.
2007 Legislative Policies 9
Housing and Economic Development
III-G Development
It should be the goal of the state legislature to champion development throughout the state providing
enough sustainable funding to assure that the state remains competitive in a global marketplace. AMM
supports the following:
Increased funding for the Contamination Cleanup Grant Account;
Increased funding for the Metropolitan Council Tax Base Revitalization Program;
Reinstated funding for the Minnesota Investment Fund;
Continued funding for the Urban Initiative Program;
Continued support for the Bioscience partnerships between cities, companies, and the University of
Minnesota; and
Increased funding in the livable communities demonstration account in order to assist communities
with development that may not be exclusively market driven or market proven in their particular
location.
III -H Redevelopment
Redevelopment allows local communities to adjust to changing market conditions, better utilize existing
public infrastructure, and maintain a viable local tax base. However, due to the higher up -front costs of
redevelopment, as compared to greenfield development, desirable redevelopment projects often require
public assistance. The State of Minnesota has a responsibility to provide cities with practical and
flexible resources that will address the challenges and take advantage of redevelopment opportunities.
AMM supports:
Increased and sustained funding of a redevelopment fund, administered by the Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED), dedicated to MetropolitanArea projects. This
goal can be accomplished by either amending existing statute or creating a new program exclusive to
the Metro Area. In the event that the Legislature chooses to amend existing statute, AMM sup
ports a provision that any unused geographically allocated funds can be transferred back into the
account and redistributed based on need; and
Increased, flexible and sustained funding for the Contamination Cleanup Account for cleanup of
polluted land and the recycling of previously developed land.
III -1 Tax Increment Financing
Tax Increment Financing (TIF) has been and continues to be the primary tool available to local commu-
nities for assisting economic development, redevelopment and housing. Over time, several statutory
changes have made this critical tool increasingly difficult to use, while recent property tax reform has
resulted in a decreased state financial stake in city TIF decisions. At the same time that TIF has become
more restrictive and difficult to use, federal and state development and redevelopment resources have
been steadily shrinking. Finally, the 2006 eminent domain reforms will make redevelopment significantly
10 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Housing and Economic Development
more expensive in some cases and impossible in others. The cumulative impact of TIF restrictions,
shrinking federal and state redevelopment resources, and eminent domain reform will restrict a city's
ability to address problem properties and will accelerate the decline of the developed cities in the
Metropolitan Area. Without proper tools and resources to address decline, cities will be unable to stop
it. At a minimum, in response the state should authorize increased flexibility in local TIF decisions.
AMM urges the legislature to:
Not adopt any statutory language that would further constrain the use of TlF;
Incorporate the Soils Correction District criteria into the Redevelopment District criteria so that a
Redevelopment District can be comprised of blighted and contaminated parcels in addition to
railroad property;
Expand the flexibility of TIF to support a broader range of redevelopment projects;
Increase the ability to pool increments from other districts to support projects; and
Continue to monitor the impacts of tax reform on TIF districts and, if warranted, provide cities with
additional authority to pay for possible TIF shortfalls.
In addition, for sites that don't meet the restrictive blight and contamination definitions of the 2006
eminent domain reform law, the legislature should explore creating incentives to encourage owners of
properties that meet the blight definitions under chapter 469 to voluntarily sell their land for redevelop-
ment purposes. Incentives could include income tax credits, capital gains deferrals or other incentives
targeted at property owners.
Finally, the AMM encourages the State Auditor to continue to work towards a more efficient and
streamlined reporting process.
111-1 Eminent Domain
Eminent domain reform actions ofthe 2006 Legislature resulted in a significant philosophical and legal
shift in Minnesota. Whereas prior to 2006, Minnesota law provided extensive deference to local
governments, statutory changes enacted in 2006 provide significantly greater deference to property
owners. Eminent domain actions for traditional public uses such as streets, parks or sewers will cost
more. And except for the most extreme cases of blight or contamination, eminent domain for redevelop-
ment purposes will be nearly impossible at any cost.
The proper operation and long term economic vitality of our cities is dependent on the ability of the city,
its citizens and its businesses to continually reinvest and reinvent. Reinvestment and reinvention strate-
gies can occasionally conflict with the priorities of individual residents or business owners. Eminent
domain is a critical tool in the reinvestment and reinvention process and without it our cities will be
allowed to deteriorate to unprecedented levels before the public will be able to react. The AMM
strongly encourages the Governor and Minnesota Legislature to revisit the 2006 eminent domain
continued...
