Admin section ADMINISTRATIVE SECTION
Letter from Sheriff Allen Wallin dated April 13, 1993.
' Letter to Mr. Conrad Fiskness dated May 10, 1993.
1 Invitation to Metro Division Engineer William Crawford's, retirement party.
Memo from Curt Green, HGA, dated May 6, 1993.
P article from ISTEA Newsletter dated April 27
New arnc e s p 27, 1993.
1 "City Recreation Programs Lend A Hand In Childhood Development" by Mary Saarion.
'
•
Southwest Corridor Transportation Coalition Update for April 1993.
Memo to Roger Knutson dated May 5, 1993.
1 Letter to Mr. Larry Fortune, dated May 5, 1993.
1 Letter from Mr. Dennis Carlson dated April 29, 1993.
Letter from Mr. Donald S. Bluhm dated April 30, 1993.
Letter to Mr. Chris Polster dated May 4, 1993.
1 Letter to Ms. Deborah Porter dated May 10, 1993.
Invitation to upcoming meetings for Transportation Advisory Board of the Metropolitan Council.
News article from ISTEA Newsletter dated_Ma_y 7, 1993.
1 River Reach News for Spring 1993.
Letter to Senator Edward C. Oliver dated May 19, 1993.
H.R.A. accounts a able dated May 24, 1993.
PY Y
1 H.R.A. accounts payable dated May 10, 1993.
1
1
1
1
r
I s4 vR
1, �- �C nji0
K ■ P
�I
•i ALLEN J. WALLIN �� CARVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE
600 EAST 4TH STREET - BOX 9
Carver County Sheriff .1 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318-2190 ci
!N N E S° � i 612) 448 -3435
x COUNTY Of CAQVEQ
l
April 13, 1993
I
1 Dear City and Township Officials,
0 . The Carver County Sheriff's Department has completed the actual •
I costs for contract services for the year 1992. Enclosed you will
find the calculations used. The estimated rate was $35.10. The
actual rate of service is $35.04, a difference of $.06 per hour
contracted.
I
A reimbursement check will be mailed to you within the next few
weeks based upon the hours your municipality contracted for.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
1 Sincerely,
aa . r -e.. 0 , 44,4
I Alien J. Wallin
Sheriff
1 AJW:prr
Enclosure
1
1
1
1
1
RECEIVED
1 APR 1 5 1993
Affirmative Action /Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF CHANHASSEN
1 Printed on Rec1ded Paper
l m m 1 E 1` -m m 1 m m■■ mill 1 m 1 m m m
t d
12- Apr -93
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *** * * ** THE CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
* *
* 1992 * PART A - CALCULATION HOURLY RATES FOR POSITIONS
* ACTUAL *
* * PERSONNEL COSTS FOR 1992
* * ** ** * ** ** ** ** * * * * *** * * * * **
•
PATROL CHIEF ADM. SECRETARY/ PAYROLL/
OFFICER SERGEANT DEPUTY ASSISTANT MATRON ACCT CLERK
BASE SALARY $32,656 839,040 $52,471 830,139 $23,990 $18,646
PENSION 3,918 4,684 6,296 3,655 2,909 2,261
WORKERS' COMPENSATION ($5.96
PER 1100 & $.63 PER 6100) 1,946 2,326 3,127 189 151 117
OVERTIME
HOURS X RATE (52 HES/YR, " '
1.5 REGULAR) 1,213 1,464
PENSION 145 175
WORKERS' COMPENSATION 72 87
TOTAL 1,430' 1,726
HOSPITALIZATION 3,470 .r. 3,470 2,122 2,122 3,470 3,470
LIFE INSURANCE &
LONG TERM DISABILITY 332 389 550 352 255 208
UNIFORM 350 350 350
OTHER BONUS
LONGEVITY 1,272 1,922
NIGHT DIFFERENTIAL (130 DAYS) 312 312
SUBTOTAL 1,584 2,234
PENSION 190 268
WORKERS' COMPENSATION 94 133
TOTAL 1,868 2,635
TOTAL $45,970 $54,620 $64,916 836,457 $30,775 $24,702
, ;Y,s xwinW.l ' a. . A' w'r. . 4"w , . 4, ,.,, ,. q4Wiik voilitowc.k. , a ,.
12- Apr -93
PART B - CALCULATION OF OFFICERS SERVING CONTRACT COMMUNITIES
Estimated Contract = TOTAL $ OF HOURS ESTIMATED FOR CONTRACT COMMUNITIES 20,624
Officers -'+-
= 10.85
1900 1,900
Actual Contract = TOTAL # OF ACTUAL HOURS USED BY CONTRACT COMMUNITIES 20,624
Officers
= 10.85
1900 1,900
Total number of full time employees = 70
=5555
PART C - CONTRACT COST PER HOUR
A. Per hour personnel cost
5555______
1. Patrol officers cost: 45,970 x 10.85 = $498,992
2. Shift supervision cost:
Annual cost of 5.0 sergeants= $273,098
Total annual shifts - 365 days x 3 shifts = 1,095 shifts
Day shifts on weekdays except holidays = 248
Cost of day shifts on weekdays except holidays: $273,098 x 248 10.85
x = $33,569
1,095 20
Cost of evening and night shifts on weekdays, weekends, and holidays:
$273,098 x 847 10.85
x = $91,720
1,095 25
Total shift supervision: $125,289
NM ail = Es ow NE 1U am I I r am lim NE ma I or EN am
12- Apr -93
Payroll /Account Clerk: $24,702 x 3 10.85
- -- x - -- = 52,872
4 70
10.85
Secretarial work by Secretary /Matron: $04,775 x - - -- = $4,772
70
7, � y ^ 1 10.85
Personnel related work by Ads. Asst.: h` *, $46,457 x - -- x - -- = $1,413
4 70
'�, %. 10.85
Department supervision by C)4et Deputy: '0 564,916 x --- = 510,362
68
A
f
Supplies (from county's general ledger .. 4 10.85
accounts - 6410 to 6455): 538,656 x - - -- = $5,994
70
Total Department Overhead 525,413
10.85
Department liability insurance premium: 1 x -- -- = 50
70
County overhead from county's cost allocation plan
(DP, Co. Administrator, Central Services, 10.85
County Auditor, County Treasurer): 594,986 x - - -- = 514,729
70
Training cost from the sheriff's department 10.85
cost accounting report: 560,475 - 514,174 (state reimbursement) x --- = 57,179
70
Total annual cost for the contract service $671,602
Per hour personnel cost for the contract service 5671,602 / ( 1,900 x 10.85 ) = 532.56
∎. :0 - ,, ,,,iv..414, . .,o 406W 46%040, , ..
12- Apr -93
B. Per hour vehicle cost
1. Annual cost per patrol car
a. Depreciation
Car: 1992 Extimated purchase price $12,779
Estimated salvage valuo $3,125
Estimated useful life 3 years
Annual depreciation of car , $3,218
Equipment - Estimated cost of:
Siren, light and public Address $700
Screen 300
Radio 2,000
Oxygen 450
Misc.(flares, axes, firet aid equip., shotguns, Etc. 350
Total $3,800
Estimated useful life - 10 years
Annual depreciation of equipment 380
Total depreciation $3,598
•
b. Fuel and lubrication
Average cost per gallon $1.10
Estimated miles per gallon 12
Fuel cost per mile $0.0917
Coat of lubrication $8.74
Mileage between lubes 4,000
Cost per mile $0.0022
Fuel and lubrication per mile $0.0939
Average annual mileage 69,000 miles
Total fuel and lubrication $6,475 - N - 1111111 IIIIII 1.111 IIIMI 111111 11111 .1111 1.11
, :y 1,iegN `y.. s;,,y,�r �iojfitia..:�. ,,;,,,,if 04 ' +.4 *. ':
Om' Wm m I 1 1 m m 1 1 1 i 1 I 1 1 I 1 m
12- Apr -93
c. Tires
Average cost per set of tires(4) $212
Estimated mileage per set 18,000
cost per mile $0.0118
Average annual mileage 69,000 miles
Total tires $812
d. Radio
Maintenance service fee per year $191
e. Repair, supplies and mechanic
Estimated cost per mile $0.0700
Average annual mileage 69,000 miles
Total annual cost for one (1) patrol car $4,830
f. Insurance $563
Total annual cost for one (1) patrol car $16,469
Total annual cost of patrol cars (6 squad
cars and 1 supervisor car) $115,283
2. Vehicle cost of patrol per hour -
(Annual Cost / 47,500 (1900 x 25) $2.48
C. TOTAL COST PER HOUR OF THE CONTRACT SERVICE
Per hour personnel cost $32.56
Per hour vehicle coat 2.48
$35.04
Note: Calculations extend to 15 decimal places. The print -out shows rounded dollars. (Lotus 123)
C ITYOF
I
1
of, CrIANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
May 10, 1993
1
I Mr. Conrad Fiskness, Manager
Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District
c/o Barr Engineering
I Suite 300
8300 Norman Center Drive
Minneapolis, MN 55437 -1026'
1 Dear Conrad, - t.
I As you are aware, Chanhassen is nearing completion of our comprehensive Surface Water
Management Plan. We have already generated several significant products which are currently
in use. These include our wetlands protection program which is regarded as one of the most
I progressive in the State, and our Best Management Practices Handbook, both of which have been
forwarded to the District Engineer. Plan elements dealing with managing water quality and
volume issues are to be completed by the end of June and are also spinning off useful
1 information. For example, we have already incorporated water quality protection measures into
new developments and public projects and are currently undertaking a series of water quality
improvement construction programs. Thus, while we have always attempted to deal with surface
I water issues in a responsible manner, we will shortly be in a position to comprehensively manage
all our water resources. It is with this in mind that I am writing you regarding several issues of
I concern on the working relationship between the City and Watershed District. It is my hope that
we can begin a dialogue to not only deal with these issues but also to reassess and revise this
relationship. `�-- �`
.. ,.
1 PERMITTING PROCESS ' Several years ago, the City instituted a gradin permit program. Under it, anytime 50 cubic yards
/-
I of material is moved a permit must be obtained. Earthwork involving more than 1000 yards of
material requires City Council approval. As noted above, we have a sophisticated wetlands
I protection program and an excellent data base on the city's 200' scale aerial maps and are able
to identify and avoid impacts. We are listed as a local governmental unit by BOWSR and have
been extremely active in State wetland issues. We have also adopted by ordinance a Best
1
t 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
Mr. Conrad Fiskness 1
May 10, 1993
Page 2
Management Practices Manual and have developed a very sophisticated storm drainage plan. We I
have inspectors that regularly check on the grading and receive /respond to complaints and issues
raised about the permits. 1
My concern is that the Watershed's permit program has become redundant. It results in
additional cost and time delay and, since there is rarely any inspection by your staff, is not likely
I
to result in any net improvement in environmental protection. Sufficient coordination on a
system wide basis will be provided by our Comprehensive Plan. I further note that we are in the
process of hiring a full time Water resources coordinator to help manage our program. I believe
I
it would be useful to arrange to have the Watershed District defer administration to the City in
a manner similar to which other districts and communities are doing. I would anticipate your
maintaining some sort of oversight and coordination function.
1
DISTRICT'S LAKE WATER QUALITY REPORT
1
Frankly, we were surprised and somewhat dismayed with both the information contained in the
report and the manner in which it was released. Although we have gone to great lengths to keep
your staff notified as to progress on Chanhassen's plans, we received no notice nor had any input
into your lake quality report. In fact, the first we heard about it was when we read the article
that was run in the Chanhassen Villager based upon your press release. I only received a copy
I
of it after requesting one directly from your staff.
We have gone to great lengths to develop an understanding of our water quality issues and to
I
educate our residents on what we and they need to change to improve the situation. I was very
concerned to read the information that infers that there is no water quality issue in Chanhassen
and in fact the quality of many of our lakes is actually improving. These conclusions fly in the
face of other sources of information including Metropolitan Council data. They deny the reality
that many of our lake residents have visually noted declines in quality. What probably concerns
me the most is that there appear to be major inconsistencies in the data on which these
I
conclusions were based.
I have asked our consultants, Bonestroo Engineering, to review the material and ultimately many 1
of these questions need to be resolved by having our engineers speak directly to yours. However,
I note the following:
1. The trend data contained in the report dates back to the early 1970s.
p y Much of the data
indicates improvement in water quality in the early years of testing. Since the District's I
report offered no theories as to why changes to water quality were occurring, I can only
speculate. The 1970s saw the installation of lake -side sanitary sewer systems that relieved
direct discharges as well as the removal of a small treatment plant on Rice Marsh Lake. I
Thus, it is reasonable to expect some short term improvement. However, many of the
same charts appear to indicate declining trends since the early to mid 1980s, which is
1
1
Mr. Conrad Fiskness
May 10, 1993
Page 3
consistent with impacts from urbanization. Yet the report seems to extrapolate that the
1970's trends will continue.
' 2. Some of the sampling methodologies seem inconsistent with developing accurate data on
the lakes. This needs to be further explored.
' 3. Just a few years ago, the District used declining lake water quality to justify undertaking
the $1 million Chain -of -Lakes project. The project was not undertaken due to outside
issues but never -the -less, I have to ask what has happened in the last few years to
1 significantly change things?
1 As I indicated above, I would like to have these and other issues explored by our respective
engineers and have them report their findings back to us before any final conclusions are drawn.
LACK OF CITY REPRESENTATION ON DISTRICT ISSUES
I have Ion been concerned over
long the lack of direct participation of City staff on District, Board
' or advisory committee activities. To the extent that we are to jointly manage water resources,
excellent communication is paramount. It is for this reason that we have been sending all
meeting packets for the Surface Water Management Program (SWMP) Task Force to your staff
' and invited their participation. I further note that many of our concerns over the District's recent
water quality report may have been dealt with at an earlier stage. When your citizen advisory
committee was established some time ago, Charles Folch, our City Engineer, contacted the
district asking that he or some other city staff member be appointed. He never got a response.
Without hearing from Mike Klingelhutz, a Chanhassen resident who was appointed (but who has
since resigned) we would have no idea about what they were discussing. When I raised this
concern recently to Bob Obermeyer, he told me that Charles was on your Technical Committee.
Charles has never been informed about this and when I asked Bob about it he told me that they
have never met.
1 The last situation has to do with a proposal to cooperatively develop a water quality improvement
project with the District that was suggested by you at one of our SWMP meetings. You heard
' about improvement projects we were considering and noted that one of the advantages to the
District was your ability to fund projects. You suggested we submit a proposal to cooperatively
undertake the project. We formally submitted a proposal and never heard back from the Board,
1 nor were we ever invited to discuss it with them. After several months I asked Bob about it and
he told me the Board had decided they could not participate until a new district plan was
developed at some time in the future. Clearly, this situation can be improved upon.
1
1
1
Mr. Conrad Fiskness
May 10, 1993
Page 4
1
SUMMARY
As I noted at the outset of this letter, I believe these issues need to be addressed and a new
understanding of how our water resources are to be managed needs to be developed. We are
asking that you direct your staff to meet with City representatives so that we can report our 1
findings back to our respective decision makers in the near future. Thank you in advance for
your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
a ..(2
Paul Krauss, AICP
Director of Planning 1
•
PK:v 1
c: Charles Folch, City Engineer
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
Surface Water Management Task Force
City Council
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
L
1
• •
I ;:rr ci
:s•
' March 22, 1993
TO: Persons Interested in Revision of the Minnesota
Environmental Review Program
' FROM: Gregg Downing
EQB Environmental Review Coordinator
' RE: Attached Report: "Concepts for Revision of the
Environmental Review Program"
At its March 18, 1993 meeting, the EQB authorized the
distribution of the attached report on concepts for revision of
the existing environmental review process. This report has been
prepared by the EQB Subcommittee on Environmental Review
Revisions. The report includes nine recommendations for
' revisions to the existing review program- -some minor, some major.
' The EQB is seeking public reaction to the ideas in this report.
Written comments should be submitted to the EQB offices by May
14. To aid your review, a list of "leading questions" is
enclosed on issues and topics we are particularly interested in
' receiving input about.
As an additional means of getting feedback, the EQB will hold two
' public forums:
* Thursday, April 29, Bt. Cloud Civic Center, 10 Fourth
' Avenue South, St. Cloud, one session from 2 :00 -4:30 p.m. and
a second session from 7:00 -9:00 p.m.
* Thursday, May 6, Room 301, Centennial Office Bldg., 658
Cedar St., St. Paul, from 2:30 -5:00 p.m.
Any interested person is invited to participate in these forums,
' whether to offer testimony or simply to learn more about the
concepts proposed for revising the program.
Based on the ideas in this report, comments received, and other
' information, the Subcommittee will consider whether to recommend
to the Board that statutory or rule amendments be pursued.
Any questions about the report or opportunities for public input
may be directed to me at: (612) 296 -8253; 1- 800 - 657 -3794; (or
TDD, Minnesota Relay Service at (612) 297 -5363 or 1- 800 -627-
3529).
111Y160NMIAIAI OOA1I1T 10A60 151 MAX 111111,11. PA0E, MM 55155 612 296 -2603 fAX 112 296 -3666 11AfE PBOYIOE0 If m PIAMNIF
II EQB SUBCOMMITTEE Off! ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISIONS
LEADING QUESTIONS TO ACCOMPANY 'REPORT "CONCEPTS FOR REVISION OF
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROGRAM":
•
Question 1. The report indicates that one major problem with the
current process is that the EAW process, which is intended only
to screen a project to determine if thorough review is required
through an EIS, is frequently used as if it were intended to be
a thorough review in itself. The problem with this is that an
EAW is not designed to cover everything that an EIS would,
particularly alternatives to the project, and the process is less
thorough, especially with respect to public input.
Recommendation 1 of this report suggests three optional process
revisions to try to correct this situation.
In your view, is this substitution of the EAW for the EIS a
serious problem, and what is your reaction to each of the three
options for revision? Do you have any ideas for additional
options?
Question 2. The second major problem identified by the report is
the lack of any administrative oversight on decisions by RGUs.
The report suggests a limited EQB oversight role involving the
authority of the EQB Chair to remand - -send back for
reconsideration -- a faulty decision to the RGU. The EQB would
NOT be able to reverse the decision, but could require
reevaluation of the decision and point out flaws and omissions.
Only the courts would actually be able to overturn an RGU's
decision.
Do you believe that some sort of administrative oversight is
needed? If so, what is your reaction to the proposal in this
report? Do you have any concrete ideas for other forms of
oversight that might be more effective without being too time -
consuming?
Question 3. Recommendation 3 suggests creating a list of specific ,
indicators of "significant impacts," to be used to decide if
complete (EIS - level) review is needed. A draft list of such
indicators is shown in an appendix. What is your reaction to
this list, and do you have any suggestions for improving it?
Question 4. Many people feel that the unit of government with the
most authority over a project often has an inherent bias in favor
of the project, which creates a conflict with objective review,
and that therefore some other unit should instead be responsible
for preparing the EAW or EIS. The report makes no
recommendations about this issue. Do you see this as a major
problem, and if so, do you have any suggestions for addressing
, it? _ ,
(Continued)
11YI1O111111A1 00111111OHO 151 010A8 118111, S1. 1111, MM 15115 112 211 -2803 111 112 291 -9198 11111 P1011010 11 m P111
1
1
Question 5. The report makes no recommendations for changing the
present citizens' petition process, except to develop better
guidance about what sort of evidence needs to be submitted. Do
you feel there are any major problems with the petition process
1 and, if so, what are your thoughts on improving it?
