11b. Bluff Creek Watershed Plan and Funding1
I MEMORANDUM
I
CITY OF //h
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager
FROM: Diane Desotelle, Water Resources Coordinator9-D
Kate Aanenson, Planning Director ZA
DATE: June 7, 1994
SUBJ: Bluff Creek Watershed Plan and Funding
File No. SWMP -lE -2
Action by City Adminisite &
bn4o 2 D_f.±_
Modifie
Rejecte
Dat & -- 7 °`
D2te Submitted to Commissiod
Date Su, -;tted to Wunt(
Funding: The City has been pursuing various ``funding sources to assist staff with a
comprehensive watershed plan for the Bluff Creek corridor. Funding has been explored
through the Legislative Commission for Minnesota Resources (LCMR), Metropolitan
(Met) Council, and the Riley- Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District ( RPBCWSD).
The following information has been obtained to date:
LCMR: Unfortunately, our quest for LCMR funds was cut out of the first round
of proposals. It appears that the project, although politically appealing, did not
make the list because the LCMR staff appears to be concentrating on projects that
benefit the state as a whole rather than on a local level. With a lot of work and
dedication, it may be possible to get the proposal back into the running. This
would require a great deal of effort from the City Council with the consideration
of hiring a lobbyist to aid our efforts. In the end, there is no guarantee that this
would work.
Met Council: Met Council has approximately $1 million in 1994 and $2 -3 million
in 1995, 1996, and 1997 available for projects related to non -point source
pollution reduction for waters that discharge into the Minnesota River. Applicants
would have to provide 25% matching funds either as cash or in -kind services.
These monies could come from other grant programs. Staff was very excited
about this possibility until we found out that our project can not be funded this
year because there is not a completed 509 plan from the RPBCWSD. The
RPBCWSD does have a 509 plan in draft form and they intend to get it approved
as soon as possible. If all goes well with the review process, the City could apply
Don Ashworth
June 7, 1994
Page 2
for Met Council funds January 1995. The maximum amount of funds available
is $100,000 per year.
RPBCWSD: The City has the opportunity to petition the project with the
' RPBCWSD where monies are levied through the RPBCWSD tax base. Currently
the watershed district is generating about $200,000 per year. The watershed
district would be able to contribute 25% toward floodplain land acquisitions, 50%
for projects that include trail and corridor construction, and 100% for projects that
provide basic management of the water and related resources such as culverts,
wetland restoration, etc. If the watershed district would approve our petition, the
' monies would most likely not be seen for a couple years down the road.
Therefore, the City would have to front a portion of the project before seeing the
kickbacks. This is a viable source of funds and the watershed district has stated
I that they would allow the City to manage the project.
' Project Status: On May 26, 1994, City staff, one council member, and one park and
recreation member met with the Design Center from the University of Minnesota to
discuss long and short-term issues on the Bluff Creek Watershed Plan. A number of
issues and design concepts were discussed, however, staff needs time and help to establish
a plan. A task force committee has been established in conjunction with the efforts to
write the LCMR proposal. This task force is comprised of City representatives, the public
' and private sector, and citizens. In order to design a watershed plan that entails
preservation and restoration of natural resources, a park and recreation trail and corridor
plan, and an environmental education component, we think that input from this task force
(see attachment) is imperative for providing a plan that takes into account the interests of
all groups.
There are a number of proposed developments along the upper reaches of the creek that
are waiting for watershed design decisions from the City. Unfortunately, the City is on
a tight timeframe to make immediate design decisions for the upper reaches. Ideally,
' these decisions will be made in conjunction with an overall watershed plan. There are
a couple of funding sources such as Met Council and RPBCWSD, but the monies are not
immediate. Furthermore, we think that the design process will begin to generate other
' sources of funding. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has various monies
available specifically for wetland restoration.
I Staff is informing the City Council that we will be pursuing the following actions:
1. Working with the Watershed District to secure possible funding.
2. Pursuing some funding to hire a coordinator and/or a consultant to keep he plan
P P
r
Don Ashworth
June 7, 1994
Page 3
rolling and continue to pursue other funding sources. (Please note: there is a
possibility that the DNR will be able to provide an employee for this temporary
position, office space, and/or office materials. Since this is such a new area of
planning, there are not many candidates who are experienced enough to jump into
the planning process immediately.)
3. Re- writing necessary ordinances (i.e. PUD) in order to better control new
developments coming in.
4. Establishing a plan with necessary short and long -term goals in order to protect
the creek.
5. Work with the established task force staff and come back to Council with a
proposed plan for the upper reaches of the creek in order to allow the proposed
developments to continue with their plans.
g: \eng \diane \planning \bluffck.cc