2007 Legislative Policies 11
Housing and Economic Development
reforms to allow local governments to address blight and contamination problems before those condi
lions become financially impossible to address. Specifically, the legislature should:
Re -write the blight and contamination definitions and standard of review sections to reflect the
deterioration conditions that currently exist in the Metro Area.
Allow for the assembly of multiple parcels in order to properly and appropriately redevelop blighted
or contaminated sites.
Provide for the ability to acquire land from "holdouts" who will now view a publicly funded project
as an opportunity for unethical personal gain at taxpayer PP tY p g expense.
Review the new enhanced compensation provisions to determine whether individuals are inappro-
priately enriched by the process.
III -K This Old House/ This Old Shop
AMM supports the reenactment of the "This Old House" law, which allowed owners of older home-
stead property to defer an increase in their tax capacity resulting from repairs or improvements to the
home. AMM also supports passage of similar legislation for owners of older commercial/industrial
property who make improvements that increase the property's market value by at least 12
III -L Business Subsidy Policy
Without a thorough study, the Legislature should not make any substantive changes to the Business
SubsidyAct during the next legislative session, but should look to technical changes that would stream-
line both state and local processes and procedures.
III -M Internet Technology
Where many traditional economic development tools have focused on managing the costs and availabil-
ity of traditional infrastructure— roads, rail, utilities,. etc. —the new economy is increasingly dependent on
reliable, redundant, cost effective, high bandwidth telecommunications capabilities. While the United
States was once a leader among "wired" economies, its position has slipped dramatically as other
countries have facilitated investments in fiber -optic deployment (fiber to the premises), commitments to
true high speed internet capacity (100 mb to 1 gb) and improved networks (Internet 2). Recognizing
that there is a policy debate regarding the role of government versus private telecommunications compa-
nies in implementing the next generation of intemet capability, bringing about such capabilities is increas-
ingly important to ensure that US companies in general and Minnesota companies in particular can
compete effectively in the global economy.
The AMM encourages the State to develop a comprehensive strategy to stimulate the implementation of
true high speed, world class, high bandwidth internet capabilities that are reliable, redundant, cost
effective and available to all properties.
12 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Agencies
Metropolitan
IV -A Purpose of Metropolitan Governance
The statutorily defined Twin Cities metropolitan region is made up of 193 cities and townships covering
over 3,000 square miles in seven counties. The effective and efficient delivery of certain public services
and the continued economic growth of this region is enhanced by the existence of a regional entity to
provide coordination and facilitate cooperation.
Therefore, AMM supports the continued existence of a metropolitan governance system for the purpose
Of
Facilitating long -term region -wide planning with the cooperation and consideration of the affected
local units of government; and
Planning for and providing those public services that are needed by the region, but cannot be
effectively and efficiently provided by local governments or the state.
With or without the Metropolitan Council as it exists today, the region needs some entity to perform
these functions. However, the Twin Cities' metropolitan Governance structure should not be granted,
nor should it assume, general local government or state agency powers.
IV -13 Roles and Responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council
The primary responsibilities of the Metropolitan Council are to:
Plan for the orderly and economical development of the metropolitan area by preparing a compre-
hensive development guide that includes long -range comprehensive policy plans for the transporta-
tion/aviation, wastewater treatment and recreational open space systems.
Review local comprehensive plans for compatibility with the plans of neighboring communities,
consistency with Metropolitan Council policies and conformity with metropolitan system plans.
Provide specific regional services and administer select regional grant programs as assigned by state
or federal law.
Provide technical assistance, research and information to local units of government.
Overall, it is the Metropolitan Council's role, through the regional development guide and its accompa-
nying policy plans, to set broad regional goals and then provide cities with technical assistance and
incentives to achieve those goals. Local governments are ultimately responsible for zoning, land use
planning and development decisions within their borders.
Any additional responsibilities taken on by, or authority granted to the Metropolitan Council should be
limited to a specific statutory assignment, or grant.
2007 Legislative Policies 13
Metropolitan Agencies
IV -C Selection of Metropolitan Council Members
Members of the Metropolitan Council should be selected via an open process that includes an opportu-
nity for local governments and other stakeholders to provide meaningful input. Council members should
understand and be responsive to the districts they represent while also serving the best interests of the
region. Metropolitan Council members should serve fixed, staggered terms.
IV -D Funding Regional Services
The Metropolitan Council should continue to fund its regional services and activities through a combina-
tion of user fees, property taxes, and state and federal grants.