Question 6. It is generally believed that developers are opposed
to doing EISs because of the time and expensive involved. Do you
have any concrete suggestions for streamlir}ing the process to
make it more palatable to developers?
Question 7. Do you have any suggestions for revising the existing
mandatory EAW, EIS, or exemption categories or adding new ones?
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
II
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to present to interested persons
some concepts under consideration by the EQB for revising the
state environmental review program, and to solicit input from
interested persons about the advisability of these proposed
changes. 1
The revision concepts explained in this document have been
developed at the direction of the Board by a staff -level
committee of representatives of the member agencies of the EQB
and a subcommittee of members of the Board itself. The Board
directed the staff committee and subcommittee to review public
criticisms of the present process that have been voiced in recent
years and recommend changes that may be needed in the process.
The concepts presented in this document represent the current
thinking of the staff and subcommittee on what changes need to be
made and how it should be done.
The EQB invites all interested persons to review this document
and express to EQB any reactions or other thoughts about revision
of the environmental review process. A notice accompanying this
document explains how to present your ideas to the EQB in writing
or orally. ,
After the EQB subcommittee has reviewed public input and agreed
on whatever modifications to the revision concepts are needed in
response, the EQB would begin to draft specific wording for
changes to the enabling statutes and rules to enact the
revisions. It is anticipated that statutory changes, if
required, would be introduced into the 1994 •session of the
legislature. Formal rulemaking procedures would follow adoption
of statutory amendments. If statutory changes are not required,
formal rulemaking may begin in 1993.
1
1
-1-
.
BACKGROUND: A BRIEF HISTORY AND EXPLANATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL' REVIEW PROGRAM
' The Minnesota environmental review program is one of the most
basic governmental tools for protection of environmental
resources. It is a special review process that complements
' normal permitting and approval processes and is applied only to
development projects which may potentially cause significant
environmental effects. Of all development actions that take
place across the state in a given year, only about 150 are
reviewed under this program.
This program is authorized by Minn. Stat., sec. 116D.04 and
' 116D.045 and Minn. Rules, ch. 4410. The purpose of the program
is to disclose information. It complements whatever permitting
and approval processes apply to a project by disclosing
' additional information about how the project could affect the
environment, and how those effects could be reduced or avoided.
It is then up to the officials who approve permits and other
' forms of approval for the project to take note of this
information and use it in deciding if the project can be
approved, and under what conditions. Environmental review does
not, in itself, approve or disapprove a project.
Environmental review is an open, public process. A major role is
played by agencies which would not otherwise review a project and
also by the general public.
Environmental review uses two types of documents and processes to
develop and present information. The most - frequently used is the
' Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW). The EAW is defined to
be a brief document intended to set out the basic facts necessary
to decide if the project has potential for significant
' environmental effects. If the project has potential for
significant environmental effects, then the other review
document, the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), is required.
' The EIS is intended to be more thorough than is an EAW, both in
depth of analysis and in scope: the EAW is only intended to
disclose whether the project will significantly affect the
environment, whereas the EIS is intended to analyze the impacts
in some depth and identify means by which the impacts could be
reduced through mitigation measures or avoided through the
implementation of an alternative to the project as proposed.
' Both EAWs and EISs are automatically required for certain types
and sizes of projects, as specified in rules adopted by the EQB.
' Most review is done because of these mandatory requirements.
However, if review is not mandatory, in most cases it can be
ordered at the discretion of any governmental unit that must
approve the project. Some minor projects, however, are
' specifically exempted from review at all.
-2-
i
An EAW process typically requires 2 to 3 months to complete.
YP Y qu P
While EAW costs vary widely, any are done at relatively little
cost. A typical EIS process takes 9 months to a year to complete ,
and costs in the neighborhood of $100,000. On the average, about
120 EAWs are prepared each year and about 10 EISs are prepared.
There is a third component to the environmental review process --
the citizens' petition. If neither an EAW nor EIS is otherwise
required, by filing a petition signed by at least 25 individuals
and accompanied by sufficient evidence of potential for
environmental effects, citizens can formally request preparation
of an EAW on a project. The petition does not automatically
result in an EAW, rather, the "Responsible Governmental Unit"
assigned by the EQB must consider the evidence available and make
a determination of whether the project "may have the potential
for significant environmental effects," in which case an EAW is
necessary.
BACKGROUND: WHY THE EQB IS CONSIDERING REVISING 1
THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Over the last several years, in a variety of forums, significant
criticism has been directed at the current state environmental
review program. Much of the criticism has centered on two
themes: (1) substitution of the EAW process for the EIS process;
and (2) lack of checks and balances on RGU decisions.
According to.statute, the EIS process is the tool for analyzing
the environmental impacts of a project in depth, as well as for
identifying mitigation measures and exploring alternatives. The
EAW process is merely intended to disclose enough information to
tell if an EIS is needed. However, in practice, the EAW process
is often used as the environmental analytical tool in itself, in
effect taking over the role of the EIS. Unfortunately, using the
EAW in place of the EIS makes the review less thorough and
narrows its scope. The review is less thorough because: there is
less opportunity for outside input than in the EIS process; the
EAW process does not include any provision for assessing review
costs to the project proposer; and there is a lower expectation
than for an EIS about the depth of analysis. It is narrower in
scope because the EAW process is not intended to address
alternatives at all and is less thorough about mitigation than is
the EIS process.
Many critics of the present program believe that less -than-
thorough review has become commonplace by the reliance on EAWs to
the virtual exclusion of EISs, unless the EIS was mandatory.
-3- i
Under the present program statute and rules, the only way to
•
appeal or challenge a decision by an RGU about whether an EAW or
EIS is needed is to file a legal action in district court. Even
the EQB has no authority to challenge an RGU's decision except by
filing a lawsuit. In addition, the EQB has no mandate and very
limited resources to enforce any alleged violations of
enviromental review requirements. Since 1982 the EQB has limited
' its role in enforcement of the program to cases where a clear
mandatory EAW or EIS requirement was being completely ignored;
the EQB presently is not in the business of challenging the
' discretionary decisions of RGUs.
Many critics of the present program believe it is a mistake for
EQB to have no responsibility for oversight of RGU discretionary
' decisions and advocate the reestablishment of some form of
administrative appeal process that could be used instead of a
lawsuit. Up until 1982 it was possible to appeal RGU decisions
to the EQB, but the process had so many problems with it that it
had to be abandoned. Designing an administrative process that
works effectively and efficiently is not easy, but many think
that some form of administrative oversight, probably exercised by
EQB, is essential to an effective environmental review process.
In August of 1990, the EQB discussed these and other
environmental review issues at length, and decided that staff
effort should be devoted to evaluating whether the process should
be revised somehow to deal with these issues. A committee of EQB
staff and staff of member agencies worked on these issues for
about a year. A public solicitation of comments on the
' environmental review process was advertised in January 1991, and
input received in response was considered by the committee. The
staff committee delivered a report with recommendations to the
Board in July 1991. The Board then formed a subcommittee of four
' members to work with the staff committee on the recommendations.
In November 1991 a focus group of persons knowledgeable about the
process was convened to discuss the staff committee's
' recommendations. The subcommittee developed the present report
based on the results of all this previous work.
-4-
1
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EQB SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW REVISIONS FOR
CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The remainder of this report presents the concepts for revision
of the environmental review process supported by the EQB
Subcommittee on Environmental Review based on discussions to
date. These concepts are subject to modification based on future
review and comment from interested persons. 1
,Introduction to Recommendat 1. 2. and 3.
Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 represent three different responses
to the issue of the substitution of the EAW process for the EIS
process. Recommendation 1 presents three options for revising
the process of environmental review to get at this issue.
Recommendation 2 addresses the issue by giving the EQB authority
to overrule an RGU's decision not to do an EIS. Recommendation
3 attempts to prevent substitution of the EAW for the EIS by
creating more specific indicators of "potential for significant
environmental effects," the statutory standard for requiring an
EIS, under the assumption that if it is more obvious that the
standard for an EIS is met, it will be harder to avoid doing an
EIS.
Recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are not mutually exclusive solutions
to the problem of substitution of the EAW for the EIS.
Recommendation 2 could be used in conjunction with the existing
process or options 1 -A or 1 -B of recommendation 1.
Recommendation 3 could be used with any process option.
Recommendation 2 is also obviously proposed as a solution to the
issue of lack of an administrative oversight process for RGU
decisions.
RECOMMENDATION 1: REVISE THE EAW AND EIS PROCESSES.
Three conceptual options for revision of the EAW and EIS
processes have been developed and are presented in this report.
In different ways, each addresses the issue of the substitution
of the EAW for the EIS. The three options are:
1. Option 1 -A is basically a fine - tuning of the existing
process.
2. Option 1 -B would replace both the EAW and EIS processes
with a new, unified process that blends elements of the EAW and
EIS processes together into one.
3. Option 1 -C would change the EAW process into a review
process in its own right (i.e., not simply a screening process to
see if an EIS is needed) and would change the way in which an EIS
could be ordered after completion of the EAW.
A fourth option would to be to leave the processes as they are
now, and accomplish the objective of avoiding substitution of the
EAW for the EIS by means of recommendations 2 and 3.
-5-
il
II Recommendation 1. Option 1 -A. "Fine- tune" the existing processes.
This option would retain the role of the EAW as primarily a
screening document to help determine if an EIS is needed. The
culmination of the EAW process would continue to be the decision
II by the RGU at the end on whether an EIS will be done.
The changes to the EAW process outlined below would be intended
II basically to improve the information disclosed through the EAW
process so that a better EIS decision can be made when used in
conjunction with the better significance criteria in
Recommendation 3 and the EQB oversight of Recommendation 2.
I Option 1 -A would amend the EAW process in the following ways:
1. Increase from 30 to 90 days the allowable time for
I postponement of the EIS need decision after the end of the
comment period in order to obtain critical missing information.
2. Add a second review period for obtaining public comment
on supplemental information gathered in response to comments
II received in the original 30 day review period.
3. Add a step to the process, to occur immediately after the
end of the 30 -day comment period, in which the project proposer
I would be required to prepare a written response to comments
appropriate for a proposer's response (primarily comments
suggesting project modifications or addition of mitigation
I measures).
4. Add a section to the EAW for called a Mitigation Plan
that includes: (a) mitigation measures already incorporated into
the project by the proposer; and (b) mitigation measures that
1 could be required through permits or other regulatory
authorities. The Mitigation Plan would be revised based on
comments and responses by the proposer and RGU and would be
I adopted by the RGU as part of the record of decision on the need
for an EIS.
5. Add a section called Alternatives that includes: (a)
I explanation by proposer of any alternatives considered in the
planning of the project and reasons why the project proposed was
selected over yalternatives considered; and (b) identification
by the RGU of other alternatives that appear to be
I environmentally superior to the project as proposed. Commenters
would be specifically asked to suggest other environmentally
superior alternatives.
I 6. Establish EQB "gatekeeper" authority, the authority of
the Chair or a designee to reject EAWs submitted for notice in
the EQB Monitor for lack of a complete and good faith response to
the questions.
The EIS process would not be fundamentally amended under this
option, however, the rule provisions on scoping would be refined
I to place more emphasis on covering only truly significant issues
in an EIS.
II
-6-
II
II
Recommendation 1 Option 1 -B. A new single flexible •rocess. 1
Option 1 -B would eliminate the substitution of the EAW for the
EIS by merging the two processes into a single new type of
process. This new unified process would be intended both to ease
the transition from" EAW review" to "EIS review" and also to
improve the efficiency of EIS review by piggy backing on the
review already accomplished in the EAW review.
A diagram depicting the steps of this proposed process is shown
in Figure 1. The steps of this new process would be as follows;
note that several options for controlling the number of
reiterations of steps 4 to 6 are presented:
1. The RGU, working largely from data supplied by the
proposer, would complete sections of the review form (similar to
the current EAW but expanded) that are mandatory for completion
in this step. This would include the information necessary to
identify and assess the significance of environmental effects.
At the option of the proposer, other form sections, including
sections dealing with mitigation and alternatives, could also be
completed in this step.
2. The RGU would distribute the document for a 30 -day
comment period, similar to what we now have for an EAW except
that a public meeting might be required.
3. The RGU would evaluate the information received to this
point to decide if review has been adequately completed or if
further review is necessary. The criteria for further review
would be: (1) the review has failed to disclose sufficient
information to identify and assess the level of significance of
all environmental impacts; and (2) the information disclosed
indicates that the project has "potential for significant
environmental effects" according to the significance criteria in
the rules (see recommendation #3). Before the RGU determines
whether further review is necessary the proposer would have the
opportunity to respond to comments received by modifying the
project and /or agreeing to mitigation..
If the RGU determined review to be complete, a notice of
completion and record of decision would be issued documenting and
justifying the decision.
If the RGU determined further review was necessary, it would
issue an order for further review specifying what further review
was needed. The types of further review possible would be: (1)
additional information to identify and assess the level of
significance of potential impacts (this type of additional
information would basically be to correct deficiencies in the
original document); (2) information to characterize significant
environmental impacts in more detail, if needed; (3) information
about mitigation to reduce or avoid identified environmental
impacts of potential significance; and (4) information comparing
the project as proposed to reasonable alternatives with
potentially lesser environmental effects; this comparative
information would address relevant significant economic an?
social impacts as well as environmental impacts.
-7-
11
1
4. If in step 3 the RGU determined further review was
necessary the review would be performed by the RGU, again relying
' in part on information supplied by the proposer, and the
appropriate sections of the review for pertaining to the further
information would be completed.
5. The entire augmented review document would be distributed
' again for public review. The length of the review period might
be linked to the type of additional information being supplied.
Requests for further review would be required to be accompanied
' by evidence that the document contains inaccurate or incomplete
information relevant to the identification, mitigation, or
avoidance of potentially significant adverse environmental
' effects.
6. The RGU would repeat the decision - making process of step
3 based on the additional information developed in steps 4 and 5.
Again the basic decision would be whether review as adequately
' completed, based on the same standard as in step 3. Two optional
mechanisms for controlling how often further review could be
ordered by the RGU are presented below. (Assuming it is not
precluded) additional review would be needed if: (1) it were
still not possible to determine the level of significance of some .
impact; (2) additional information from steps 4 and 5 indicates
that an impact is "significant" and it requires more detailed
' characterization; (3) additional information from steps 4 and 5
indicates an impact is "significant" and mitigation must be
studied; (4) additional information from steps 4 and 5 indicates
' an impact is "significant" and there are apparently reasonable
alternatives which would avoid or minimize the impact; or (5)
study of mitigation or alternatives in step 4 was inaccurate or
incomplete.
' If the RGU determined review to be complete, a notice and
record of decision documenting and justifying the decision would
be issued.
If the RGU determined that further review was needed an
order for further review would be issued and steps 4 to 6 would
be repeated.
' 7. If the RGU ordered further review in step 6, the further
review would be completed through the procedures of steps 4 to 6.
The Subcommittee decided that two options for controlling
' possible abuses of further review orders (requiring reiteration
of steps 4 to 6 simply to stall an unpopular project) should be
presented for public reaction. Either of these could be added to
' the above process:
Option 1. Place a limit on how often the RGU can require
further review (perhaps limited to 2 orders) but allow a waiver
of the limit by action of the EQB or EQB Chair for cause.
Option 2. Allow the proposer to appeal further review orders
to the EQB or EQB Chair (perhaps only on the third or subsequent
order).
The Subcommittee is interested in any opinions reviewers may have
F) them n7ti cr - -or others -- for assuring that further
review would not be abused under process option 1 -B.
1 -8-
1
11
The analysis under Option 1 -B would all be based on a for which
would be like the current EAW form except expanded to deal with
mitigation and alternatives and supplemental impact analysis.
Some parts of the form would need completion for all projects in
the initial round of review. Others would be mandatory only if
either the project was in a mandatory EIS category or if the RGU
found the need based on the results of completing other parts of
the form. 1
Option 1 -B would introduce three innovations into environmental
review. 1
The first important innovation of Option 1 -B is to change the
nature of the decision that the RGU makes after review of the
EAW. Presently, the RGU's options are "the whole EIS process" or
"review over." (The RGU can also postpone a decision for up to
30 days to obtain critical missing information.) In over 99% of
the cases, the RGU opts for "review over," even in the face of
unanswered questions, unresolved issues, and unmitigated impacts.
The situation must be very serious before the RGU is willing to
order an EIS on a project where it is not mandatory. Option 1 -B
would expand the options for further review. Instead of ordering
an EIS as we now know it, the RGU could simply order further
study of specific topics that were unresolved by the EAW.
The second innovation of option 1 -B is that it would make the
combined EAW and EIS processes more efficient by piggy- backing
the EIS onto the EAW document. Under the present process, one of
the biggest inefficiencies is that the EIS document is
essentially a separate document from the EAW document that
precedes it. Option 1 -B would create a process in which the
initial EAW document would be the core of the final EIS document
and additional information developed as part of the "EIS" review
would be added to the EAW document (probably by use of new
supplemental information sections). 1
The third innovation of the option 1 -B process is that
the question of the need to explore alternatives could be
postponed until a complete factual record about the impacts and
mitigation had been developed. This record would allow a more
realistic and focused debate about whether there are potential
environmentally - superior alternatives which need to be compared 1
to the project. Presently, alternatives to be analyzed are
selected during the scoping stage, when often only incomplete
information is available about the nature and extent of impacts;
this often makes it difficult to choose the right alternatives to
explore.
1
1
-9-
1
1
1 0.
Recommendation 1. Option 1 -C. EAW as review in itself.
Option 1 -C would change the purpose of the EAW to be a review of
the environmental impacts of the project and mitigation measures
for these impacts. Presently, the purpose is merely to screen
1 the project to determine if an EIS is needed.
The following changes would be made in the EAW process under this
' option:
1. There would be a draft and final EAW, with the final
incorporating changes and new information added in response to
' convents on the draft. There would be a 10 day comment period on
the final document.
3. A Mitigation Plan would be added, similar to that
described under option 1 -A.
4. An Alternatives section would be added similar to that
' described under option 1 -A.
5. The EAW process would end with an official decision by
the RGU of adequacy or completeness of the review of impacts and
mitigation. The decision about the need for an EIS to explore
alternatives would be a separate matter, as described below.
6. RGUs would be authorized to assess the EAW costs to the
project proposer (perhaps with a cap on the amount).
The EIS process would be altered primarily in how one could be
ordered following completion of the EAW process. Under this
option, all governmental units with approval authority over the
' project, and perhaps also the EQB, would have authority to order
an EIS within a restricted time period after the end of the EAW
process (perhaps 45 days). The unit ordering the EIS would
automatically become responsible for preparing the EIS. The
standard for ordering an EIS would be that despite the mitigation
identified through the EAW, impacts were likely to still be
' significant and there were apparently superior alternatives that
would avoid those impacts. The scope of the EIS would be limited
to a comparison of the apparently superior alternatives with the
project.
Option 1 -C would officially recognize the EAW as something that
it frequently is now in practice, i.e., a review in and of itself
' as opposed to a screening process for an EIS. The present EAW
process has serious limitations as a review process, and option
1 -C would be one way to make it into a true review process. The
distinction between an EAW and an EIS would be basically reduced
to whether or not a serious exploration is made of alternatives
that may be better for the environment.
1
-10-
1
1
Under this option, oversight of the EIS need decision is
accomplished simply by granting authority to any governmental
unit with approval authority over the project to order an EIS if
it believes the standard is met.