The Metropolitan Council should set user fees via an open process that includes public notices and
public hearings. User fees should be uniform by type of user and set at a level that supports effec-
tive and efficient public services based on commonly accepted industry standards, and allows for
sufficient reserves to ensure long -term service and fee stability.
AMM supports the use of user fees and property taxes to fund regional projects so long as the
benefit conferred on the region is proportional to the fee or tax, and the fee or tax is comparable to
the benefit cities receive in return.
AMM supports user fees for regional projects so long as the fees are not used to coerce a particu-
lar response from cities.
Fee proceeds should be used to fund regional services or programs for which they are collected.
IV -E Regional Systems
Regional systems are currently defined in statute as transportation (with aviation), wastewater treatment
and recreational open space. The purpose of these regional systems and the Metropolitan Council's
authority for them is clearly outlined in state statute. In order to alter the focus or expand the reach of
any of these systems, the Metropolitan Council must seek a statutory change.
The system plans/statements prepared by the Metropolitan Council for these regional systems should be
specific in terms of the size, location and timing of regional investments in order to allow for consider-
ation in local comprehensive planning. System plans should clearly state the criteria by which local plans
will be judged for consistency and the criteria that will be used to find that a local plan is more likely than
not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from metropolitan system plans.
Additional regional systems should only be established if there is a compelling metropolitan problem or
concern that can best be addressed through the designation. Common characteristics of the existing
regional systems include public ownership of the system and its components and an established regional
or state funding source. These characteristics should be present in any new regional system that might be
established. Water supply does not meet these criteria.
14 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Metropolitan Agencies
IV -F Review of Local Comprehensive Plans
In reviewing local comprehensive plans and plan amendments, the Metropolitan Council should:
Recognize that its role is to review and comment, unless it is found that the local plan is more likely
than not to have a substantial impact on or contain a substantial departure from one of the system
plans;
Be aware of the statutory time constraints imposed by the Legislature on plan amendments and
development applications;
Provide for immediate effectuation of plan amendments that have no potential for substantial impact
on systems plans;
Require the information needed for the Metropolitan Council to complete its review, but not pre
scribe additional content or format beyond that which is required by the Metropolitan Land Use
PlanningAct (LUPA); and
When a city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems
plans, the AMM supports a formal appeals process that includes a peer review and encourages
cities and the Met Council to work in a cooperative and timely fashion toward the resolution of
outstanding issues. The AMM opposes the imposition of sanctions or monetary penalties when a
city's local comprehensive plan is deemed incompatible with the Met Council's systems plans or the
plan fails to meet a statutory deadline when the city has made legitimate efforts to meet Met Council
requirements.
IV G Local Zoning Authority
Local governments are responsible for zoning. Local zoning decisions, which are the implementation of
cities' comprehensive plans, should not be conditioned upon the approval of the Metropolitan Council
or any other governmental agency. AMM strongly opposes the creation of any appeals boards with the
authority to supersede city zoning decisions.
IV -H Regional Growth
The most recent regional population forecasts project an additional 930,000 people and 460,000
households for the seven county metropolitan area by the year 2030.
In order to accommodate this growth in a manner that preserves the region's high quality of life:
natural resource protection will have to be balanced with growth and development/reinvestment;
significant new resources will have to be provided for transportation and transit; and
new households will have to be incorporated into the core cities, first and second -ring suburbs, and
developing cities through both development and redevelopment.
continued...
2007 Legislative Policies 15
Metropolitan Agencies
In order for regional and local planning to result in the successful implementation of regional policies:
The State of Minnesota must contribute additional financial resources, particularly in the areas of
transportation and transit, reinvestment, affordable housing development, and the preservation of
parks and open space. If funding for regional infrastructure is not adequate, cities should not be
responsible for meeting the growth forecast set forth by the Metropolitan Council;
The Metropolitan Council must work to pursue levels of state and federal transportation funding that
are adequate to meet identified transportation and transit needs in the metropolitan area;
The Metropolitan Council must recognize the limitations of its authority and continue to work with
cities in a collaborative, incentives -based manner;
Metropolitan counties and school districts must be brought more thoroughly into the discussion due
to the critical importance of facilities and services such as county roads and public schools in
accommodating forecasted growth, and
Greater recognition must be given to the fact that the "true" metropolitan region extends beyond the
traditional seven county area and the need to work collaboratively with the twelve adjacent counties
in Minnesota and Wisconsin, and the cities within those counties. The region faces environmental,
transportation, and land -use issues that cannot be solved by the seven county metro area alone.
IV -1 Comprehensive Planning Schedule
Cities are scheduled to review their comprehensive plans and submit any necessary updates to the
Metropolitan Council in 2008.
Any future changes to the schedule for local comprehensive planning should be accompanied by the
statutory establishment of a. complementary schedule for regional planning. This schedule should:
Protect cities from being forced into a state of perpetual planning in response to regional actions;
and
Ensure sufficient time for cities to understand and incorporate regional policies into their local
planning efforts.
IV-J Natural Resource Protection
The Association of Metropolitan Municipalities supports the Metropolitan Council's efforts to compile
and maintain an inventory and assessment of regionally significant natural resources for the purpose of
providing local communities with additional information and technical assistance. However, any addi-
tional steps taken by the Metropolitan Council regarding the protection of natural resources must
recognize that:
16 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Metropolitan Agencies
The state has a significant role to play in the protection of natural resources especially when those
resources are significant to a multi- county area that is home to more than 50 percent of the state's
population and a travel destination for many more. Given the limited availability of resources and the
artificial nature of the metropolitan area's borders, neither the region nor individual metropolitan
communities would be well served by assuming primary responsibility for financing and protecting
these resources. AMM urges the state and/or the Metropolitan Council to provide financial assis-
tance for the preservation of regionally significant natural resources;
The completion of local Natural Resource Inventories and Assessments (NRI/A) is not a regional
system nor is it a required component of local comprehensive plans under the Metropolitan Land
Use Planning Act; and
The protection of natural resources will have to be balanced with the need to accommodate growth
and development, reinvest in established communities, encourage more affordable housing and
provide transportation and transit connections. Decisions about the zoning or land -use designations
of specific parcels of land not already contained within a public park, nature preserve or other
protected area are, and should remain, the responsibility of local units of government.
IV -K Federal Clean Water Mandates
Recent legal action related to impaired waters poses a significant threat to the development and redevel-
opment interests ofthe Twin Cities. However, because the Environmental ProtectionAgency measures
compliance on a statewide basis, and because watersheds and river basins transcend political bound-
aries, meeting clean water standards is a statewide issue. Clean water requirements will affect both
wastewater treatment and storm water systems.
The Metropolitan Council should partner with federal and state agencies, as well as Metropolitan Area
cities, to arrive at solutions to current legal challenges associated with the federal Clean WaterAct that
are both financially and environmentally appropriate for cities, the region and the state.
IV -L Inflow and Infiltration Ill
The Metropolitan Council's Water Resources Management Plan establishes an I/I surcharge beginning
in 2007 on cities that are determined to be contributing unacceptable amounts of clear water to the
MCES wastewater treatment system. Currently 56 cities have been identified as excessive I/I contribu-
tors. AMM recognizes the importance of controlling I/I because it affects the size, and therefore the
cost, of wastewater treatment systems and because excessive I/I in one city can affect development
capacity of another city that lies down pipe. AMM's policies supported the following criteria for a
surcharge program:
A data supported definition of "excessive I/I" that includes data over a five year period with periodic
updates that reflect municipal mitigation efforts;
continued...
2007 Legislative Policies 17
Metropolitan Agencies
Access to all flow data that verifies that the origin of the M is within a city's collection system and
not a MCES interceptor, or not from another jurisdiction;
The amount ofthe surcharge is commensurate with the cost of solving the problem;
The surcharge is levied as a last resort and will not be charged unless a city fails to develop a
mitigation plan in a timely manner;
The surcharge is discontinued when the city adopts a construction schedule to implement their M
mitigation plan; and
All money collected from an individual city via the surcharge is returned to the city for their mitiga-
tion efforts.
The surcharge program will include a deferral of M surcharges over 25% of municipal wastewater
charges and additional metering of MCES interceptors. The AMM will continue to monitor the sur-
charge program as it gets underway, and encourages the Metropolitan Council to support state financial
assistance for Metro Area I/I mitigation through future Clean Water LegacyAct appropriations or
similar legislation.
IV -M Water Supply
The 2005 Legislature authorized the Metropolitan Council to carry out planning activities to address the
water supply needs of the Metro Area. The Water Supply Advisory Committee, whose members
include five municipal officials, began its work in January, 2006 and will undertake the following activi-
ties:
Technical ground water supply and use data;
A master Metro Area water supply plan;
Recommendations for clarifying the roles of local, regional and state governments;
Recommendations for streamlining and consolidating decision making and approval processes; and
Recommendations for funding future planning and capital investments.
In addition to the Metropolitan Council, there are currently at least five state agencies with water related
jurisdiction. There are also several federal agencies involved in water issues. AMM supports the
Metropolitan Council activities associated with clarifying local, regional and state water supply roles.