Under this option, all analysis of impacts and mitigation would
be the province of the EAW. The EIS would be restricted to
analysis and comparison of potentially environmentally - superior
alternatives.
•
RECOMMENDATION 2: REESTABLISH SOME FORM OP EQB OVERSIGHT OP RGU '
DECISIONS.
The need for a renewed oversight role for the EQB was one of the
most universally agreed upon topics discussed by the EQB staff
and subcommittees. It is widely believed that some form ofcheck-
and- balance role is needed to counteract a tendency for RGUs to
make pro - development, environmentally - insensitive decisions.
Prior to the amendment of the program in 1982, the EQB did have
authority to review and reverse RGU decisions. However, problems
with the process and abuses of its use soured opinions of the EQB
and RGUs alike about the viability of the EQB oversight role, and
it was discarded by amendment of the statute. However, in
hindsight, many now feel that it was a mistake to totally
eliminate all oversight by EQB, and believe that some oversight
is crucial to having an effective program. 1
The oversight role proposed is the authority of the EQB Chair to
"remand" questionable decisions to the RGU for reconsideration,
with written directions about what must be reconsidered and why.
In conjunction, the EQB would. add additional staff for the
environmental review program so that it could critically review
RGU decisions. This oversight would NOT enable the EQB to
actually overrule an RGUs decision; that action would continue to
be the province of the court system. However, EQB would be in a
much better position under this system than it is now to seek
judicial action against bad decisions by RGUs.
In agreeing to propose the "remand" form of oversight the EQB
staff and subcommittees gave consideration to a variety of other
possible forms of oversight which have been suggested, but
rejected them. The primary reason for rejecting them is that all
other proposals are believed to inherently take too long and
consume too much time of the Board and staff. In addition, most
persons familiar with the experience of EQB as an appeal body
from 1974 to 1982 recognize that a Board appeal process does not
necessarily lead to better decisions anyway.
-11- •
II
1
1
RECOMMENDATION 3. ESTABLISH SPECIFIC CRITERIA INDICATIVE OF •
"SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS."
The "potential for significant environmental effects" is the key
phrase in the whole environmental review process yet it is
undefined. It is proposed to add in the rules a listing of
indicators of significant impacts which the RGU would be required
to compare to the EAW information in deciding whether the
' potential for signficant environmental effects exists. If the
project posed the potential to create any of the situations
described on the list, the "significance" standard would be
considered to have been met, and appropriate further review would
' be required (the exact for of the further review would depend on
which of the four process options of recommendation 1 were
chosen). However, the general principle is that if there is
potential for any significant impacts, mitigation and
alternatives must be explored.
' Appendix 1 presents a preliminary listing of significance
criteria. It is recognized that much work remains to be done in
refining this list before rules could be promulgated, and the
subcommittee welcomes any thoughts on this from reviewers.
' RECOMMENDATION 4. ESTABLISH UNIFORM REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT TYPES
OF ALTERNATIVES MUST BE EXPLORED IN AN EIS (OR EQUIVALENT REVIEW
' DOCUMENT).
An examination of past EISs reveals that alternatives analysis is
commonly a weak point in EIS preparation. It is not uncommon for
' an EIS to address only two alternatives: the project as proposed
and the "no- build" alternative. It is therefore proposed that
all alternatives analyses be required to address the following
' types of alternatives:
Alternative sites
Alternative technologies
' Modified designs or layouts
Downscaled size
Alternatives incorporating identified mitigation
"No- build"
1 If it is not reasonable to analyze any alternatives of one or
more of these types, the EIS would instead include a
' justification of why no such alternatives were reasonable. This
justification would be subject to review and challenge like any
other part of the EIS content.
"Alternatives incorporating identified mitigation" includes
various redesigns and modifications of the project that would add
in identified r.itigation measures. This type of alternative
-12-
1
1
probably overlaps the the "modified design /layout" and
"downsizing" alternatives in most cases, however, it needs to be
explicitly listed to ensure that all EISs compare the impacts of
the proposed project to a project that fully mitigates identified
impacts.
RECOMMENDATION 5. EXPLICITLY AUTHORIZE THE USE OF "TIERED"
REVIEW. 1
"Tiering" of environmental review is a concept taken from federal
NEPA procedures. It refers to the separation, or tiering, of
review into stages, where each successive tier becomes more
focused on details. The first tier of such review normally
examines broad or generic issues, such as alternative
technologies to accomplish a certain objective, while the later
tier(s) deal(s) with specific details of sites and structures.
Tiered review is appropriate in situations where it is not
feasible to examine all potential options in detail at once and
where the decision as to what to do can be broken down into a
series of logical steps. A typical example is the process of
siting some sort of facility where the decision can be broken
into a preliminary step of selecting the best "search area" from
among a group of candidate search areas and a secondary step of
picking the best site within the selected search area. 1
Tiered review can be interpreted to be implicit in the current
process, but it is not explicitly provided for. .The proposal is
to add specific authorization for tiered review and guidance for
how it is to be done. As part of this guidance, there should be
provisions to assure that an appropriate level of review precedes
each decision- making point where any alternatives are dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION 6. REVISE THE WAY OF APPLYING MANDATORY CATEGORY
THRESHOLDS SO AS TO COUNT PAST PROJECT STAGES AS WELL AS THE
PRESENTLY PROPOSED STAGES IN ORDER TO BETTER ADDRESS CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS; ADD EAW QUESTIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. '
It is generally felt that cumulative impacts -- impacts that
accumulative sequentially from multiple projects -- is an area of
concern that is not dealt with very well under the current
process. Two proposed changes are suggested.
Under the present system, when it is being determined if a
proposed project exceeds the thresholds for mandatory EAWs or
EISs, anything already in existence (past project stages) is
never counted (except in the case of marina projects for which
special wording requiring consideration of past stages already
exists). This has led to circumvention of review through staging
projects over time so that no stage up for approval ever exceeds
a mandatory threshold regardless of the total cumulative size of
the overall project, and regardless of the cumulative impacts of
-13-
1
1
the overall development. •
The proposal is to impose a new rule for applying mandatory
category thresholds that requires inclusion of all past stages of
the project by the same proposer; if the sum of past stages plus
what is current proposed exceeds the threshold, review would be
mandatory. This change would eliminate some cases of
circumvention of the review process and give a better handle on
cumulative impacts from sequential development.
An additional recommendation regarding cumulative impacts is to
add questions to the EAW form at its next updating asking for an
explanation of how the proposed project was contributing towards
cumulative impacts which might, as a whole, be significant even
if the present increment was minor in itself.
RECOMMENDATION 7. DEVELOP BETTER GUIDANCE FOR PETITIONS 80 THAT
THE "MATERIAL EVIDENCE" BURDEN I8 IDENTICAL IN ALL CASES.
Questions frequently arise about how much evidence need be
' submitted in order to make a citizens' petition for an EAW valid. •
There is no statutory or rule clarification of what constitutes
"material evidence."
The proposal is to creat additional guidance on this point so
that all petitions can be held to the same standard and so
projects are not delayed by petitions for which there is no
1 sufficient evidentiary basis.
The resolution of this issue could be accomplished either by
adding guidance to the statute or rules regarding what is
material evidence, or by developing more complete administrative
guidance to give to prospective petitioners, perhaps in the for
of a recommended petition form.
' RECOMMENDATION 8. REVISE THE MANDATORY EAW AND EIS THRESHOLDS.
' To date, the following mandatory category revisions have been
suggested:
- add categories requiring review of land use planning and
' zoning actions -- this could include adoption and amendment of
comprehensive plans and major zoning or rezoning decisions
- reevaluate EIS categories for public projects to assure
that thresholds cover all projects that could significantly
' affect the environment and which involve choices among
alternatives -- perhaps add a general mandatory EIS category for
significant public projects
- update the category types to address new types of projects
or new technologies that have emerged since the last update,
including: ash landfills; medical waste incinerators; PCB
' incineration; ranure composting
- update categories for solid and hazardous waste
-14-
1
1
- update recreational projects category -- consider EIS
threshold, distinguish sewered from unsewered projects '
- delete interstate natural gas pipeline EAW threshold
- update highway and airport thresholds
Additional suggestions for mandatory category revisions are
welcome as part of the response to this report.
RECOMMENDATION 9. MAKE VARIOUS HOUSEKEEPING AMENDMENTS TO THE
PROGRAM RULES.
If and when the rules are revised, there are a variety of minor
errors that will be proposed for correction.
•
1
1
1
— MN NM MN MI i• MN — = NM NM MN i♦ — NE MN = MI 111111 .
hi
H
0
0
td
N
1 I No co
H
ti
Environmental RGU 1 Yes Further RGU o0
Comment Decision I Comment
Impact --0,.. Analysi gi. 1, Decision II
Period Period
Report (Is further analysis (of specific Impacts (Adequate & hd
needed ?) or Issues) complete analysts ?) Pg
- Mitigation may be No - Information insufficient Yes 0
included at this stage to evaluate impacts y
- Alternatives may be Appeal of - To decide of •
included at this stage "significant" Adequacy �r
Decision
i
Opportunity - To characterize Decision • o
significant impact in detail Z
- To study mitigation
Y s''
e
/ ; - To study alternatives b
Appeal of H
Environmental Decision o
Review Opportunity x
• Comp leted A
/ of
•
/
Environmental
Review
\ Completed
•
1
APPENDIX 1
DRAFT LIST OF SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Each of the impacts identified below would be considered as a " significan
environmental effect" in most circumstances in which they occur:
Air quality impacts
- violation of air quality standards
- emission of toxic substances that may adversely impact humans,
plants or animals either directly or through any route of uptake
- substantial quantities of fugitive dust
- odors, if related to a specific air quality standard
Water quality impacts
- violation of water quality standards
- alter the trophic status of or eutrophy a lake
- degrade ground water quality
- degrade the quality of a source of drinking water
- discharge of toxic substances that may adversely impact humans,
plants or animals either directly or through any route of uptake
- degrade a high quality/ pristine water body
- overload an existing wastewater treatment facility so as to cause
any of the above water quality effects '
- use of soil absorption systems in areas of unsuitable soils or in
too great a concentration for the capacitiy of the soils
- cause significant sedimentation of waters of the state
Waste production impacts
- creation of large amounts of wastes (hazardous waste, solid wastes,
sludges, ashes, manures) requiring disposal
Flora /fauna impacts
impact endangered /threatened species)
- loss of scarce /important habitats (e.g., spawning areas)
- removal of large quantities of vegetation or fauna /substantial loss'
of habitat
- substantial interference with the movement of any resident or
migratory wildlife or aquatic species
- potential to introduce exotic species
destruction or removal of, or interference with, important spawning
areas for aquatic species
Valuable resources
- loss of wetlands or substantial loss of quality of wetlands
- loss or impairment of character or quality of important
archeological, historical, or cultural resources
- loss or impairment of character or quality of important recreational'
resources
- create overcrowding /conflicts with existing water surface uses
- loss of substantial farmlands
- physical alteration of water bodies -- filling, dredging, elevation
changes
- substantially increase siltation in a water body
- wild and scenic rivers, trout streams, canoe routes
- prime agricultural soils
- cause the harvesting of X cords of wood per year
- consumption of large amounts of fossil fuels or minerals
cause substantial erosion of soils
1
1
1
Conflicts with plans
- conflict with adopted environmental /resource protection plans /goals
- conflicts with approved local water plans
- conflict with local comp plan with respect to loss of ag lands
Other impacts
- substantial increase in flooding potential
- violations of noise standards or substantial increase in noise
' - pose a substantial risk of releasing toxic /hazardous substances into
the environment (e.g., spills, leaks, disturbing previously contaminated
area)
' - encouraging or attracting a large number of people to a place or
places for more than a few days.
- impair water supplies by appropriation of large amounts of ground
water
' - substantial increase in runoff from an area
Other -- things not listed above but that are significant nonetheless
1
•
•
1 •
1
1
CC Ads "t1. o -Qcict
5/2-41q3 q3 1
William M. Crawford
Metro Division Engineer 1
Retirement Party
1
Wednesday, June 9, I991111Y OF CHANHA' E
Radisson South =
7800 Normandale Boulevard MAY 11 1993 - .�=
Minneapolis, Minnesota
ENGINEERING DE ' T. 4 `
Fo r hotel accommodations, � { ���
ons, contact the hotel directly 7 5 - £.:; 1
at (612) 835 -7800. Ask for Crawford Retirement - -
block of rooms ($65.00)
S
1
chedule --,-.0.---, - -
6:00 p.m. Social Hour (Cash Bar)
7:00 p.m. Dinner 1
8:00 p.m. Program e
Menu '
Grilled Chicken Breast with Mushroom I .
Cabernet Sauce
Roast Loin of Pork with -
Calvados Cream Sauce ilk f 1
If you have any questions, please contact:
Clair) Gades at (612) 297 -5478 or
1
Darlene R. Lacer at (612) 297 -7323 Please reply by June 1, 1993
MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: Gary Workman/ Crawford Retirement t
Grilled Chicken Breast with Mushrooms Cabernet Sauce @ $20.00 =
Roast Loin of Pork with Calvados Cream Sauce @ $20.00 = I
Amount Enclosed 1
Price includes: salad, potato, vegetable, dessert, beverage, tax, tip, and gift.
*Name Menu Choice
`As you would like name pnnted on name tag. I
Address Phone Number (W) (H)
GIFT ONLY NAME
I can't attend, but I wish to contribute towards a gift.
I
Hammel Green and Abrahamson, Inc /��
' Architecture • Engineering • Interior Design - S _NJ /r fi[�•»
1201 Harmon Place
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403 -1985 t
v? c. , /�C PKi et,, ee
Telephone 612.332.3944 vr CAI
Fax 612.332.9013
HG1\
TO: Chanhassen Entertainment Complex File
HGA Commission Number 1139.004.00
FROM: Curt Green
' DATE: May 6, 1993
SUBJECT: Notes of Meeting held on May 3, 1993
' A meeting with members of the Chanhassen City Council, Planning Commission, Park
Board and HRA was held on May 3, 1993.
Don Ashworth began with a presentation of objectives, yes or no vote, and their preference
for general direction of planning. He recommended Number 11.
' I presented the three plans, Numbers 8, 10 and 11.
Extensive discussion took place about the following:
' • Bowling alley building
' • Parking for retail
• Access to Seventy- Eighth Street
' • Inclusion of public spaces or multi- purpose space for classes and activities for the
community
• Openness
• Interest and reactions within the two school districts
• No referendum
• Child care handy for bus stop
• Cinema near Market Place and Highway 5
Don then questioned each member present as to their yes /no vote and preferred scheme.
' The majority felt the bowling alley should be retained but modified to be aesthetically
satisfying. Signage should be removed. Plan #10 was frequently referred to, but with
modifications.
' There was a majority vote for proceeding with a recreation center. Voting on a specific
scheme was inconclusive, but many revisions were suggested.
chgl2.ct RECEIVED
cc: Don Ashworth, City of Chanhassen MAY 0 71993
' Todd Gerhardt, City of Chanhassen
Todd Hoffman, City of Chanhassen CITY OF CHANNAS
Gary Reetz, HGA
Minnesota l c P 7 l i e r • 4dov.. "` � '`
- T��
Department of How will Minnesota use 1STEA funds during FFY 19
Transportation Minnesota entered the second
ty (CMAQ) and Transporta- category includes a nominal'
year of ISTEA with a carry- tion Enhancement Activities funding level.
1STEA of $117 million. (TEA). The targeted categories term-
IMPLEMENTATION FFY '93 formula ISTEA alloca- Operational expenditures tively will use about $75 mil - I
NEWSLETTER tions total $238 million, but such as Highway Planning & lion of obligation authority,
the appropriations act limits Research (HPR and PL) and and HIP will have about 594
The Intermodal Surface spending to 80.5 percent of engineering and contingen- million in obligation authority'
formula funding or to $197 cies (E&C) also are included available for FFY '93.
Transportation million. With $83 million in as targeted categories as are
Efficiency Act of 1991 additional obligation authori- the State Aid for Local Trans- Minnesota is short some $108
ty for specific discretionary portation (SALT) programs. million for the 1992 STIP ele -,
p rojects, the spending plan ment. Mn/DOT may be able
In this issue: Transit capital for rural sys- to make about 532 million
totals $280 million in federal tems was included in the available through internal I
Using ISTEA funds in 1993 funds. . 1993 Statewide Transporta- measures. Finding the
ISTEA demonstration projects Mn/DOT developed a draft tion Improvement Program remaining 576 million will
ISTEA implementation meet - FFY '93 spending plan that (STIP) as an eligible highway require extraordinary mea- I
ings set includes three project groups: activity within the targeted sures to keep projects on
■ Prior commitments. categories. schedule.
NUMBER 6 ■ Targeted categories. Minnesota has tentatively (contact Jon Bloom, 1
funded some targeted cate- 612/296 -1635)
APRIL 27, 1993 ■ State Highway Improve- gories at 80.5 percent of the
ment Program (HIP). authorized funding level. TEA 1
Correction: Minnesota funded prior com- What are 1STEA demonstration
In the article about STIP mitments with obligation � Does Minnesota currently,
(Statewide Transportation authority and reserved the projects •
Improvement Program) in the rest of it for targeted cate- have any?
April 12 issue, the first item gories. Balance authority
in the list of parts needs to be funded HIP. For Minnesota, ISTEA Minnesota Humphrey Insti- I
corrected as follows. Metro- includes 19 special projects tute.