AMM also supports any analytical work that will help streamline and consolidate the myriad and often
conflicting water supply permitting processes. AMM further supports efforts to identify capital funding
sources to assist with municipal water supply projects. However, AMM opposes the insertion of the
Metropolitan Council as another regulator in the water supply arena.
The AMM further opposes the elevation of water supply to "Regional System" status, or the assumption
of Met Council control and management of municipal water supply infrastructure. At this time, AMM
opposes any regional taxes or fees for water supply planning.
18 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
IV -N Service Availability Charge (SAC)
The Met Council proposed changes to its SAC program in 2005. The original proposal would have
disallowed the use of grandfathered (pre 1973) SAC credits. AMM opposed that change, and con-
vened a work group to review the proposals and make recommendations. As a result of those discus-
sions and subsequent meetings with MCES staff, the Metropolitan Council is considering a no -net-
credit proposal. Under this proposal, when a redeveloping property's new use requires lower waste-
water capacity than what was used in the prior seven years, SAC credits would be limited to the
amount needed on the site for the new use. Aproperty developing at the same or lesser wastewater
demand will not incur SAC nor get credits.
The AMM supports a SAC program that emphasizes equity, simplification and lower rates. Under a
no- net credit structure, the AMM supports a baseline `look back' of seven years, 10 years for phased
developments and longer time lines to be decided on a case -by -case basis for redevelopment projects
that involve extenuating circumstances. The AMM also supports a start date of 2010 to allow cities
adequate time to determine and use existing SAC credits.
IV-0 Funding Regional Parks Open Space
In the seven county metropolitan area, regional parks essentially serve the role of state parks. There-
fore, the state should continue to provide capital funding for the acquisition, development and improve-
ment of these parks. State funding should equal 40 percent of the operating budget for regional parks.
IV -P Livable Communities
The Livable Communities Act (LCA) is operated by the Metropolitan Council and provides a voluntary,
incentive -based approach to affordable housing development, Brownfield clean up and mixed -use,
transit- friendly development and redevelopment. AMM strongly supports the continuation of this
approach, which has been widely accepted and is fully utilized by local communities.
Use of interest earnings from LCA funds should be limited to covering the costs of administering the
program. Remaining interest earnings not used for program administration should be considered part of
the LCA funds and used to fund grant requests from the established LCA accounts, according to
established funding criteria.
AMM supports increased funding and flexible eligibility requirements in the livable communities demon-
stration account in order to assist communities with development that may not be exclusively market
driven or market proven in their particular location and in order to support important development and
redevelopment goals.
2007 Legislative Policies 19
IV Q Affordable Housing Need
The AMM recognizes and supports the role of the Metropolitan Council, under the Land Use Planning
Act, to prepare and adopt guidelines to assist local government units with the provisions of the Land
Use PlanningAct, including the responsibility for planning for affordable housing.
In forecasting affordable housing need in the metro area, and determining each community's share of the
regional need, the Council must recognize both the limited opportunities and financial limitations of cities.
The Council should partner with cities to facilitate the creation of affordable housing through direct
financial assistance and advocating for additional resources.
The AMM opposes sanctions or penalties if a city fails to meet its share of affordable housing need due
to a lack of available resources.
s
20 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Transportation (V)
V -A Transportation and Transit Funding
AMM strongly supports increased funding for transit and highways, both of which are a critical need in
the metropolitan area. In addition, funding for mass transit, including transit ways, light rail or heavy rail
in existing corridors, should be dedicated in a manner consistent with current highway funding. Funds
allocated to the metropolitan area should be flexible so that the most efficient and cost effective trans-
portation solution may be chosen and the main metropolitan problem (congestion relief) can be ad-
dressed.
AMM supports full funding of the transportation and transit needs based on projected growth over the
next twenty -five years. The Metro Area is predicted to grow by one million people by 2030 with a
funding need for transportation and transit of over one billion dollars per year for the next fifteen years.
AMM feels it is important to join a coalition of organizations to better address the transportation financ-
ing needs of the entire state and will be cooperating with groups with the same mission.
For the purpose of accelerating road and transit construction projects in the metro area, AMM supports
the following list of revenue raising options in any combination, provided there is no corresponding offset
to negate any actual new revenue, which has the political and financial viability to produce improved
roads and transit.
Gas Tax
Additional Highway Bonding
License Tab Fee Restoration
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax Increase
Wheelage Tax
Street Utility Fee
Road Access Fee
Sales Tax
AMM supports the constitutional dedication of the MV ST. AMM will oppose any reduction in existing
dollars to fund transportation as a result of the dedication of MV ST dollars for transportation purposes.
All non transportation programs should be funded from sources other than currently dedicated trans-
portationfunds.
2007 Legislative Policies 21
Transportation
V -B Regional Transit System
The Twin Cities Metropolitan Area needs a multi-modal regional transit system that serves both com-
muters and the transit dependent. The transit system should be composed of a mix of HOV lanes,
express and regular route bus service, exclusive transit ways, light rail transit and commuter rail corri-
dors designed to connect residential, employment, retail and entertainment centers. The system should
be regularly monitored and adjusted to ensure that routes of service correspond to the region's changing
travel patterns.
In order to slow the growth in congestion and provide regional residents and visitors with a realistic
alternative to the automobile, the regional transit system needs a funding source that is both stable and
capable of growing with the region. The AMM is opposed to legislative directives that constrain the
ability of metropolitan transit providers to provide a full range of transit services, including reverse
commute routes, suburb -to- suburb routes, transit hub feeder services or new, experimental services that
may show a low rate of operating cost recovery from the fare box.
I
V -C Transit Operating Subsidies
The Twin Cities metropolitan area is served by a regional transit system that is now expanding to include
rail transit and dedicated bus ways. Any operating subsidies necessary to support this system should
come from a regional or statewide funding source. The property taxpayers of individual cities and
counties should not be singled out to fund the operation of specific transit lines or routes of service
within this regional system.
V -D Road Access Fee
In order to fairly provide for maj or street improvements of primary benefit to a particular subdivision
development but not directly assessable and to allocate cost so that new growth pays its fair share, the
legislature should authorize cities to establish, at their option, a road development access charge to be
collected at the time that subdivisions are approved and/or at the time building permits are issued similar
to park dedication fees.
WE Street Utility
The AMM supports legislation to authorize cities to establish a street utility for street construction and
reconstruction of aging infrastructure, similar to the existing storm waxer utility, so that costs of improved
facilities can be more fairly charged to the users rather than the general population as a whole.
22 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Transportation
V -F Highway Turnbacks Funding
The AMM supports jurisdictional reassignment or tumback of roads on a phased basis using functional
classifications and other appropriate criteria subject to a corresponding mechanism for adequate funding
of roadway improvements and continued maintenance.
Cities do not have the financial capacity, other than significant property tax increases, to absorb the
additional roadway responsibilities without new funding sources. The existing municipal tumback field is
not adequate based on contemplated tumbacks. The AMM supports, through the state bonding pro-
cess, additional funds for local roads and bridges. Additional funding would begin to ease the burden
municipalities are bearing due to the increase cost of road maintenance.
The AMM supports additional funding for municipalities who are assuming the role of maintenance and
upkeep on city streets, which maintain a level of traffic consistent with state highways. Cities should be
compensated for providing a service that traditionally has been borne by the state. The state has abro-
gated its responsibility for maintaining major roads throughout the state by requiring, through omission,
that cities bear the burden of maintenance on maj or state roads.
V -G "3C" Transportation Planning Process: Elected Officials Role
The AMM supports continuation of the TransportationAdvisory Board (TAB), with a majority of locally
elected officials as members and participating in the process. TAB was developed to meet federal
requirements designating the Metropolitan Council as the organization that is responsible for the continu-
ous, comprehensive and cooperative (3 C) transportation planning process to allocate federal funds
among metropolitan area projects. This process requirement was reinforced by the 1991 Intermodal
Surface Transportation EfficiencyAct (ISTEA), the 1998 Transportation EfficiencyAct for the 21 st
Century (TEA21) and the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation EquityAct: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU).
V -H Red Light Cameras
Cities should be allowed to enforce traffic laws and promote public safety on Minnesota's streets and
highways through the use of photo enforcement technology, including motion imaging recording system
technology.
V -1 Airport Noise Mitigation
AMM supports noise abatement programs and expenditures designed to minimiz the impacts of the
MetropolitanAirports Commission (MAC) operated facilities on neighboring communities. The MAC
should determine the design and geographic reach of these programs only after a thorough public input
process that considers the priorities and concerns of the impacted cities and their residents. The MAC
continued...
2007 Legislative Policies 23
I
Transportation
and state should seek long -term solutions to fund the full mitigation package as adopted in 1996 for all
homes in the 64 -60 DNL impact area. Noise abatement efforts should be paid for by fees and charges
collected from airport users, as well as state and federal funds. Furthermore, unless mitigation funding is
provided, AMM opposes any legislation that requires a property owner to disclose those properties that
lie within 64 -60 DNL noise contours.