Prior commitments include commonly called demonstra-
politan Planning Organization • $3.20 million for TH 55
discretionary funding for spe- lion projects. Funding for
TIPS
cific interstate and bridge these projects is available Hiawatha Avenue intermodal
projects, and discretionary until spent even if beyond the urban demonstration project
funding includes a prorata life of the Act. in Minneapolis, including I
Looking for a topic share of 80.5 percent of $0.37 million for bikeway
If we have not covered a top- obligation authority. ISTEA includes $209 million development. •
is of interest to you, please for Minnesota demonstration
let our editor know. We will Funding for the remaining projects phased in at $16.7 The act also allows for pool -'
try to address the topic in a 19.5 percent of these projects million in FFY '92 and $38.4 ing of demonstration funds.
future newsletter. We wel- requires using obligation million yearly from 1993 - That means Minnesota may
come topic ideas. authority received for formula 1987. Included are state high- use all such funds on any
funding. Additional prior way and local road projects. demonstration project in any
commitments include some (See chart page 2.) y
scenic byways and pre- ISTEA This prevents accumulation oil
demonstration projects. Prior • $8.75 million for Minnesota large sums of unspent, allo-
commitments use about $109 Guidestar. cated funds on projects not '
million in obligation authori- ■ $0.76 million for an IVHS due to be built for several
(Intelligent Vehicle Highway years, thus making possible
Targeted categories include Systems) and Environment the full federal funding for
new groups such as Conges- project by the University of projects to be built immedi- ,
tion Mitigation and Air Quali- vedie
1 (continued)
Current demonstration P ro ects
ately.•Hopefully this will Previous demonstration pro-
1992
I mean Minnesota will not jects have often resulted in a Location Project Expenditures
have to use advance con- distortion of priorities. ISTEA State Retroflective signs, pavement marking $ 160,000
struction procedures or front demonstration projects, how- State "Elastomer" pavement demonstration 80,000
1 end projects with local or ever, were deemed valid pro- Hennepin TH 610: TH 252 West 2,880,000
state funds. jects because existing funding Hennepin TH 55 Hiawatha Avenue 1,592,000
Carver US 211Eden Prairie to Cologne 696,000
Mn/DOT does not support was not available. Mn/DOT Ttasca US 169: Cross Range Expressway 1,0
I the concept of demonstration will complete these special Pine TH 48 and relocation Co. Rd. 134 160,000
projects because those pro- projects funded via the con- St. Louis TH 37 and Hughes Rd (NWA Airbus Facility) 40,000
gressional process. St. Louis US 53' Twig to TH 37 760,000
jects make less funding avail- g p Itasca US 169: Grand Rapids to Hill City 720,000
I able for regular categories of (contact, Jon Bloom, Cook TH 61: Schroeder to Grand Marais 1,440,000
federal aid, lengthening the 612/296 -1635) Stearns TH 15• river crossing, interchange at US 10 259,000
completion time for projects Various
Counties Avenue of the Saints 944,000
'
that are in the project devel- Scott Bloomington Ferry Bridge 1,760,000
• opment process. Hennepin Bloomington Ferry Bridge 1,440,000
Hennepin Richfield, 77th Street 928,000
Lake Forest Highway 11 760,000
1 Nicollet Nicollet Co. CSAH (County
Implementation meetings set State -Aid Highway) 41 240,000
Blue Earth Mankato: south route improvements 800,000
I Regional meetings regarding ISTEA implementation are
scheduled as follows: The 1991 Appropriations Act includes five additional projects with
$31 million in obligation authority:
Mn /DOT Districts Date Tentative Location Location Project 1992 Expenditures
I
1,2 and 3 May 12 Brainerd
State Mid - America Aviation Resource $ 2,000.000
6 and 7 May 20 - Owatonna State Guidestar: IVHS 10,000,000
1 4 and 8 May 24 - Willmar Hennepin TH 55: Hiawatha Avenue 9,000,000
Hennepin Richfield: 77th Street 9,240,000
Future editions of the ISTEA Newsletter will include more Admin. Univ. of Minnesota Humphrey Institute - 750,000
information about these meetings. The 1992 Appropriations Act includes allocations of $12.7 mil-
, lion for three projects in Minnesota:
1
1
I o �N" q Questions, comments to: CITY OF CHANHASSEN U.S. Postage
4� 12 Robert Lowe, Newsletter Editor PAID
$
i ` Minnesota Department of Transportation G3LC�CBd�® First Class
�, 807 Transportation Building Permit No 171
395 John Ireland Boulevard MAY 0 3 1993 St. Paul, MN
St. Paul, MN 55155
I Tel: 612/296-1657 ENGINEERS DEBT.
Fax: 612/297 -3160
I . Charles D. Folch
City Engineer
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
I P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
1
G; ��s
/14/ 1
1
-: E = _ _ - _ _ h yi � : coordination with police departments. 1
- .° _ -_ _ - ., -4;;� d �� pro grarns �s _ - = - =;:= Fire protection and safety are common
Ci r ecreation � y ;= ms Man
s; ` '.' - a - -, • inc orporate many safety as f a
aspects o I
lend a 112111 d - in_Ch ch ild's life including electricity, bicycle
- ;__ � .. t .. safety, first aid, fire protection, and
= = d - - - u�J-- -_ ;�_ _ - - -- _�- �. � �••� - - water safe
eveloprnent ' ' ; ,; m g i nstruction has -- - - ,,,e.2-`,-='; ` . " �., ' , r-- - " been a core service of municipal
-
:,• . '.. recreation departments. Swimming
MARYSAARION - - _ .•' = ' safety and swimming skills are a primary
- concern of local recreation departments.
Local recreation departments are the
Cities offer children social development Programs and activities vehicle for getting important safety '
through recreation activities that create for safety information to the children of our cities.
a firm foundation for adulthood. While
City recreation departments offer
schools concentrate on academic ty P Social skills through
growth, recreation supports social and many safety- related programs for interaction
I
children. "I'm In Charge" is a program
emotional development. On many which gives safety information to Recreation programs serve as an
occasions, school districts and city children who are home alone either avenue for children to learn the skills of
recreation departments collaborate to after or before school. First aid and CPR cooperation, as in team activities, I
provide a health) combination of classes for youth are growing in interest. theater productions, and dance groups.
academic and social development. Classes in self defense are popular for Bringing together children of varying
Schools can't provide everything for teen girls, and programs such as karate economic status, race, religion, and
the total development of a child. and similar programs build youths' self- values opens their perspectives and 1
Recreation on a municipal level is a vital esteem and confidence. helps them accept each other. Social
link to the social development of Bicycle safety is a course city recre- interactions help children see the worth
children ation departments usually offer in and need for all people for effective and
I
successful outcomes.
Children's play is their work. Play
helps them learn the skills of coopera-
- _ - - _ - tion, collaboration, consensus, and I
compromise. The larger the play group,
�- t om- .� Y . the greater the need for social skills.
' - ► ' '. ' y ". Children's social skills do not just
,, _ _ '` .. happen, they need to be nurtured and 1
. �' •- .- » - ' 4 ';:-.T&- developed. Municipal recreation
;` programs and activities offer supervised
_ • :. r i * ' = �` nurtur an deve lopment of social
r ; : = ' , • " ._� 1,.' ' skills.
a 1
' w - t- f- :;'`"'- .. + „" , ,... 41: City recreation programs are
{ r � '' " - ' ` traditionally sites for social skill develop-
+x- "" ment. Summ la
t, • f , ' - I playgrounds have a
+ wonderful blend of supervised, or a 1
' fi r • � P g _
A _ _ " ` " ��' � nized, and varied activities and experi-
: . ' ti ' s ences, while not expecting participants
, , • 1 , • - " , - to achieve anything but social behaviors 1
_ i it as simple as the Golden Rule.
- „ . Cities employ local leaders to
- viy % supervise the learning of these social
�� y skills by children in their neighbor-
hoods. We hear about how these I
Recreation leaders act as positive role models and hel to develop
and nurture children's social skills. recreational programs impact children
through the testimonials of adults I
including professional athletes, city
leaders, teachers, scholars, and even our
1
I
1
I First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton who build their self - esteem with successful
worked taxes, fees, and contributions. Leisure
worked as a summer playground leader. participation Recreation measures recreation activities are an investment in
Keeping the children on success according to the individual's our children. This investment helps
own abilities. That is why the Special children develop into adults who take
the straight and narrow Olympics and similar programs are so leadership roles, who practice collabora-
Do recreation activities and programs successful. "If iou've had fun, you've tion and cooperation, and who exhibit
for children decrease the chance that won" is a traditional philosophy that community pride and the vision of good
I children will end up on the streets, join continues to be the foundation of quality of life. Children are an attribute
gangs, and vandalize our neighbor- children's city recreation activities. of our cities.
hoods? A study by Giboney and Carter
found that adolescents are bored by Y i c recreatio
} worth Mary Saarion is the Director of the
' inactivity. Children who have friends Y •
Cities' recreation programs give every Mounds View Parks, Recreation, and
and participate in leisure recreation Forestry Department. She is a member
activities perform better at school and child a chance to participate regardless of the Minnesota Parks and Recreation
are less likely to become involved in of economic status, race or religion, or Association, which is a statewide
delinquent activity. skills and abilities. The philosophical cooperative group of professionals
In many cities, the recreation and cornerstone of municipal recreation is whose cause is the equal opportunity
police departments are teaming up to that opportunities are available to every for leisure recreation programs for all
coordinate and entice youths to con- child with even city property owner children.
strucuve leisure time activities. They paying a portion of the cost through
hope to replace boredom and delin
quent activity with active participation in
I leisure pursuits beneficial to the youth
and community.
Community pride }: , s ,.
I Community events and activities give �f
�• i
children a camaraderie with the .'l
communin They become supportive of
I communin activities and have a sense of
pride in the city Communities that want ';
to keep children must make sure that , w
childhood experiences are worth , 1 -
keeping The growth or migration of a .�' {
I community ma), in part, depend on the ; F' �
•. . '
opportunities for children.
A garden for community
I leaders
Recreation activities give youth an'�� _ {, ,,: •_
I opportunit\ to practice leadership skills. ' }
Children are in charge of a group £% - 's- -.
during a game, lead a craft activity,
referee or judge performances of peers,
I or teach a song to others. They learn <`, ;�„ _ S
leadership qualities through emulating, .� t .; rz� i
role models such as playground leaders,
coaches, instructors, and officials. As t � 1 _
I children age, leadership opportunities _ r '' � - ter+, "-'
increase and so does responsibility. - r c r r • ` `t f r-. •
Self- esteem builder = -- =.
1 - _ _ --_
Recreation programs often help Swimmi skills•are o ne of the many safety- related activities: -
children find their niche Th ey a re available through local recreation departments: - _
usualh most interested in areas where -
theN have skills. Recreation lets them Photos cou tesyMounds View Park • R`°"d°n, and Forestr' Deanrtment
R.& p ) z 10 II
1
SOUTHWEST CORRIDOR TRANSPORTATION COALITION UPDATE
VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2 APRIL, 1993
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Submitted to Federal Highway Administration
D ( r4 Y
The EIS for Highway 212 has been submitted by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) to
the Federal Highway Administration for final approval. MNDOT staff indicate that they anticipate no problem
and expect the EIS approval process to procged without delay. Upon approval by the Federal highway
Administration and signatures by the other federal agencies, a notice that the EIS is complete will be
published in the federal register. The federal register notice will solicit comments for thirty days and at the
end of the comment period, the EIS will be approved. The EIS hopefully should be approved by June 30,
1993.
Upon approval of the EIS, MNDOT will be able to apply to the Pollution Control Agency for indirect source
permits necessary to start the project .
Increased State Transportation Funding For 1993 Is Doubtful
The House and Senate have approved transportation appropriation bills that do not increase funding for
highway projects. The House, however, accepts the governor's recommendations to increase transit funding
by $25.0 million. Transit funding in the Senate bill is the same as the current biennium.
The Senate bill which is authored by Sen. Keith Langseth did contain a 50 gas tax increase, indexing of the
tax, and a 1 /2% increase in the motor vehicle excise tax (MVET). The MVET increase would have been
used for transit while the gas tax would be used for highways. The tax increases were deleted in the Senate
tax committee. The taxes were deleted due to the efforts of several legislators who believed that the funding
1
package did not provide equity for transit. To obtain equity funding, an amendment to the bill was offered
that would have authorized a constitutional amendment in 1994. The amendment would have divided the
proceeds of any increase in the motor fuels taxes equally between transit and highways. The amendment
was not adopted.
In addition to the funding equity issue, the future of interstate 35W is part of the transportation funding
debate. In fact, both the House and Senate bills contain language prohibiting activity on I-35W or 1-494.
The Senate bill prohibits land acquisition on I-35W until August 1, 1994 while the House bill prohibits land
acquisition on 35W and 494 and also prohibits any work on the additional lane of 35W south of 494. Unlike
1 the Senate bill, the House 35W provisions do not have an expiration date.
If no funding is approved, it is probable that MNDOT will need to defer projects.
Rep. Myron Orfield To Speak At Annual Meeting
Rep. Myron Orfield has spent much of the Session discussing the development of the metropolitan area.
Based on his studies, Rep. Orfield cort,nds that poverty and related issues are evident In several suburban
cities, as well as in the central cities and that jobs have increased in the second ring suburbs (Eden Prairie
and Minnetonka) and decreased in the inner ring cities. Being aware of the trends, Rep. Orfield has
1
1
1
authored several bills relating to the metropolitan area including transportation, housing and govemance of
the metropolitan council.
Rep. Orfie ld's initial transportation bill would have required a project's EIS to assess the impact of the
highway on the availability and location of affordable housing and would prohibit the metropolitan council
from approving a project unless the affected cities were in compliance with housing goals developed by the
council. The transportation bill has been amended but highways and housing linkages are a major element
of Rep. Orfield's proposed polices.
The annual meeting is scheduled for:
Friday, April 30, 1993
11 :30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
KITS Systems
Eden Prairie
1
Please Call Been at 341 -3646 to order a box lunch.
1
- , y •
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN i
1
.... ..,
" ,,,,,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
'` (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
:
MEMORANDUM 1
TO: Roger Knutson, City Attomey
FROM: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
Y g � b
DATE: May 5, 1993 1
SUBJ: Chanhassen/Chaska Interceptor 1
I asked Luke Melchert to prepare the attached agreement. As the Chanhassen/Chaska sewer line 1
construction is a cooperative project, I told Luke to set the value of the easement at $1.00.
Would you please review the proposed agreement as to form and reasonableness. Again, the
amount should reasonably stay at $1.00. I would assume that you will prepare one of your 1
famous "one line" memorandums that I can include in a future Council packet for their approval.
a 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Is 1
.
� 4. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
C ITYOF
CHANHASSEN
..-
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
May 5, 1993
Northern States Power Company
Attn: Mr. Larry Fortune
' 5505 County Road 19
Excelsior, MN 55331 -8565
' Dear Larry:
Charles Folch forwarded to me your letter of April 7, 1993, regarding undergrounding electric
' utilities on West 78th Street from Great Plains Boulevard east to State Highway 101. This letter
is to act as confirmation that the City continues to place underground electrical services as a part
of all new public improvement projects.
I would ask that you work with Charles and to notify him as to when the actual installation will
4 occur so as to allow us to employ an electrical contractor to carry out the rewiring of services
1 to individual homes. I should note that Jerry Schlenk's property is for sale, and accordingly,
would recommend that we place a pole in close proximity to his home so as to allow for
continued overhead service to that residence.
Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact one.
' Sincerely,
Don Ashworth
City Manager
DA)(
pc: Charles Folch, City Engineer
1
u PRINTED ON RECY. LED PAPER
s' /i424
xee P� 1
0 *F-so ? Minnesota 1
c of Transportation
Transportation Department Building
395 John Ireland Boulevard 1
4).o,. T Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
April 29, 1993
II
Don Ashworth
II
Chanhassen City Manager
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147 1
and
Charles D. Folch 1
Chanhassen City Engineer
690 Coulter Drive
Box 147
II
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 -0147
In reply refer to: I
Municipal State Aid Street System
Commissioner's Order No. 79234
Extension - Portion of MSAS 111 & 113
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Dear Sir:
I am transmitting herewith for filing in your office a certified 1
copy of Commissioner of Transportation's Order as noted above.
It is suggested that this order be properly filed, indexed and kept 1
as a permanent record in your office.
S'ncere
I
C. Carlson, Division Director
j tfl) DenKis fffY'" State Aid for Local Transportation I
Enclosures:
I
Commissioner's Order No. 79234
cc: Elmer Morris, Jr., DSAE, Metro
File - 420 - 1
DCC:phb
RECEIVED II
MN /DOT SD -21 (5 -78)
(formerly 30718) +'SAY 0 4 7993
CITY OF ut ibuvrttiSSEN I
q„ F iia! Opr -. F,.,.,' , , ,- 1
II *1 - i
j9 Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
M ears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101 -1633
1C , , J v✓g
612 222-8423
1 47 ,Derf
1 April 30, 1993 der Agiosfor s
1 Charles Folch
City Engineer
1 City of Chanhassen -
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317-0147
1 RE: 1993 First Quarter Flow Calculation
Dear Mr. Folch:
The Metropolitan Waste Control Commission has measured and /or
calculated the first quarter flows for 1993 generated within your
community to be 156 million gallons. This information is
considered to be preliminary and may be adjusted based on further
review. The Commission's estimated total 1993 flow for your
community is 668 million gallons.
The above first quarter flow calculation, and the estimated flow
for 1993, includes estimates for any unmetered connections that
' either enter or leave your community.
If you have any questions or require additional information, please
don't hesitate to call me at 229 -2116.
S erely,
Donald S. Bluhm
' Municipal Services Manager
DSB:JLE
FLOWLTR
cc: Teri Keegan, MWCC
Janice Haugen, MWCC Commissioner CITY OF CHANHASSEN
EOM
MAY 0 4 1993
i
ENGINEERING DEPT.
1
Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
!A,-1 .r■
1
1
p 4
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN 1
„,,,,_,,,,,,.....„ ..
ty'' 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
1
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1
May 4, 1993 1
Mr. Chris Polster
8020 Hidden Court
I
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Re: Basketball Hoop Within City Right -of -Way
I
File No. PW -258
Dear Chris:
Over the past two weeks City staff has received a number of complaints to your recent installation of a basketball I
hoop immediately behind the curb on the thoroughfare of Hidden Lane. Although all of the complainants wish
to remain anonymous, the mutual consensus was that they were concerned about driving along a street with kids
I
playing basketball in the street. Another neighbor was also concerned about backing in and out of their driveway
while kids are playing.
As you may or may not be aware, the City requires that a permit be acquired for any private structure or 1
installation located within the City's right -of -way. We do not have record that a permit was obtained for this
§ basketball hoop nor does the City grant permits to install basketball hoops within the right -of -way. Having the
basketball pole and hoop located as such not only presents safety problems for both youth and motorists, but 1
this also creates some maintenance difficulties for the snow removal operations.
Given that this type of installation is not permitted and that a number of complaints have beenreceived, the City
I
requests your cooperation in removing this basketball hoop within the next 30 days from the date of this letter.
If you do not remove it as such the City may exercise its right and remove the pole which you can then pick up
at the City's Public Works maintenance shop. Your cooperation and attention to this matter is greatly I
appreciated!
Sincerely,
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
1
Charles D. Folch, P.E.
City Engineer
Via_ -
I
CDF:ktm
c: Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer
Mike Wegler, Street Superintendent •
City Council Administration Section (5/24/93) 1
III
IPINiv •
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1
CITYOF
1.1 CHANHASSEN
6 90 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
1
May 10, 1993
1
' Ms. Deborah Porter
Barton Aschman Associates, Inc.
Suite 350
' • 111 Third Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55401
1 Dear Ms. Porter:
I have had an opportunity to review the April 26, 1993, proposal from Tellus Environmental
Consultants. The proposal represents a significant expansion of services that are to be undertaken
in conjunction with the Environmental Assessment (EA) document your firm is preparing for
Chanhassen's proposed North Highway 5 Access Boulevard. The scope of services is being
1 expanded to accomplish three goals:
Bring the EA into compliance with the revised guidelines established by the State Historic
1 Preservation Office;
' Meet guidelines established by MnDOT Cultural Resources Staff to gain their support of
the EA and subsequent cooperation on construction and acquisition of the boulevard; and
1 Respond to MnDOT's need to upgrade the original Hwy. 5 Cultural Resource Survey to
meet current standards to meet time frames required to keep the Hwy. 5 and access
boulevard projects on the current construction time frame.
1 I have reviewed the need to upgrade the EA cultural resources serving with the Chanhassen
Housing and Redevelopment Authority. They have given city staff authorization to enter into
' an amended contract. This letter will serve as our official confirmation that the contract
amendment is authorized with the following two understandings:
' 1. The total contract amount for the EA is to be increased by no more than $11,575, as
outlined in the attached proposal.
1
� 41: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1 1
Ms. Deborah Porter I
May 10, 1993
Page 2
2. MnDOT will give consideration to crediting the increased costs to the city's share of 1
right -of -way acquisition and constructing the access boulevard as discussed in meetings
with MnDOT staff. A copy of this letter is being forwarded to MnDOT. 1
Sincerely,
e,
1
'au] Krauss, AICP
Planning Director 1
PK:v 1
Enclosures
pc: Housing and Redevelopment Authority 1
City Council
Don Ashworth, City Manager 1
Charles Folch, City Engineer
Ron Erickson, MnDOT
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 •
_ ENVIR =N7AL =- _ _... .:,. .•• - • �� -- _
CONSULTANTS INC
1
April 26, 1993
Deborah A. Porter
Senior Associate
Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc.