The AMM supports a change to the governance structure of the MetropolitanAirports Commission
(MAC), which currently consists of 15 members, all appointed by the Governor except for two, whom
are appointed by the Mayors of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Although, under statute, the MAC is
charged to "reflect fairly the various regions and interests affected by the airport system," only two of
the communities most affected by the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport (MSP) have direct
representation on the commission and are given the opportunity to select their district's representative.
Acknowledging that the communities closest to MSP and reliever airport impacted communities are
more significantly impacted by noise, traffic, and other numerous expansion related issues, the AMM
supports the broad goal of providing MSP impacted communities greater representation on the MAC.
V-J Cities Under 5,000 Population
Cities under 5,000 population do not directly receive any non property tax funds for their collector and
arterial streets. Current CSAH distributions to metropolitan counties are inadequate to provide for the
needs of smaller cities in the metropolitan area. Criteria such as the number of average daily trips should
be established in a small city local road improvement program for funding qualification and a distribution
method devised. Possible funding sources included the five percent set -aside account in the Highway
User Tax Distribution Fund, modification to county municipal accounts and/or state general funds.
V -K County State Aid Highway (CSAH) Distribution Formula
The AMM supports modification of the County State Aid Highway (CSAH) distribution formula to
more fairly account for total vehicle miles traveled on metropolitan county CSAH funded roads. Al-
though only 10% of the CSAH roads are in the metro area they account for nearly 50% of the vehicle
miles traveled. The metro counties receive less than 20% of the CSAH distribution and have instituted
city cost participation, whereby cities are now forced to pay up to 45% of the CSAH road proj ect cost
in some areas.
V -L Municipal input (Consent) for Trunk Highways and County Roads
Minnesota statute directs MnDOT to submit detailed plans with city cost estimates at a point one and a
half to two years prior to bid letting, at which time public hearings are held for citizen/business/municipal
input. If MnDOT does not concur with requested changes, MnDOT may appeal. Currently, that
process would take a maximum of three and a half months and the results of the appeal board are
binding on both the city and MnDOT.
24 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
The AMM opposes any changes to the current statute that would allow MnDOT to totally disregard the
appeal board ruling for state trunk highways. The result of such a change would significantly minimi
MnDOT's desire or need to negotiate in good faith with the city for appropriate project access and
alignment, and it would make the public hearing and appeal process meaningless.
The AMM opposes elimination of the county road municipal consent and appeal process for the same
reasons we oppose changing the process as it applies to MnDOT trunk highway projects.
V -M PlatAuthority
AMM supports the current law granting counties review and comment authority for access and drainage
issues for city plats abutting county roads. AMM opposes any statutory change that would grant the
county veto power or shorten the 120 -day review and permit process time.
V -N City Speed Limit Control
AMM supports a reduction in the state -wide default speed limit from 30 to 25 mph on local residential
roads. AMM supports design standards that result in slower speeds on local roads. In the event of a
uniform speed limit reduction, AMM supports increased state funding for education and enforcement.
V -O MnDOT's Maintenance Budget
The Minnesota Department of Transportation's maintenance budget has been reduced in recent years
due to the State's lack of funding and as a result, state right of ways, roadways, and state owned
parcels are not being adequately maintained. As a result, municipalities are spending local dollars
maintaining these properties which are deteriorating at an accelerated rate. AMM supports fully funding
MnDOT's maintenance budget to relieve the financial burden on local units of government and to assure
that state highways do not deteriorate prematurely.
2007 Legislative Policies 25
26 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Committee Rosters (VI)
Municipal Revenue Policy Committee
Marcia Glick, City Manager, Robbinsdale (Committee Chair)
Clark Arneson, Asst. City Manager, Bloomington
Patrick Born, Finance Director, Minneapolis
Tom Burt, City Manager, Golden Valley
Teresa Daly, Councilmember, Burnsville
Lori Economy- Scholler, Chief Financial Officer Bloomington
Jerry Faust, Mayor, St. Anthony
Walt Fehst, City Manager, Columbia Heights
Jim Keinath, CityAdministrator, Circle Pines
Tom Lawell, City Administrator Apple Valley
Linda Masica, Councilmember, Edina
Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights
Bruce Nawrocki, Councilmember Columbia Heights
Scott Neilson, Administrator, Mahtomedi
Tammy Omdal, Chief Financial Officer, Burnsville
Calvin Portner, Asst. to City Manager, Brooklyn Park
Martin Rafferty, Administrator Lake Elmo
Don Rambow, Finance Director White Bear Lake
Gene Ranieri, IGR Director, Minneapolis
Ryan Schroeder, Administrator Cottage Grove
Steven Sinell, CityAssessor Eden Prairie
Matt Smith, Dir. Office ofFinancial Services, St. Paul
Steve Stahmer, Administrator, Long Lake
Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
continued...