111 Third Avenue South, Suite 350
Minneapolis, MN 55401
RE: CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY IN CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Dear Ms. Porter:
Tellus Consultants offers the enclosed proposal to conduct a Phase I cultural
resource survey in Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota.
1 The enclosed proposal is substantially revised from earlier proposals for this project
because (1) the project area has substantially increased, (2) MN -DOT has
suggested need for geomorphological study, (3) the number of farmsteads to be
' recorded and evaluated has risen from 3 to 9, and (4) we have recognized a
possible need to conduct limited formal testing as part of this Phase 1 project.
1 Thank you for the opportunity to submit this proposal. I look forward to hearing
from you and to working with you in the future.
Sincere)
/ a--
Kurt Schweigert
1
1
1
1
13 ] 5 Glenwood Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55405 Phone: (612) 374 -1422 Fax: (612) 374 -1301
PROPOSAL TO CONDUCT PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY
IN CHANHASSEN, CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Tellus Consultants, Inc. proposes to accomplish a Phase 1 cultural resource survey 1
of corridors which may be impacted by construction of an access boulevard and
reconstruction of a portion of Trunk Highway 5 in Chanhassen, Minnesota. The
Phase I cultural resource investigation will be accomplished to provide information
necessary for an Environmental Assessment of the construction project, which is
being completed by Barton - Aschman Associates, Inc.
This proposal responds to a Request For Proposals issued by Barton - Aschman
Associates on March 15, 1993. The following technical proposal, schedule, and
cost proposal reflect the information contained in the Request For Proposals and
our experience in conducting similar investigations in the vicinity of this project.
Research Orientation
This investigation is intended to provide information about the locations, horizontal
and vertical extent, and general nature of historic and prehistoric cultural resources
within the project area. To the extent possible, this investigation will also provide
relative dates of cultural sequences, the integrity of cultural materials, and the
significance of cultural resources according to the Criteria for Eligibility for the
National Register of Historic Places. Preservation of significant cultural resources
is the guiding principal of this investigation, and the methods and procedures for
this investigation will yield maximum information to allow project planners to avoid
affect to significant cultural resources.
1
Substantial formal archaeological testing is not within the scope of this Phase 1
investigation, and to the extent possible this Phase 1 investigation will yield ,
information necessary to avoid the costs and delays associated with Phase II
evaluative testing and possibly Phase III data recovery. However, excavation of a
limited number of formal test units may identify whether Phase 11 testing or
avoidance is appropriate, and excavation of a small number of formal units can be
accomplished quickly and at relatively low cost as part of this Phase 1
investigation. This Phase I investigation therefore will include some elements of a
Phase 11 testing project.
Pre -Field Investigation '
Prior to field survey, Tellus Consultants will obtain results of a search of the official
state cultural resources files to determine if historical or archeological sites have
been recorded or reported within the survey area or nearby. Tellus Consultants will
also consult atlases, plat maps, and other available sources which may indicate
1
1
Chanhassen Proposal Page 2
previous land use or presence of historic or prehistoric features. A number of small
prehistoric sites are known to exist in the general vicinity of the project, typically
1 on small knolls or hills adjacent to wetlands or lakes.
Geomorphological Investigation
I The project area is in an upland setting and contains only three small drainage
crossings. In general, the project area is relatively unlikely to contain either deeply -
1 developed surface soils or buried soil horizons sealed by non - organic strata such as
stream - washed silt or sand. However, cultural resources might exist in deeply
buried contexts in limited locales of the project area, and MN -DOT has
I - recommended geomorphological investigation to define areas in which deeply
buried resources might exist. Geomorphological investigations will serve as a basis
for location of shovel probes and formal test units if appropriate.
I Geomorphological investigation will be accomplished prior to archaeological survey.
I Field Investigations.
Field methods will comply with Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office
I guidelines for Phase I cultural resource inventory. The project area will be
intensively surveyed by a field team walking transects spaced at approximately 15
meter intervals. The direction of transects may vary slightly according to local
topography and survey conditions. Special attention will be given to areas
I exhibiting favorable ground surface visibility or access to subsurface conditions
(road cuts, cattle trails, rodent mounds, stream cut banks).
I Limited shovel probing will be conducted in areas where vegetation or other
conditions do not allow adequate visibility of the ground surface to determine if
I prehistoric or historic materials are present; shovel probing will be limited to areas
with gentle slopes in which prehistoric or historic cultural resources are likely to
exist intact. Shovel probes wilt generally be no more than 40cm square and no
1 more than 50cm deep; probes will be placed at 10 -meter intervals or as necessary
to adequately examine the survey area. Material removed from shovel probes will
be screened through 114" hardware cloth; cultural materials will be collected for
I later laboratory examination. Depth of each shovel probe and general soils
conditions will be recorded. Probe holes will be refilled with screened earth.
1 Extensive excavation of formal test units is not within the scope of this project,
but excavation of a limited number of formal units may be necessary to either
I avoid unnecessary Phase II testing or to provide information useful for planning
Phase II work. The dominant type of prehistoric site in the vicinity of this project
is sparse lithic scatter located on hilltops above lakes and other wetlands. Many of
these lithic scatters contain few diagnostic artifacts, and many sites have lost
I stratigraphic integrity because of plowing and other disturbance. Shovel testing
1
1
• Chanhassen Proposal Page 3
alone will probably not be sufficient to determine the abundance of artifacts, the
age and cultural affiliation, and the integrity. Tellus Consultants estimates that up
to four prehistoric sites will be found in the project area, and we propose to
excavate one formal test unit in each of the prehistoric sites. Format units will be
located in areas of relatively high artifact occurrence, as indicated on surface or in
shove! probes, and units will be excavated in arbitrary 10cm levels to at least 1
20cm below the lowest level bearing cultural materials. All excavated materials
will be passed through 1/4-inch screen.
Site Recording
Four categories of cultural resources may be identified within the study area: 1
prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological sites, architectural sites and
isolated finds. Sites of each category will be recorded according to specific criteria 111 as required by the State Historic Preservation Officer.
When archaeological cultural material scatters are found, the location of each item I
will be marked with surveyor's pin -flags to allow controlled identification of the
cultural materials and mapping of locations of diagnostic artifacts and
concentrations. Sites exhibiting extremely large amounts of cultural material may
be found; on these sites an attempt will be made to provide an accurate
approximation of amount and type of material types present. In some cases an
analysis zone or transect may be utilized to provide a means of determining overall I
site density and material content from a limited sample of material from the site.
Site sketch maps will be generated by use of hand -held compass and tape. Site
boundaries will be determined to the degree possible by means of surface I
examination and shovel probing; site boundaries will be marked with pin flags to
allow project planners to precisely locate the resources.
Data will be recorded in the field in the form of field notes, descriptive sections of
appropriate state site forms, 35mm format black and white photographs, sketch
maps, planview maps where appropriate, surveyors notes, large scale contour
project maps when available, 7.5' USGS topographic maps and information
recorded on artifact and field sample bags. All materials will be returned to Tellus
Consultants office and laboratory facilities for processing and analysis.
1
Historical archaeological sites will be recorded by generating a representative
inventory of cultural material present, site boundary definition and plotting on 7.5' 1
USGS quadrangle maps, photographic documentation of the site, completion of
appropriate state site forms, and completion of a site sketch map. This
methodology parallels that of prehistoric archaeological cultural material scatters as
I
discussed above.
1
1
1
Chanhassen Proposal Page 4
Architectural sites will be recorded in a manner similar to that used to record
historical archaeological sites: recording a representative inventory of cultural
I material present (if any), site boundary definition, photographic documentation of
the site and features, completion of site forms, plotting of the site on USGS 7.5'
quad maps and generation of a site sketch map. Recording of standing structures
I will include verbal description of general form, plan, materials, roof type, windows,
construction techniques, decorative treatments, and alterations or erosions of
original construction. Photographs will be taken from opposite corners of major
structures when possible, to show all exterior watts and all roof slopes. Additional
photographs will show particular construction features such as wall materials and
I joining techniques.
Isolated finds are generally considered one or two isolated artifacts. This amount
I of cultural material is indicative of human activity in the area but usually does not
contain sufficient information to justify designation of an area as a site. Isolated
finds will be recorded on the appropriate state isolated find recording form,
including a brief description of the cultural materials. The location will be recorded
I on a USGS 7.5' topographic map.
The surface collection strategy during survey will be to recover only those artifacts
I which could aid in the temporal or functional interpretation of the site. Locations
of the collected artifacts will be shown on site sketch maps or more formal site
feature maps. Limited collection at the initial survey stage eliminates unnecessary
I laboratory analysis and preserves the artifact assemblage in place for later testing
or mitigation investigations. Unless otherwise directed by the project sponsor,
I collected artifacts will be considered the property of the surface land owner.
Collected artifacts will be temporarily curated at Tellus Consultants facilities prior
to their return to the landowners.
I Each prehistoric archaeological and historical archaeological site will be marked in
the field by the installation of a permanent datum. These permanent datums are
1 stakes manufactured from a length of 1/2" PVC water pipe. A Tellus Consultants
field number will be written on the stake in indelible marking pen, and the stake
will be driven into a relatively secure location. The datum will be shown on site
1 sketch and more formal site maps.
I Site Evaluation
Tellus Consultants routinely evaluates the National Register eligibility of historic
period resources as part of Phase I inventory, and will do so for this project.
I Historical information about the historic sites will be sought from available local
residents during and following field survey. A complete title history will be
I compiled for properties more than 50 years old, and names of persons associated
with each site will be sought in available historical and biographical sources
1
1
Chanhassen Proposal Page 5
concerning the respective city, county, and state. All structures and other historic
sites will be evaluated by a qualified historian or architectural historian according to
Criteria for Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places. It is possible that
evaluation of historical archeological sites under Criterion D (likelihood to yield
important information) can not be completed without subsurface testing, but this
situation is relatively rare.
Prehistoric and historic archeological sites will be evaluated to the extent possible
prior to formal subsurface testing. Evaluation at completion of survey will include
consideration of the nature, age, and cultural affiliation of observed materials, the
geographical /topographical context of the site, soils conditions of the site area, and
whether the site area has been disturbed by human or natural forces. If the survey
does not yield information adequate to determine the National Register eligibility of
archeological sites, recommendations will be offered for further investigation or
avoidance of the sites.
Reporting
1
Tellus Consultants will prepare a report of the survey and survey findings according
to pertinent standards of the State Historic Preservation Office and /or the State
Archeologist. The report will include (1) an identification of the project and project
area, (2) results of the pre -field records search, (3) description of field and archival
research methods, (4) inventory and evaluation of recorded sites within the project
area, (5) recommendations for management of recorded properties including further
investigation if necessary, and (6) list of cited references. The report will, at a
minimum, contain (1) a general -area map showing project location, (2) U.S.G.S.
topographical quadrangle coverage of the project area showing project boundaries
and locations of recorded historic and prehistoric sites and isolated finds, and (3) at
least one photograph depicting the project area. ,
Schedule
All research, field investigations, and reporting will be completed by May 30,
1993. Tellus Consultants will make every effort to complete the investigation in
as short a time as possible.
Personnel
Tellus Consultants anticipates using three persons for this project: an Archaeologist
(M.A., Principal Investigator), an Historian /Architectural Historian (M.A.), and an
archaeological field assistant (B.A.). Tellus Consultants will provide clerical,
drafting, and report production support to the principal personnel. Additional
qualified staff are available to expedite Phase II testing /evaluation if necessary.
•
1
1
1
Chanhassen Proposal Page 6
The g eomor holo ist for this project will be qualified under the Minnesota
P 9 P ro1
Historical Society's standards, published spring, 1993.
1
Budget
1 Tellus Consultants proposes to accomplish this investigation under a two- tiered,
fixed price arrangement:
1 Tellus proposes to accomplish all research, survey, shovel testing,
artifact analysis, site recording, and reporting for a fixed sum of S15,
I 375.50. A detailed itemization is appended to this proposal for this
basic proposal.
I Tellus proposes to accomplish excavation of up to four formal test
units, analysis of artifacts from these units, and reporting of these
excavations for an additional sum of $1,000 per test unit (per site).
I This budget item is offered separately because test units may not be
needed if prehistoric sites are not found in the study area, and fewer
than four formal test units may be required if fewer prehistoric sites
1 are found within the project area.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TELLUS CONSULTANTS CULTURAL RESOURCE DIVISION I
ITEMIZED COST ESTIMATE
Proect: Barton- Aschman Associates TH-5 EA, Chanhassen, MN
Date: April 26, 1993
Project Type: Phase I Survey
Labor /Cost Categories: PI /Arch PI /Hist Crew Chief Crew Cost Item Cost
Labor: 480.00 480.00 320.00 280.00
Number of Personnel: 1.00 1.00 .00 1.00
Mileage (Per Mile): .35
Photo (Per Roll): 38.00
Task 1: Meetings /Negotiation
Labor: .50 .50 480.00
Task 11: Records Search
Labor: 1.00 .00 .00 480.00
Mileage /Travel: 30.00 10.50
Copies: .00 20.00
Task 11 -A: Geomorphology II
Contracted Services 1,000.00 1,000.00
Task 1II: Field Survey
Labor (Person Days) 2.50 .00 .00 2.50 1,900.00
Per Diem (Person Days) .00 .00 .00 .00
Mileage: 300.00 105.00 I
Photographs: 4.00 152.00
Task IV: Shovel Probing and Site Recording /Updating II Est. No. Probes: 225.00
Labor (Person Days) 7.00 7.00 5,320.00
Task V: Recording /Research of Historic Sites 3.00 1,440.00
1
Task VI: Preparation of Site Forms (Archeological)
No. Site Foray: 4.00 I
Labor (Day /Site Form): .20 .00 .00
Total Labor Days: .80 .00 .00 .00 384.00
Task VII: Preparation of Site For (Architectural)
No. Site Forms: 9.00
Labor (Day /Site Form): .20 .00 .00 .00
Total Labor Days: 1.80 864.00
II
Task VIII: Artifact Analysis / Curation
Labor: .50 .00 240.00
Curation Costs: .00
Task IX: Draft Report Preparation
Labor: 3.00 2.00 .00 2,400.00
Report Production Costs: 50.00
Task X: Final Report Preparation I
Labor: 1.00 .00 .00 480.00
Report Production Costs: 50.00
Total Proposed Cost: 15,375.50 1
P
1 TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD L' c am+ •,
of the METROPOLITAN COUNCIL 54
' invites you to
I THREE MEETINGS
on the
PROPOSED 1994 -1996 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
' FOR THE TWIN CITIES METROPOLITAN AREA
The Transportation:Adv sory :Board: of the V.Ouncil: will :hold :three::meetings:
during the next three months ::to :provide b c round `information and get public :reaction. to'
' the -96 Transportation Improvement Program (lil) for the Twin Cities Metropolitan
Area The program will include highway, transtt,'likeway, pedestrian and .:air ?qunlity
projects proposed for federal funding throughout the seven- county :metropolitan area In the
next three years. The program is prepared annually in accordance with federal
requirements and must contain all projects that: are to ::be :Implemented- with federal funding
assistance. The Tll' is prepared jointly by the:Metropolitan Council,' theMinnesota
' Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) and the Transit Board (I:TB and the
projects contained in the TIP reflect the region's priorities. The projects included .fin the
TIP implement the region's transportation plan and priorities. The program will be
adopted by the. Transportation Board and approved by the Metropolitan :Council:
' MEETING INFORMATION:
When/Where: Informational meeting on the process for preparing and approving the
' 1994 -96 Transportation Improvement Program
Wednesday, May 19, 1993
2:15 p.m.
' Metropolitan Council Chambers
Mears Park Centre
230 E. Fifth Street
' St. Paul
Informational meeting on the "draft" 1994 -96 Transportation Improvement
' Program
Wednesday, June 16, 1993
2:15 p.m.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
-over-
1
1
Public meeting to hear public comments on the "draft" 1994 -96 Transportation
1
g P P
Improvement Program
Monday, July 12, 1993 1
7 p.m.
Metropolitan Council Chambers
Program Report: Free copies of the draft 1994 -96 Transportation Improvement Program will
be available on June 16, 1993 through the Council's Data Center. Call 291-
8140 or 291 -0904 (TDD). 1
Questions: Call Carl Ohrn (291 -6507) or Emil Brandt (291 -6347) or 291 -0904 (TDD).
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
1
Minnesota Implementing ISTEA in Minnesota means
Department of public participation
Transportation
This year-1993---marks a Since the North Star Work- and protecting previous inter-
1 ISTEA
departure from the old ways shop, Mn/DOT representa- ests and expanding the role
of doing business. And the rives have appeared before a of local entities.
new way offers the following variety of public and quasi- Mn /DOT has taken a deliber-
I IMPLEMENTATION characteristics: public organizations such as ate approach of defining and
NEWSLETTER chambers of commerce, met- understanding the ideas that
■ Opportunity to consider a g
wider range of problems and ropolitan planning organiza- I surfaced during the discus -
The Intermodal Surface solutions trans- tions, regional development
ons regarding I sions. Mn /DOT makes even
. ona
. Transportation portation issues. commissions. the Rural Initia- effort to identify common
Efficiency Act of 1991 ■More diverse interests par- tive Coalition and so on. ideas and thoughts and to
1 ticipating'in the process. A strong message throughout discuss them openly.
• In this issue: ■ More responsive to the these sessions is a desire for A a result of the input on
local influence in transports- implementing ISTEA.
I i ssues. tion decision-making. Many
SPECIAL EDITION g• Mn/DOT will take a substate
Process for implementing ■ New relationships among requests, formal and infor- cooperative approach to
ISTEA in 1993 in Minnesota transportation group interests mal, call for a geographic making transportation deci-
' in the decision- making focus to transportation deci- sions. Cooperation is impor-
Appendix process for transportation. sions through public partici- tans to assuring equity among
A: State aid boundaries, loc ISTEA, in short, creates less patios. For example, all the parties affected by ISTEA.
I representation of a federal presence in many
problems are not the same
around the state and, there- Equity or fairness will be the
B: ATPs of the transportation deci- litmus test for the irnplemen-
sions. The diminished federal fore. not all solutions need be tabor of the Act.
' C: State aid district map role results in more the same.
Creating Areawide Trans -
D: MPO, RDC map state/local authority and Public response, however, for portation Partnerships (ATPs)
E: Transportation investment responsibility for these deci- geographic decision- making within the state provides a
I process sions. has not created a consensus regional framework for priori-
This focus on regional, state on how to do it. Diverse sug- tizing investments in the
Number 7 and local problems provides gestions emerged for imple- transportation system. Satisfy -
▪ May 7, 1993 a new way of doing business. menting ISTEA, including a ing regional transportation
1 ISTEA Mn/DOT views this shift as a cautious embrace of new priorities may be the most
implementation response to the public's methods for decision - making appropriate indicator of fair-
1 meetings update desire for more control over while maintaining some of ness or equity. •
activities .affecting its daily the familiar ways of the past
Mri/DOT districts 4 and 8 . life: •
1 regional meeting for imple-
menting ISTEA is set for May A North Star Workshop, held What are Areawide
in May 1992, began the Transportation Partnerships?
24 in Alexandria, instead of process of implementing the p p
' Willmar. Im ISTEA will use This partnership will take its
Intermodal Surface Trans -
(contact Donald Raisanen, portation Efficiency Act of a concept of Areawide Trans- principal form from the guid-
218/828 -2463) ■ 1991 (see ISTEA Newsletter, portation Partnerships (ATPs) ing tenets of ISTEA —the
1 October 1992). as a substate, multi-county cooperation between all
(Editor's note: This special geographic basis for trans- modes and all state and local
edition of the newsletter out- About 160 transportation rep - portation investment deci - transportation interests.
lines a process to be used for resentatives statewide met to sion - making.
I the 1993 federal transporta- share ideas, explore possibili- It consists of a combination
tion program. This process is ties and investigate strategies The partnership fosters of local planning representa-
based on a new, regional • for implementing ISTEA. The improved relationships and fives and state transportation
decision - making partnership, next step was envisioned as participation between state officials. These officials will
IS7EA guidelines and what the analysis of the informa- and local interests. It inte- work, where possible,
Mn/DOT heard during the tion shared at the workshop. grates priority needs for the through existing organizations
public involvement process The degree of consensus or area and recommends invest- such as Mn/DOT districts,
last year.) ■ divergence was also evaluated. ments in solutions to trans- metropolitan planning organi-
portation issues.
(over)
(continued) now eligible for highway toward priority transportation for Transportation Aianage-
zations (MPOs), and regional funds. needs. ATPs bring together ment Areas (TMAs). urban -
development organizations . ISTEA encourages MPOs and the transportation recommen- ized areas with more than
(RDOs such as regional RDOs to promote participa- dations of MPOs, RDCs and ! 200.000 population and rural
development commissions or tion by other eligible trans- Mn/DOT for an integrated list areas with less than 5.000
RDCs). MPOs and RDCs portation interests within of transportation investments. population.
incorporate both road and - MPOs and RDCs. Transit rep- ATPs consider the invest- Mn/DOT will consider draft,
transit interests. The typical resentation in the Areawide ments for all transportation- I RTIPs prepared by each ATP
ATP represents a Mn/DOT Transportation Partnership related activities within its for inclusion in the Statewid
district, one to three RDCs sunsets on Dec. 31, 1995. geographic boundary. The Transportation Improvement
and an MPO. After that date, Mn/DOT dis- partnership. integrating state 1 Program (STIP). It will evalu-
Until 1996 the partnership tcta. MPOs and RDCs need and local priorities. recom- 1 ate them for consistency with -
also includes urbanized trap- to adequately reflect the mends the areawide invest - the State Transportation 1
sit agencies representing views of all transportation ment in transportation Investment Goals and for ,
locally elected officials modes. activities. addressing areawide priorities.
responsible for transit opera- ATP will build upon the ATP deliberations result in a Mn/DOT will consolidate th
tions in urbanized areas as transportation planning struc- draft Regional Transportation eight recommended areawid
well as rural and small urban ture in place in most of Min- Involvement Program (RTIP). RTIPs and make fiscal adjust -
transit agencies representing nesota. MPOs and RDCs exist Draft RTIPs will include a pri- ments for regional priorities
all locally elected officials in many areas and cooperate oritized list of projects to aid and possible equity conside
responsible for transit opera - in the processes used for in solving transportation ations. ATPs will review and
tions in rural and small areas reaching decisions. They problems and implementing comment on a draft STIP.
(ISTEA sections 16, 18). represent local government the long -range objectives for After considering their com -
Because ISTEA fosters the and include locally elected the area. ments and recommended
further .coordination of all officials who are responsible Developing an RTIP begins adjustments, STIP will go to'
transportation interests, it is for decision - making. Using with a "target" funding level the Mn/DOTS commissioner
in the best interests of all existing organizations and based on the ATP's share of for approval. The Federal
users to begin by emphasiz- planning processes ensures state and federal transporta- Highway and Transit Admin -,
ing transit activities. Transit broad -based involvement in
tion funding. The partnership istrations also need to
needs are underfunded and transportation decisions. IN needs to consider all sources approve STIP. The cycle will
How are Minnesota counties divided into ATPs? of funding — federal, state, be repeated annually until
Areawide Transportation existing organizations such as state -aid and local. All modes there is enough familiarity ton
Partnerships do not split up MPOs and RDOs. Similar should be included in the possibly extend it to a two-
counties. The boundaries arrangements should be decision - making process. year process.
selected for the partnerships established where there are Balanced investment deci- Mn/DOT will evaluate equity
are based on Mn /DOT state- no functioning RDOs. See sions promote effective and (highway /transit/other,
aid district boundaries chart (Appendix A) for Min- efficient transportation. state/local, passenger /freight
(Appendix C). nesota ATPs, by county, num- Mn/DOT developed State rural/urban, intermodal and
ber and type of transit sys- Transportation Investment geographic activities) at the
ATP framework builds on tem, RDC /MPO representa- Goals and Guidelines as an end of each funding period. II
tion and Mn/DOT districts. II aid in establishing areawide The equity analysis may be all
What are the duties, priorities. Principal emphasis factor in state investment rec-
responsibilities of ATPs? of goals is to preserve and ommendations (see
improve existing transporta- Appendix B).
Areawide Transportation Part- transportation needs (Appen- lion systems.
nerships are critical to imple- dix E). The process assures (contact Jon Bloom,
menting ISTEA. The part- all eligible stakeholders Minimal guarantees are under 612/296 -1635) 1
nerships reflect the request access to planning and consideration for such federal
for more local authority and investment decision - making categories as
responsibility for transporta- and fair evaluation of eligible transportation Questions, comments to:
tion decision - making. proposals. enhancement, Robert Lowe, Newsletter Editor
And implementing ISTEA ATPs use transportation plan- congestion mitiga- Minnesota Department of Transportation
tion, air quality 807 Transportation Building
includes developing a new, n in g carried our by Mn/DOT. and safer;. - _-3'5 John I;e!and EoJ':..4
integrated process for trans - RDCs and MPOs so that Statewide minimal St. Paul, MN 55155
portation investment deci- transportation investments guarantees exist Tel 612/296-1657; Fax: 612/297-3160
sions based on prioritizing are coordinated and directed
Ma/DOT STATE AID DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND LOCAL REPRESENTATION
1 Pgtt:TOT7:77F;PF:7:;Rrr7trggtRrrtitrMR5FElfYWWRAETITTTFTs.".
060Ntit :.1:::::ei::.-:::::
1
• -.,::,,::.•:..,....„:. • ....::: .,., ,., .. ., . :•.:„,„„„: .. i::::::::,,,,,,• •:-...„.„,.....„„:.,.„.,_,4,....a::::2.:::,a::::ii:::::::Mr*WA:%.P:'''
linti:14.v.,..::::„:ANO.Maat,4:;: ,
1 ::: (9) Carlton Arrowhead RDC Urban-1
Cook Duluth-SuperiorMPO Rural & Small Urban-9
1 :. Itasca
::'Koochiching _(MIC) Elderly & Disabled-13
. Lake
I Pine
St. Louis
I • a ..i. ,(11) Beltrami
' Headwaters RDC
Northwest RDC Urban-1
Clearwater
Rural & Small Urban-9
:: Hubbard Grand Forks-East Elderly & Disabled-18
I . .;:- Kittson
Lake of the Woods Grand Forks MPO
(GF-EGF MPO)
Marshall
I ! • Norman
Pennington
Polk
I Red Lake
:: Roseau -
1 3 : (13) Aitkin
.. Arrowhead RDC Urban-1
Benton ** • Region 5 Development Rural & Small Urban-7
•:: Commission RDC Elderly & Disabled-19
I Crow Wing
istanti East Central RDC
St. Cloud Area
Kanabec Planning Organization
I Mille Lacs
Morrison (APO-MPO)
** Inactive RDC
Sherburne **
• :: Stearns **
: Todd
i Wadena •
•
•
,.:, •:. Wright **
IIIIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMIIII .
4 • (12) Becker ** Upper Midwest Valley Urban-1
• - :: Big Stone
** Inactive RDC
- Clay ** RDC
Rural & Small Urban-8
Elderly & Disabled-10
Douglas *" Fargo-Moorhead
I Grant "'
.:: Mahnomen • ' CouncilOfGovernments
(FM-COG)
:: Pope **
• Stevens **
:: Swift
Traverse **
• ..:Wilkin **
Otter Tail **
•
, .... , 4 7 ', 5 44 --, kt..;y:• - r,' , '-', , * : . 4i.W' . i. .... '':;•:-,:----=-:-'- - :,- i-• :-- : . ' ' - -- ' - ' . ' -"''''' ' -; • '''' ' '• ' .
• 6 :1(11) Dodge **
1 *" LaCrosse Area
Planning Committee Urban-1
Fillmore
Rural & Small Urban-10
1Freeborn ** IMPO (LAPC) _Elderly & Disabled-1S
1 Appendix A-1
Mn/DOT STATE AID DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND LOCAL REPRESENTATION
� ;- L wIX { ? ?n*^CK... . M:• v�..•k�.�;\{,^+:: ?ry •:��Sl•�' {min•': : ?: \?•:
r.;::.:}: ii::: n}.. v:: vn: ..vnnvuvxvii:..mv:.:..•r..vrnwn v ♦:: •.::::.: ::::: ••:
}�wy • :!v::.�:.. : �.n•... :. }. .....,: ...y.:+ v :: ;..:..:.v. ': i`C 1ti.v: ��;v- tkr.: +, + }:i
.�. ........ ....... :. . .. :•: } } 4. y:}} _;:;^: i:> v'.: nv�>.}:: v};; }: }tj�,;:• } }:.iw . .... \...t•. '
Jn 4 T ~ WS J
..... L .. - � ` ?�:.,'<:< �:��NU4i..E#�E :. : { :: .: ::.: '�
; :
£ i ST ::3!iC) ► >. .::li ?NIJ B TE ' >`;: �
Goodhue • • Rochester - Olmsted
Houston Council Of
Mower • • Governments (ROCOG)
Olmsted • • • • Inactive RDC
; Rice •• -
Steele •'
1
1 Wabasha ..
Winona • *
7 (13) Blue Earth Region Nine 1 Rural & Small Urban -10 •
Brown Development Elderly & Disabled -17
Cottonwood Commission RDC
1
Faribault Southwest RDC
Le Sueur
Martin
1
Nicollet
Nobles
Rock
1
Sibley
Waseca
1 Watonwan
8 (11) Chippewa Upper Midwest Valley Rural & Small Urban -11
Kadiyohi RDC Elderly & Disabled -8
1
Lac Qui Parle Mid Minnesota
Lincoln RDC
Lyon Southwest RDC 1
McLeod
Meeker
• Murray
1
Pipestone
•:'Redwood
Renville 1
Yellow Medicine
Metro .: (8) Anoka The Metropolian Urban -1 1
Carver Council of the Twin Rural & Small Urban -27
Chisago Cities Area (MC) Elderly & Disabled -71
Dakota with the Transp.
1
Hennepin Advisory Board (TAB)
Scott is Designated MPO
:Washington to represent area 1
• • = County with an inactive Regional Development Commission (RDC)
Appendix A -2
1
1
M all MO MN M MN I •I r en — 1E11 SE i— MI IN MN
Appendix B AREAWIDE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIPS
.DISTRICT (STATE AID) BOUNDARIES
SAMPLE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION FOR 1994 -1996 STIP
'��{f��{y! y/���y� y�.�■ !�y�j �y��'� �jj�' y; y��, yN�� ::: :f:::: . .. ..: .: : ...:'.. ... { • r :..: ....... : .: .:•.: : n:y :;x.;..: ? ::':.: :. :' .::• ::n. _..iry ;i :r; : ::�
.. :: :.: .. �. .11.: tbit kAL.:i /i ::STkL il:(: Tilt .... :: .A.:A1.H:: AD,':: " 'NNS: :i :::i :: P '�j/(y;. :} N ! '.. ::: :1\. �y i. ..: ��1{(!.: ::. • •:.:::::::::•.:: ' ..::: :. .: i'vi:.: .: •. .. '. {... �.. . ::: ..v * . .
: <; : �{:\ ti�A :: �:i:::. .:. �.. �.� ,: ...:.: ...� :::. •
.i. 'i'..:. • :::::: . , :::::: - . , ::::::: , : , ":::::•":-:." . ..i..:::..:::::.::::.: • :.:.: Y:. _. ' �i. : ? ..: -::' :' •'' '. .` :,. :: ' :�.. �:�1(:::::. }: };'• } }: ..:; . i }: };' { :;;:::::::: { : ; F ::•: •. •
, :::i' . . :.:.'9., : : •+:•'
::'T :•,•23 i.:. :' :.''•':':. ..: } .. ..:'.. :: , . : '. . :.. . ? ::.::. . ? i.,..i , : .... ,,v. .'.. ,�`.:.i .. •. ` . : .. : . , ? }: :} i'r::. T:ii r:{.: + : ' :'.: Ti::? :::: :.:}:.: :• . . ••••••:: ' i' ..:.;.:•y..:: ? : , ,:..,.:.:.: . v :: .: ' :.
... : .: .......::.:...........::::::::.......:.: ......................i..:..... .....:.:....::..::.
• .. > ;:.'•:',. `.. $ 20,216,000 $ 12,887,000 $ 23,284,000 $ 796,000 $4,452,000 $5,290,000 $ 82,000
•
.: 11,919,000 7,598,000 17,833,000 263,000 396,000 379,000 76,000
•' :r.3 .•:::•.: 29,578,000 18,856,000 21,665,000 593,000 1,108,000 1,081,000 47,000
. < <::: ' :.. „ : „ ..::::::: 1 :i: : ' 17,127,000 10,918,000 17,460,000 342,000 492,000 518,000 54,000
.. *: : s :: ';: ` .' 23,424,000 14,933,000 22,693,000 586,000 890,000 960,000 34,000
: . ': 7 `.' '• :::; 19,197,000 12,238,000 20,323,000 252,000 571,000 536,000 125,000 '
:'<ni..::$ 15,152,000 9,659,000 16,464,000 184,000 461,000 391,000 47,000
.1?. :. :::' ::;: 103,387,000 65,909,000 71,257,000 160,000 365,000 ® 240,000 238,000
''•:::::' ::: ' 240,000,000 153,000,000 210,979,000 3,176,000 8,735,000 9,395,000 704,000
® Annual funding targets based on adjusted share of travel on all public roads.
® State funds include all program dollars (including RIW). •
O May not add due to rounding.
® Includes some RTB funds. Does not include MTC funding.
OFFICE OF HIGHWAY PROGRAMS
4/15/93 DRAFT
Appendix C 1
1
. ' A t N
C : N A 1
r T--- Z
\ I :.......r\ ...
.11009199
i 1.1.1019 I I t
I
\ 'Avow i mosrAu ..--i uuct.....X 4
1 1 .
. i I or Tra ........--,,, .."—%-r--■•.,.. •
•
1 • C.—
. S .
1 1 MODS
. !
. •• 1 • MAISHALL
ts • rTh • •
I j 2 1 k"
• 1 _, w•omIx . . 11:00C30:101C Lt.
k • 19 9 I 9■01•14.11
• 1 /........51...".••• "....". 1 ••••■..,........• /
• .1 113041107001
1 i OXC
• \ ..1
.•
r IK ..- i %•
'1 E 1 -.,...........-.../ I
i 411.11101.‘ /
. \ 020.... ;........ I I
li 1 Lau i ./.
\. 10CX 1 1 I
i SCSIAMI
ST LOUIS • •
L ..."
'-1 . t ITASCA I i 1 • . •••
''-•-•'''—'"'-' 1 ! ! ! • .,•
(. 1 WOMAN ItAXWOlaN 1 I I •'''•
I I . 1 1 • ..
• ....
..... , i .....-
. . _ 1
_ t
i
k i • ''''''
i ..•
• CIAY I SECTIM
smarms CASS
81111. 0
%
• r
1
i ii i ............_
....
- •i. - -i------r* i i AITED MOON •
• i 1 MAMMA i
i I cw ro „„, I
i .
‘ WILKIN i or= TAIL • arm. i l i 1 t.•-•■•■-•1
\ i
I
; .11.0111•
4
1.'"••• / it, i . •
! i • k
j --i rot
1 i woo i i :
, ....4 i ..•••
i itictiy ... i MILLE ,,.! 1.0 •
...,
i.--- —1 • i
._....'i , = 1 ,rr i couauts ....0.... i '.. 1 LAcs 1 •
."
4.1.0.1.46
i 71■10. 1 i 1 V .... '........' 1 i "t i •
STATE AID DISTRICTS
.. 1 i ', TM" i 1 i
i .... i ...... i 1 num ' • SRAM sr ar..s.r" 1 - "Th
i
. 1 BIG •
i i ‘
•••• SlaltIAJIUlt 011040: e
• ..--.....—.....-
1 %*--. iimenie
as
• . ....•••■•■ swrri -" - s ''' -- 1 ow
• 1--
.. i i METRO
i LAC
wiDtroto j lama ....."
1 *mum. • •, _
• * W/UGHT \ irli 1.4.—
. . 1 _ ......., • , z .
i •••••• MALE ‘. my" I
e i .1 1
..., • ■..■L....:1 or. ....
0 .
1 i
• i ... ....0.- "."' k., IkLIOD CARV ETIL . ....... . •
es.. I 49/9994. • 9= . •
1 109 IttD/CINI .. N. r.., RENVUE , ;
• t '..-..— r ---- -- 8 1 , SCOTT • SWIM
i • r - - ,,.. , ----,,
•
r ---....... •
i • !....... i
I l• Lwow, Dow . lux..00D .. • n- I ITCOTMUT • • ..)•••
I •••••:•1
— s. 1g1C°11r T ‘ LT SUM met i
st Pm,
• i ow zit.. Na..1 I •
IfIJASKA .‘
maim j' ---i----- r
i ,.......___. i. _ j•-, - L... i i ! 6 1....._.! -\
1 ■••••••••••••••„
r i:STC.4. m.amei Ittli CantWW°C* 1 Wrrr • Mir rjUrr/4 1 11 ..a.'' STICELS i 1 ...'""n i IMICINA \
1 on aro I
• 1 ! i . i i
•■• .1. ......._,...j••••••••—•,--•-•.- 1
• j ! 1 L ...... 4 ....
1 ! i
! ..., i ,...u. . I buirm i TAMMY moolui 1 . mown i ! TILLrEE PIM"
• ..••■• i ....a . 1 .......,* i ••■•••■ ewer u• 1 -sow i 1 admar i
i • i
r-••••..J..- ' .-_____. j_
.....-- %
(
. • •
• 1
•
- I
1
1 METROPOLITAN PLANNING
Appendix D ORGANIZATIONS (MPOs)
1 and
REGIONAL. DEVELOPMENT
1 Mown Roseau ... ...*
. COMMISSIONS (RDCs)
I I IlmmiLake of
0
polk pennington Beitrerni Wccds Kcoohiching St Lau Is
.
E
. Cook
Lake
I 1 Red Lake -
4.0He <
...
I Norman "der
Cass •
1 •
: •' : ::::.ii::::::::::::*::...-1 . :::::: : P0:1:::::::::::::!
. '-. : : :: :•:::::.:1 ::. - ..r: ••:•::: ..