2007 Legislative Policies 27
Committee Rosters
Housing and Economic Development Policy Committee
Janis Callison, Mayor, Minnetonka (Committee Chair)
Bonnie Balach Contract Consultant Minneapolis
Karen Barton, Comm. Deu Dir., Arden Hills
Tom Daniel, Mgr. Econ. Deu, Minneapolis
Tami Diehm, Councilmember, Columbia Heights
Rick Getschow, City Manager Hopkins
Tom Goodwin, Councilmember, Apple Valley
Bryan Hartman, Program Manager Bloomington
Brian Heck, City Manager, Lauderdale
Jon Hohenstein, Community Development Director Eagan
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
Anne Norris, City Manager, Crystal
Tammy Omdal, ChiefFinancialOffcr/Dep. City Mgr Burnsville
Samantha Orduno, Administrator, Dayton
Ron Rankin, Community Development Director, Minnetonka
Mark Sather, City Manager, White Bear Lake
Bob Schreier, Community Development Director, Brooklyn Park
Bob Streetar, Community Development Director Columbia Heights
Erin Stwora, ZoningAdministrator /City Planner, Dayton
Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul
Craig Waldron, Administrator, Oakdale
Liz Workman, Councilmember, Burnsville
Metropolitan Agencies Policy Committee
Craig Dawson, Administrator Shorewood (Committee Chair)
Charlie Crichton, Councilmember, Burnsville
Charles Dillerud, Planner, Lake Elmo
Cheryl Fischer, Mayor, Minnetrista
Elizabeth Glidden, Councilmember, Minneapolis
Jack Haugen, Mayor Prior Lake
Brian Heck, City Manager, Lauderdale
Dean Johnston, Mayor, Lake Elmo
L Lee Community Development Director Bloomington
Larry ty ton p g
Tom Link, Community Development Director, Inver Grove Heights
Terry Schneider, Councilmember, Minnetonka
Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul
Pierre Willette, Gov 't Relations Rep., Minneapolis
Ron Wood, City Manager Blaine
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember, Lakeville
28 Association of Metropolitan Municipalities
Committee Rosters
Transportaton and General Government Policy Committee
Dave Osberg, Administrator, Hastings (Committee Chair)
DougAnderson, Mayor, Dayton
BeverlyAplikowski, Mayor, Arden Hills
Mary Burg, Councilmember, New Brighton
Sandi Dingle, Councilmember, St. Paul Park
Pam Dmytrenko, Asst. to City Manager, Richfield
Steve Elkins, Councilmember, Bloomington
Matt Fulton, City Manager, Coon Rapids
Randy Gilbert, Mayor, Long Lake
Dan Gustafson, Councilmember, Burnsville
Chuck Haas, Councilmember Hugo
Mary Hamann Roland, Mayor, Apple Valley
Tom Hansen, Deputy City Manager, Burnsville
Jon Haukaas, Director of Public Works, Fridley
Mary Johnson, Mayor, Independence
Dave Kelso, Councilmember, Circle Pines
Steve Lillehaug, Asst. City Eng. /Traffic Eng., Minnetonka
Dean Lotter, Administrator Minnetrista
Karen Lowery Wagner, Gov 't Relations, Minneapolis
John Maczko, Transportation Dir. -Pulic Works Dept., St. Paul
Mary McComber, Councilmember, Oak Park Heights
Mark McNeill, Administrator, Shakopee
Mike Mornson, City Manager, St. Anthony Village
Veid Muiznieks, Police Chief, Newport
Dave Pokorney, Administrator, Chaska
David Pritzlaff, Councilmember, Farmington
Martin Rafferty, Administrator, Lake Elmo
Joe Ryan, Building Official, Plymouth
Steve Stahmer, Administrator, Long Lake
Ellsworth Stein, Airport Relations Commission, Mendota Heights
Dick Swanson, Councilmember Blaine
Wendy Underwood, Chief Lobbyist, St. Paul
John Wertj es, Director of Transportation Services, Minneapolis
Wendy Wulff, Councilmember Lakeville
2007 Legislative Policies 29