• • • :
Coital
1 Wing - ••:• • : . ..
* . :::..proarqat,:gi
-...:.1 :1'.::::"•:::k,:':10::::::..P"'"1•".':?: •
.:. • .ii. ..... . • '
I 4 'i:i:v..'."; Todd ....,,..„ •
: ,:: • . •:••.:::. : Regional Dinrelopment
Commission
Morrison MEI, Regional Development
'
i lSrant i piougioz ': :o:
. ,. .
Commission
I 4, ...
...
. .
::,• . .
.
:::.:, ,...... /Inactive or Dluelind)
<6. St811 ". : :.: .: • P CC e " •••• ..: Steam!' " ''. •: lung It *Metropolitan Planning
I St,
4 4 49 itio•or•- . Organization
1 • Ilt6W1
Lao Out r ... . ‘ :1*:.::,::.-. •.,
:::::::::::::::::::: . 4111 •
. PE0 6 glpp
Renville
1 Yellow Medicine
1.I -•,- • Sa° Dakota
.....::.• ..
Unool Lyon Redwood ..:- ..
Niooliet Ai : ) . "0,60t
111 8 „ii.:•:.::.....:-:: :•-- . N1010404::
Brovm 9 - • • i .:-:: .,••• ri:::::::::•••::•::•::•
Pipe- IlaililOglitr-'
• done MurraY Cotton- Mri
1 wood fait 6111?ilnona ” ... , :E E k :, • ,::::.:.
Rock Nobles Jackeon Martin Peribeult .....:: '..'..,...,:ii Mg#,F.::: :Z..:::::.;;;;:.••:::::1:::::::i:`,:::;•: •-•
• •-• ••• ::: — • •"• • * •—•••--- -•••"" ' "'"'
.:::iiiiilial::;M:: i::::§6::::::01:::: iiik:::::::::::::::::::::::i:*-•:::: - --
II ••:*::::::::::::•:::::::::t ::•:::.: ••::::::::::::::::::::::::•:: •:::::::::::•:::::::y:::::::::•K:::•:...i •.: .....:::::::•: .
1
.!
1
TRA NSPccI'TAT1O1M ■NV EST ME Kr PRcscas
"Promoting Good Transportation Decisions"
STATE ELECTED OFFICIALS ?LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL
<.- mar < - _Olihrr
Modal & Recourse Engineering & Metropolitan Planning >Dfrr�opmtt+erf
Management Operating Organization
State Goals i
*Milestone 1
* Blueprint
i 4 i i
input Pu input]
Public input i t I I / 1 1 I
4,
T ransportation �s�ct Planning f;
*Solicit/Nominate Metropolitan Planning
Strategies *Eva Ap pluatetions Cpl it/ inate
RDO I Planning
*Evaluate *Nominate II
1 ______; • Applications
. Transportation *Evaluate
Planning
1
'Transportation
Investment Goals
• 'TARGET 1 Other Eligible Transportation E
Regional S V i V I I 1 t
°Federal Transportation Priorities Transportation Priorities O ^
O
*Local i 1
. >
Regional Transportation Partnerships
I I *Integrate Priority Needs
f, *Recommend Investments
i
is
State Transportation =
Program (DRAFT) Regional Transportation Partnership
*Rt Regional Priorities o' *Re- Evaluate DRAFT Program
lc: g Respond DRAFT Program
*Modal Balance
*Equity Analysis
- f I t I / :
s i
Regional Transportation Partnership
i State Transportation o Federal Highway Administration
Program Federal Transit Administration
*Recommended by
ogr m ouncil ( + # # K
"Approved by ( Announce I
Transportation '► ? f
`` Commissioner I Implement 1
HP 13
Appendix E 12 DRAFT
ac /cc_ /sW , e
I
I RN er R h
1 ..._______________________
News from the Minnesota River Restoration Project Spring 93
I This is the immense threat —that when we lose one set of connections,
we end up severed from all connections.
—Tony Hiss
1
I Riparian areas offer unique benefits to our rivers and streams
by Terri Shopa •
I Most of us have a place, near the water, that is special to us. In this place you might find trees,
open grassy areas or a complex mix of shrubs and trees. Most likely it offers a unique sanctuary to
birds, animals, insects and flowers. At least a few times a year, it is probably flooded. These
1 unique areas that create a transition between water and upland areas are called riparian zones.
Riparian zones characteristically have high densities and a great diversity of animal and plant
I species. Consequently, they form important corridors or pathways for the movement of living
things within the larger landscape. These zones have a number of other functions as well. Trees
and vegetation stabilize streambanks and shade the water, regulating light and temperature
I conditions for aquatic organisms. Riparian areas capture and retain surface runoff that comes
from upland areas, thereby holding some of the nutrients and soil that might have otherwise
reached rivers and streams. Under natural conditions, a riparian zone can operate in four ways —
I as filter, transformer, sink and source.
Filter — Leaf litter, grasses, and porous soils found in these zones slow the movement of surface
I runoff, allowing some soil particles and other solids to settle out before reaching surface water.
Transformer —Toxic chemicals are changed into nontoxic forms through biological and chemical
I processes operating in the riparian zone.
Sink — Sediments that are caught and stored in forest or gress litter eventually become part of the
I soil. Phosphorus easily bonds with soil particles, reducing the amount that can reach rivers by as
much as 80 percent. In addition, nitrogen and phosphorus are removed from the soil when they
are used by the trees and plants in the corridor during their growth cycle.
1 Source —The riparian zone provides nutrients to the water in the form of leaves, insects, fruit,
twigs, etc. Many of these things serve as a source of food for aquatic organisms.
1 Many federal, state and county agencies are now promoting the maintenance and•restoration of
riparian zones as critical buffers areas between upland land use practices and our waters.
Riparian areas that have been least affected by development activities are the most effective
1 buffers.
1
1
River Reach 2
Along the Minnesota River and its tributaries, many of the natural riparian areas and buffer
strips have been altered or affected in some way by agricultural practices and urban development.
With the loss of these areas, the Minnesota River has become increasingly exposed to chemicals
and soil from upland areas.
While maintaining or restoring riparian areas along our streams is very beneficial to water ualit
q y
and wildlife, it cannot be looked upon as a "magic bullet" for addressing water quality in the
Minnesota River. Healthy riparian zones along our streams, coupled with changes in our upland
land use practices are the only real way to significantly improve water quality in the Minnesota
river over the long term. 0
Exactly what are water quality standards?
by Muriel Runholt - 1
Over the past 20 years, our nation's waters have improved significantly. Some improvements are
quite obvious to the observer; others are not as easy to detect. Many of these improvements have
resulted from implementation and enforcement of the Clean Water Act of 1972 and its subsequent
amendments.
One cornerstone of the Clean Water Act is the water quality standards program. As part of this
program, states must designate uses for all waters, e.g., drinking water, fishing and recreation or
wildlife use, and the specific water quality criteria to protect that use. ,
There are seven possible classes (designated uses) for our waters in Minnesota. They are: 1)
domestic consumption, 2) fisheries and recreation, 3) industrial consumption, 4) agricultural
irrigation, 5) aesthetic enjoyment and navigation, 6) other uses, and 7) limited resource value
waters. Each class has its own water quality standards. If body of water is classified in more than
one category, all the water quality standards for each of the classes apply. If the water quality
standards for a particular parameter for the various standards are different, the more restrictive
standards apply.
Water quality standards can be developed for a whole range of pollutants. These standards often
set limitations on the amount of pollutants that can be in a body of water. These limits are
developed to protect the designated uses of the water. For example, a dissolved oxygen standard is I
applied to those waters designated for fisheries and recreation. This standard will ensure that the
proper levels of dissolved oxygen are present in the water to ensure healthy fish populations and to
protect other aquatic life.
Use designations for the Minnesota River are different, depending on the portion of the Minnesota
pe g po esota
River you are looking at. Sites in the upper reaches of the river are designated as Class 1, 2, or 3,
while the lower reaches of the river are designated as 2 or 3. ,
Under summer, low flow conditions, water quality standards are often violated in the lower
reaches of the Minnesota River. Specifically, standards for dissolved oxygen, turbidity and
bacteria are violated during this time of the year. Dissolved oxygen needed to support fisheries
and other aquatic life is often found to be too low and bacteria levels too high. In order to meet
1
1
`► River Reach 3
' water quality standards in the lower reaches of the river, it is estimated that nonpoint source
pollution (contaminated runoff) must be reduced by 40 percent. Nonpoint source pollution is the
major cause of pollution in the Minnesota River.
The public can play a role in setting state water quality standards. Every three years, states must
revisit and revise, if needed, their water quality standards. Public hearings are held at that time
' to solicit public comments on those standards. If you wish to participate in the next round of
hearings on water quality standards, contact Greg Gross of the MPCA Water Quality Division at
(612) 296 -7312. 0
1 •
Clean Rivers Project mobilizes citizens in Minnesota River basin
We've all seen them at one time or another. Small trash heaps, tire dumps, piles of discarded
appliances, and other carelessly disposed of debris are commonly found in hidden ravines, along
I - the edges of streams, or buried in the woods near our favorite rivers and lakes. As much as we
may hate to admit it, illegal dumps are still prevalent throughout the state, and the Minnesota
River basin is no exception.
1 In Faribault County, for example, 270 illegal dumps were documented, with approximately 60 -70
percent of these found along the banks of the river or its tributaries. Last year, the Minnesota
' Conservation Corps and Sentencing to Service pulled 93.7 tons of debris from some of these illegal
dumps. Many natural resource professionals believe that other counties have similar numbers of
dumps to contend with.
1 In addition to being eyesores to all who happen upon them, illegal dumps can also create environ-
mental hazards. Improperly discarded oil, pesticide or other chemical containers may cause seri-
ous contamination of rivers, wetlands and groundwater. Other garbage, such as old car batteries,
may contribute toxic metals to the river system.
1 Over the past several years, volunteers around the Minnesota River basin have cleaned up tons of
trash along the river, including appliances, cars, tires, barrels, furniture, and almost anything else
you can imagine. Volunteers have said that seeing the impact of careless, thoughtless behaviors
1 on the river brings a deeper sense of caring for and connectedness with the river. While many
volunteers find it disturbing to see how poorly the river has been treated, they are also rewarded
with the immediate gratification of seeing tons of debris removed from the river and carted off to a
' recycler or landfill.
A Minnesota Department of Natural Resources program called the Minnesota Clean Rivers Project
' provides assistance to grass roots organizations that are interested in cleaning up a portion of the
Minnesota River or any of its tributaries. At the beginning of 1993, 150 groups had agreed to
protect 450 miles of shoreland in Minnesota through this program. If your organization would like
to adopt a river or stream, contact the Minnesota Clean Rivers Project for a free "how to" kit, that
covers everything you will need to know to have a successful cleanup. For a free "how to kit call
(612) 297 -8291. For more information on the Clean Rivers Project, contact Paul Nordell at
(612) 297 -5476. 0
1
1
River Reach 4
Minnesota River Citizens' Advisory Committee debates rivers future
In 1992, the Minnesota River Citizens' Advisory Committee was established to develop recommen- 1
dations for improving water quality in the river. The committee, comprised of 30 individuals, was
created by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Committee members were chosen based on I
nominations from many organizations and individuals in the river basin. The committee members
have gathered together out of the shared desire to see real improvements in water quality and the
overall environment in the river basin.
I
The committee's purpose can be summarized by the mission statement that they developed early
in 1992. The mission of the committee is to "develop a set of recommendations for improving water ,
quality, biodiversity and the natural beauty of the Minnesota River." Specific goals were also
. developed by the committee:
• encourage local units of government, other entities and individuals to play a major role in 1
implementing solutions to Minnesota river problems
• encourage improved intergovernmental cooperation 1
• ensure equity between what will be expected of rural and metropolitan areas in solving the
I river's problems
• significantly improve public involvement and awareness, and
I
• ensure economically viable farms, rural and urban communities in the river basin.
The committee has met seven times, and will be meeting monthly throughout most of 1993. To 1
date, the committee's activities have focused on developing a mission statement and goals, and on
gathering broad background information on the water quality problems in the river. Specific
issues the committee will explore further include the effect of drainage activities and land -use I
practices on the river and the tributaries.
During the remaining months of 1993, the committee will explore a variety of issues, and begin I
the difficult task of sorting through information and developing draft recommendations. Their
draft recommendations will be proposed to the MPCA's Citizens Board for approval and will then
be available for public comment late in 1993 or early in 1994. 1
Final recommendations will be distributed widely to the general public, legislators, state agencies,
and local units of government. This committee's recommendations will provide the foundation for
1
implementation efforts that will take place over the next several years. For more information
about the activities of the Citizens' Advisory Committee or for a copy of meeting minutes, contact
Lynne Kolze at (612) 297 -3825. 0
1
1
1
1
1
River Reach 5
Fishy facts from the Minnesota River
by Konrad Schmidt and Pat Bailey
The often muddy waters of the Minnesota River may not be at the top of your list as an intriguing
wildlife haven, but this river has harbored some pretty interesting, big and unusual fishes. The
' Minnesota River can boast of being home, at one time and another, to a former state record fish
and six rare fishes.
' The flathead catfish is one of the state's largest, and some say ugliest, fish. The fish's name aptly
describes its very wide and compressed forehead which appears to have been flattened. For
several years, the record flathead catfish for the state was from the Minnesota River near
Henderson, caught in 1930. This fish was listed in the Minnesota Fishing Regulations as weighing
an incredible 157 pounds. However, because this fish had been speared, a revised hook and line
rule forfeited the crown to another fish less than half this weight.
' Another catfish family member, the blue catfish, can also be a monstrous fish. This catfish closely
resembles its much smaller and more common cousin, the channel catfish. Both have forked tails
' and are handsomely streamlined in comparison to the obese flathead. The blue catfish is,
however, blue in color and lacks spots. There have been no specimens taken in this species
recently. The blue catfish is considered to be very vulnerable to pollution and its numbers have
' also declined throughout the Mississippi, probably for this reason.
Paddlefish and sturgeon are some of our most primitive fishes, and they are often referred to as
' living fossils because they are remnants of ancient fish families. Two families of the sturgeon
family, the shovelnose and the lake sturgeon, have been found in the Minnesota River. The
shovelnose is much smaller and more slender than the lake sturgeon and has a head resembling a
spade. Although not abundant, the shovelnose is still found from the mouth of the river upstream
to Granite Falls. However, the lake sturgeon, which is the largest of our native fishes, has not
been seen in the Minnesota River for decades.
The paddlefish has been taken much more recently from the Minnesota River. An angler caught
one in Mankato in the winter of 1991. The paddlefish has been considered to be in decline in the
Mississippi River system for many years due to dam construction and pollution. The paddlefish
has a long snout that may comprise up to one third of its body length. This fish is a filter feeder
and sifts zooplankton (small floating animals) through fine screens in their mouths in the same
way that baleen whales feed in the oceans.
' Another fish that is extremely rare in the Minnesota River is the black buffalo. The black buffalo
is one of the largest members of the sucker family. Its body is very deep and robust, and with
' some imagination, its large head does resemble a buffalo. The presence of the black buffalo, long
been suspected in Minnesota, was not confirmed until 1991 when a fisherman caught one in the
Cottonwood River at New Ulm.
' The blue catfish, shovelnose sturgeon, lake sturgeon and paddlefish have been designated by the
Department of Natural Resources as species of Special Concern. These species are considered
extremely uncommon or have highly specific habitat requirements or are at the periphery of their
range. The decline of those fish that were once abundant are linked to several activities including
the damming of the Mississippi River, pollution and overharvesting. The rediscovery of some of
these species in recent years is a reminder of what we have lost and perhaps is a hopeful sign for
the future. ❑
River Reach 6
Setting water quality goals and objectives: defining the players
by Greg Johnson
Articles in previous issues of River Reach have focused on the importance of designing effective
water quality monitoring plans before collecting water quality samples. This article will continue 1
discussion on setting water quality goals and objectives.
The first step in setting goals and objectives involves defining existing water quality conditions in a I
project area. The next step involves defining who the "players" are in the project area and what
their roles will be with respect to implementation activities. After completing these steps, you
should be able to set appropriate water quality information goals and objectives. 1
Identifying the players and defining their roles is necessary so that the capabilities and/or
limitations of the organizations and people involved can be realistically assessed. If this is not done, 1
the data gathering goals and objectives may not be attainable. It is critical to realistically match
information needs with available staff resources.
Documentation of the individuals' roles and responsibilities with the project is important in
preventing confusion and/or discontinuity in cases where people and duties change. Change is
inevitable, and it is important to be prepared so that a project can continue on an even keel, even
though there may be a temporary disruption. Projects often operate with only general commitments
of time and money for the operation and completion of a project. Many of these projects end up
experiencing problems that could have been avoided through careful planning and development of 1
detailed descriptions of project roles and responsibilities.
Information needed in identifying the "players" and their roles in a project includes the following: 1
• name of each organization and individual participating
• project role(s) for each organization or individual '
• specific project tasks (as appropriate at this stage of planning)
• amount of time that staff can commit in order to fulfill project role
• experience/expertise of each organization or individuals as it relates to fulfilling project roles, '
and
• description of "how -tos" for making transitions as they become necessary due to changes in
the project organization.
An evaluation should then be made to determine if any areas of activity or responsibility are
missing from the project. If it appears that all your bases are covered, you can proceed into the
actual development of information goals and objectives. If something is missing, you may want to
lay out a framework for obtaining this item whether it involves another organization, person, or just
an expansion of current responsibilities.
The next issue of River Reach will finish the discussion of setting water quality goals and objectives.
For a summary of information on these topics, contact Greg Johnson at (612) 296-8847.
1
1
River Reach 7
■
Minnesota River Mind Boggle
1 ACROSS DOWN
1. This lake is the headwaters for the Minnesota River. 2. A physical or chemical change in the water that makes it unfit
2. Some cities treat their sewage at a wastewater for use by humans and animals.
1 treatment 6. Particles of solid organic or inorganic material that become
3. The Minnesota River Valley is known for its scenic suspended in water and eventually settle to the bottom.
4 water results from the suspension of sediment and 11. Levels of nutrients, primarily , increase progressively in
other particles in the water column. the MN River as you move downstream.
I 5. Fish consumption advisories recommend that individuals 16. from construction sites and agricultural
only a certain number of meals of fish a month. ens. fields often finds
6. Stormwater from our city streets moves through storms its way to the river during rain events.
and is deposited directly into our rivers, untreated. 19. Public concerns and ideas are being expressed in the MN River
Citizens' Advisory
I 7. The Mn River Citizens' Advisory Committee was convened to 20. He toured the river basin last year in an effort to call attention
develop for improving water quality and the to the river's problems.
environment in the MN River basin. 21. A place where an organism lives and prospers (plural).
8. Each and every should take part in improving water 22. Rainfall that is not absorbed by the soil.
quality in the MN River. 23. It is estimated that approximately 270 .truck bads of
I 9. When there is not enough vegetation covering the soil, it is
prone to increased silt/sediment flow by Mankato every day.
24 24. is necessary for most life on earth.
10. A grassroots organization formed to restore the MN.River. • 25. A large stream of water, emptying into an ocean, lake or other
11. The river changes its direction at this city. receiving body of water.
12. Several species once common in the MN River are no 26. Many different forms of depend upon the river for
longer found. survival
13. A number of agency s have been involved in studying 27. If each individual changed habit that could negatively
water quality in the river. impact the river, a clean river may become a reality.
I 14. Maintaining good conservation practices in will help to 28. help to reduce flooding and atreambaak erosion by
ensure a clean MN River. catching and storing rainwater during wet periods.
15. Proper upkeep of the home system is critical to 29. contamination in surface waters can cause illness in
sustaining healthy rivers and groundwater aquifers.
manage people when they swim in or drink the water.
16. Homeowners in should
I properly age application of 30. zones are strips of land which form the boundary between
fertilizers to their lawns to reduce runoff of nutrients to the the land and river.
river. 31. An undesirable rough fish.
17. A clean MN River can be a to future generations. 32. This newsletter is called River
18. In the past, were gathered from the river and used
1 to make buttons.
1111111111111111111111 ■ ■1111 ■ ■
■ � i ■i■■■■ i i
■■■■■ ■ ■■■
is ■ ■ al ■■ ■■■ ill 1 tea■ • - - =_■ ■ IN 1. II ill
1 ■ ■ ■ IN is - • • ■■■■■■■ - - • .1 1 .11 M■■.■■■ �i■■
1
■ ■ - ii
■ 11 1111111M1111111111111111
1 ;4111 411 a a II - - III
111 Y■ ■■1111■■■■■■■
■
III '111 MI 11111111111111 ■ ■1111■■■ III ■ 9
Answers on
■� '' page 8
■I 1 1111■ ■ ■ ■ ■■
■ :
River Reach 8
Crossword puzzle answers New speaker service offered
ACROSS DOWN Staff from the MPCA are available for 1
speaking requests about the Minnesota
1. Big Stone 2. Polluted River. Please let us know if your 11 2. Plant 6. Sediment organization is planning a meeting or event,
3. Bluffs 11. Nitrates and would like someone to come out and
4. Turbid 15. Soil - talk with you about the Minnesota River.
5. Eat 19. Committee Contact Lynne Kolze at (612) 297 -3825 with
6. Sewer 20. Govemor Carlson your speaker requests.
7. Recommendations 21. Habitats
8. Citizen 22. Runoff
9. Erosion 23. Dump
10. CURE 24. Water I
11. New Ulm 25. River
12. Fish 26. Life
13. Technician 27. One I
14. Agriculture 28. Wetlands
15. Septic 29. Bacterial
16. Cities 30. Riparian 1
17. Legacy 31. Carp
:River Zea :i*published
18. Clams 32. Reach : uarterl b the'1Vfinnesota
4 Y y
:Pollution Control Agency's
t Water Quality Division. 1
The Minnesota River Restoration Project is a
multi -year effort devoted to improving and = Editor: Lyi�ne.Ktjlze
MPCA
protecting water quality, biological diversity :520 Lafayette::Road
and recreation in the Minnesota River basin;-
I
C' Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road -, ` -_ • - a- -- - /
r St. Paul, Minnesota 55155 � 'r_ '" ; . ��; ; � r .
• r.,44....-'7'
- • •-
OAP
Paul Y.rauss
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
6°0 Coulter Drive .. _
Chanhassen! Minnesota x.,317 ;, t ;4
A . a • 19
`- i ' r t.q - :_,r7-.,.. rr. -': .
1
1
1 CITYOF CHANIIASSEN
104.. 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
May 19, 1993
Mr. Ed Fick
DNR
' Metro Region Waters
1200 Warner Road
St. Paul, MN 55106
' Dear Mr. Fick:
' The City of Chanhassen has completed their draft of the Shoreland Ordinance and has submitted
a copy to Ceil Strauss for her comments. Once we receive her comments, we will take the
ordinance through the public hearing process. I kept track of time I spent on the ordinance on
my time card (see attached) and our secretary kept an informal tally of hours she spent on the
project.
' I spent a total of 231 hours on the project and the secretary spent approximately 25 hours on the
project. The City Attorney also spent time on the project, but since we already exceeded the
$5,000, we did not include his hours. These hours calculate into the following wages spent by
the City:
231 hours at $20.62/hour = $4,763.22
' 25 hours at $14.91 = $ 372.75
Total = $5,135.97
' Please let me know if we need to make a more formal request for the funds and call me should
you have any questions.
' Sincerely,
Jo Ann Olsen
Senior Planner
c: Paul Krauss, Planning Director
Ceil Strauss, DNR
City Council
Is
t PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
STATE OF I
It C�JC ZO1T •
•
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES i
PHONE NO. WATERS, 1200 WARNER ROAD, ST. PAUL, MN 55106 FILE NO
(612) 772 -7916
May 11, 1993
The Honorable Don Chmiel
II
Mayor, City of Chanhassen
7100 Tecumseh Lane
Chanhassen, MN 55317
II
Dear Mayor Chmiel:
SHORELAND ADOPTION GRANT AGREEMENT ,
Your community currently has a contract with the Department of
Natural Resources for up to $5,000 in matching grant funds to help
II
defray costs of adopting a compliant shoreland management
ordinance. This Agreement expires on July 2, 1993.
If your community anticipates not invoicing the Department for the
II
full amount of this grant, the remaining funds could be applied
towards ordinance administration. Please advise the Division,
within 30 days, of the dollar amount you anticipate invoicing. As II the contract is currently worded, funds may only be used to cover
adoption costs and any monies that remain when that process is
completed are not available for another use by your community
without an amendment to the current Agreement. II
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me.
Sincerely, II
DIVISION OF WATERS 1
i%ei i : 4 `
Edward L. Fick
II
Shoreland Hydrologist
pa
II
c: Ceil Strauss, Area Hydrologist
Pam Albrecht
Paul Krauss, City Planner
II
II
RECEIVED 1
1,4 '! `E 4 1993
CITY OF CHAT H= {_,z)t-N I
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
' (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
May 19, 1993
1
Mr. Edward C. Oliver
' Senator, District 43
121 State Office Building
' St. Paul, MN 55155
Dear Senator Oliver:
1 I appreciate your forwarding the letter you received from Crystal Schachterle and your response
concerning potential impacts of development on the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. We have
received numerous such letters as a result of an article that was placed in the Arboretum's
member newsletter by Peter Olin, its Director.
We believe that Mr. Olin has unfairly represented the city's position on development in general
and on its impact to the Arboretum directly. In fact, Chanhassen has developed a deserved
reputation for being a community that has been extremely innovative in the areas of
' environmental protection and urban design. There are two programs that probably exemplify
these efforts best. In the environmental arena, Chanhassen was one of the first communities in
the state to adopt a "no net loss wetlands protection program ", which we did some eight years
before the state law came into being. We are on the verge of completing our comprehensive
Surface Water Management Program, which includes cutting edge efforts in wetland protection,
storm water management, and surface water quality protection. In the urban design area, our
Highway 5 Corridor Program represents our efforts to deal with rapid growth and issues related
to the expansion of a highway itself. We are currently in the process of working with a task
force of residents to develop the city's approach which is likely to result in additional land use
controls, the imposition of very high development standards, and unique measures to protect
natural environmental features. As a matter of fact, we have invited Peter Olin to serve on our
task force so that the issues and concerns of the Arboretum can be represented and continues to
1 do so.
I am enclosing a copy of a letter that we have sent out to individuals who wrote the City Council
raising concerns regarding the Arboretum. I am also enclosing a copy of our newsletter which
outlines the Highway 5 program. I would be happy to meet with you in person at your
7. •.f PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
1
1
Senator Oliver
May 19, 1993 1
Page 2
convenience to brief you on the city's efforts in these and other areas. We are quite proud of
our efforts and the city and enjoy having the opportunity to show it off.
Again, thank you for your consideration in forwarding us a copy of the letter. 1
Sincerely,
az4 /4„,.......„____ i
Paul Krauss, AICP 1
Planning Director
PK:v 1
Enclosures
I
pc: Mayor and City Council
Crystal Schacherle 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
EDWARD C. OLIVER
•
Senator - District 43
' I'1 State ()thee Building
Si Paul \linne,ota 5515
Senate
State of Minnesota
•
April 29, 1993
Crystal Schachterle
6350 Dogwood Ave.
Excelsior, MN 55331
II
Dear Crystal:
II Many thanks for your letter expressing your concern
University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and the outlying
areas.
For many years, I have enjoyed the Arboretum, and I can
understand your concerns to have this jewel preserved for
I generations to come.
As a State Legislator, I have little influence on zoning matters.
Therefore, I have forwarded your letter to the Chanhassen City
Planner, Paul Krauss, for his perusal.
Please let me know if I can be of further assistance to you in
' the future.
I do appreciate your concern for the future of our cities.
Best regards.
Sincerely,
EDWARD C. OLIVER
State Senator RECEIVED
•
EO:mps
MAY 1 O 1993
•
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CC: Paul Krauss
i, , Chanhassen City Planner
"'" '• Charr issen • Deephascn • Eden Prairie •
N1� etonka Beach • Excelsior • Greenwood • Minnetonka
• Shorewood • Tonka Bav • Victoria • Wnnril�nd
1
April 14, 199/ 1
Mr. Ed Oliver
121 State Office Building
St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
Re: PRESERVING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT QE THE UNIVERSITY QE
MINNESOTA LANDSCAPE ARBORETUM AHD OUTLYING AREAS. ,
Dear Mr. Oliver: 1
As my district representative I am writing to you with
the hope you will be able to help me with my concern.
I feel so fortunate to be resident of Chanhassen. I also
feel fortunate to live just five miles from the Arboretum.
Our Arboretum is one of the finest in the nation. I
understand that property adjacent to the Arboretum is zoned
for commercial as well as a multi - family dwelling. I am
concerned that these types of developments would interfere
with the natural beauty and environment of the Arboretum.
I feel no authorization should be given to a development
which destroys the natural features of any piece of land, be
it water, wetlands, vegetation or landform. Further, no
development should be approved until the developer presents
an appropriate conceptual plan which relates new construction
to the site's natural resources and gives respect to the
cultural development pattern set out by the city.
Is there anything you can do to help preserve this
property to the best possible use in order to enhance the
great investment we already have developed in our beautiful
Arboretumt I would appreciate anything you can do in
regards to this.
Thank you for all you have done and are doing to help 1
make our community a nicer place to live.
Sincerely, 1
Crybtal Schachterle
6350 Dogwood Avenue
Excelsior, Mn 55331
1
1
CITYOF
1 CHANHASSEN
01‘_ 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739
April 28, 1993
1
' Ms. Crystal Schachterle
6350 Dogwood Avenue
' Excelsior, MN 55331
Dear Ms. Schachterle:
Thank you for your recent inquiry to the City of Chanhassen. I understand from your letter that
you were concerned over potential impacts to the Arboretum.
We are not sure how you received your information but believe that at the very least, it appears
you were not given all the facts. Chanhassen has long recognized the importance of the
Arboretum to our community and has taken great pains to ensure that urbanization only occurs
in a coordinated and sensitive manner. In fact, Chanhassen is the home of many important
sensitive areas we are working to protect. These include the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife
' Refuge, Lake Minnewashta Regional Park, Camp Tanadoona operated by the Camp Fire Girls,
six major recreational lakes and the Bluff Creek valley. Additionally, we are blessed with over
400 wetlands.
' In recognition of the need to protect our resources, the City has worked diligently for many
years. We had a no- net -loss wetlands ordinance in place over eight years before the rest of the
State of Minnesota dealt with that issue. As a part of our Surface Water Management Program,
we have updated our wetlands protection program to the point where it is now considered to be
a model for other communities. The program is additionally working to halt and reverse water
' quality impacts that result from non -point runoff. We also have a tree protection code in the
process of being updated.
' We have also been extremely active in the area of urban design. The Arboretum is located in
what we are calling the Highway 5 Corridor. Recognizing the need to ensure that only
compatible development occurs, we have established the Highway 5 Corridor Planning program.
' We have a Task Force working hard on the plan and have included Peter Olin, as a representative
es-
t «: PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
4
1
April 28, 1993
I
Page 2
of the Arboretum, in the group. I am enclosing a copy of our "Building Community Across the
I
Corridor" newsletter that describes some of these efforts. While it is clear that the City will be
developed and ultimately, that roadways will be improved, the Highway 5 program has the
following goals: 1
• Identify environmentally sensitive areas and design protection strategies
• Develop an overlay zoning district to ensure that when development does occur, it meets 1
the highest possible standards
• Work with MnDot and other agencies to ensure that road impacts are minimized. In fact, I
we are working to reduce right -of -way and grading requirements, minimize impacts on
trees and wetlands, incorporate significant landscaping, etc. For example, we are working
to utilize a bridge over Bluff Creek rather then a culvert, to preserve this recreational and
natural feature
III
Chanhassen has also been an innovator in many other areas of interest. We are one of the few
suburban communities with a strong and vital, pedestrian- oriented downtown. We have expended 111 considerable time and money in this area and invite you to visit. We are also working diligently
with Southwest Metro Transit programs to reduce reliance on the automobile and are having
excellent success.
I
I hope this letter has answered some of your questions. Please feel free to call or visit on your
next trip to the Arboretum. We are proud of our City and like to have the opportunity to show I
it off.
Sincerely,
1
ti/ jos 400‘...... _
Donald J. Chmiel
Mayor
DJC:PK:v 1
c: Planning Commission
1
Highway 5 Task Force
1
1
1
1
N•• N M I MN • M- MI MN NM N M= MN MI r
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 05 -24 -93 PAGE 1
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
051503 257.55 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON FEES, LEGAL
051504 167.02 HOISINGTON KOEGLER GROUP FEES, SERVICE
051505 90.53 MILLIE'S DELI TRAVEL & TRAINING
3 515.10 CHECKS WRITTEN
f•
CHANHASSEN H.R.A. A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 05 -10 -93 PAGE 1
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
048206 681.16 MANKATO STATE UNIVERSITY TRAVEL & TRAINING !
1 681.16 NECESSARY EXPENDITURES SINCE LAST COUNCIL MEETING
t
all - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1 1- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 r i 1111 r
CHANHASSEN H . R . A . A C C O U N T S P A Y A B L E 05 -10 -93 PAGE 2
CHECK # A M O U N T C L A I M A N T P U R P O S E
051385 53.25 DONALD ASHWORTH TRAVEL & TRAINING
051386 656.06 CAMPBELL, KNUTSON FEES, LEGAL
051387 537,861.37 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SPL ASSESSMENT PAYMENTS
051388 8.93 TODD GERHARDT FEES, SERVICE
051389 1,247.09 HARTLEY ASSOCIATES FEES, SERVICE
051390 176.75 ICMA SUBSCRIPT. & MEMBERSHIPS
051391 90.53 MILLIE'S DELI TRAVEL & TRAINING
AND - SALES TAX ON PURCHASES
7 540,093.98 CHECKS WRITTEN
TOTAL OF 8 CHECKS TOTAL 540,775.14
0
6
I_
i .
; .
I ; .
; 1
. ;
1 .
;
1 ,
, . [
, .
• .
. ,
, . .
•
. .
, .
. .
1 • !
I ,
. . ..
•
•
, . .
. ,
I ,
. .
1-•I•••
, WW WW
WW WW ww
WW wW ww
wua wW WW
i.61WLwwWWwW
WwWwwWWww
i
. ,
. .
,
.
1 1-4— MMMM=MMM ,
. ,
- M=MQ=MMOM .
. ,
, 1
1 -4-4-4.4.-1........1-4-• 1 I = . ;
t .4.• 7= , .
0+ MM=MMDMMM
I-1— I
. .
ww Law m0000 ...-:=......====— • ,
Low Law
ww
II Law Liaa o
ww
n no ,
.
..4w ,,,...12 _
00 . 0.0 _—
wus wu Low 00 . 00 , = 1
iwwwwwww
or...m.0m •■•■L.....f.......f..
WWWWWWWWW OC:IGIC:104:11= Za■71======
i ■
1 i .
11 00 000 ========= WW WW 5
000 0000 ..1.7,
diWor WW imALI ,
00 0 00 === WW WW WW
00 00 == LULA Will U.1.1.1
! 00 ....)0 ......... ....W WW WW .
I 000000000 =" WWWWWWWWW •
,
000.0000 = WWWWWWWWW
II c.„0 01=10n '
0000000 444444
44444444 >>>>>
1 00 Q0 44
00 QM
000000000
000000000
MMDMDMMM
MDMM
MM
MQ
mm=mmm=mm
mmmx,==1 444 44 '
44444444
444444
>>>>>
LW
WW I
WW
WW
WW wW WW
wW ww wW
ww ww wW
wWWwWWutwW
WWWWWWWWW
I I .
! .
I ,
i
I 123WW1 I gete,..:4
DeCC .
. ;
I Q...=■...r...1.=.13:4;!. .. ca
MACC1=4 mn a
ca ce cdcegrax '
m con can rece =444 1
cam can can re= wee
i .21===nmelmn 1 1 j
li •
I ,
i .
I ,
li •
•
1
; .
, .
. .
, .
•
; ■ , ,
1
: .
. ,
. .
• , i . i ! .
■•• 7 (") a , co -- co c,'° . - r' ' '" . ' . '' P r :' S2 7 ::', ,,,' ':. 3, -2 9, ' -7; ; ; :,' 7. ::', a ::: A :?, ,?. ; :i - - - ';' 7.. ,:; . -..: :;.- ;--- , .;.-7 - - - -.'- 77. - i '_;' :: : ; f; - I: '-_,:f
Ma - --- M ---- IIMM -- aOr — Mii ---- a. — AMM—a.--allt—Mgg—iMVANM—MM—MM--MII- - ..---iii—Mii---ii.
APRIL 1993 CITY ar CHANHASSEN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT - COMPOSITE APRIL 1993 I
-
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
- _ ._ _ . ____ _ C ITT _ S UMM AN Y __. ...... .. _._
' REVENUE
BUDGE TED COLLECTED COLLECTED PERCENT PERCENT UNCOLLECTED 13,.....
3 AEKROE. _THIS MONTH TO.7DATE TO *.'DATE LAST_YR_ _BALANCE_ 1
::
4 5 OPERATING FUNDS 11,866,507.00 278,378.10 1, 051,522 •27 8.86 10,815,064.73
_ ._ .1C0400__ 45.71 12.23 ___---.331.. 05 .._ __ 8
7 9 !
8
NON-OPERATING FUNDS .00 145,284400 7,548,174.87 7,548,174 *MR il ,...
34 .29_____ 87./Z___
10
11 TOTAL REVENUE 11,866,587600 423,662.10 8, 599, 697.14 72.47 3, 266, 889.86
12
13 . ----,
— 17i
14 ammoomoseoloaart“..e.•••••••■••■•MaNerrnom•••••••••••••■•■•••0111MONm ■■••■•■■■••mml...IIIMINONIIMIIIM.1111•Milw tO•INNI•••■•OMINMIOMPN•OMPOee.....P.......................................... ! , .
15
' EXPENDI — TURES
i 1 BUDGETED EXPENDED EXPENDED PERCENT PERCENT UNENCUMBERED
tli ExpEHPITURES _ TH1a MONTH__ _YEAR—TO,DATE ____, __ENCUMBRANCES___TO —DATE, LAST YR _____BALANCE
19
' OPERATING FUNDS 704060223.00 625,686 a 01 1,918,440.07 930796. 52 27.17 5,393,986.41
al 100100 _511.43 _a4455
?2 .1
l -...
23 NOW.OP ERA T ING FUNDS .00 1514, 966.48 3,6340958.51 43,779.53 3,678, 738.04CR II , -..-
15
z" TOTAL EXPENDITURES 7,406,223.00 1,240,652.49 5,553,398.58 137,576.05 76.84 1,715,248.37
...,
,. ■•■
.!9
. ...-
30
.........4mm......w.....Daoeo•.4..44..o.....w...........«............,....«..m.... ..,..............m......... _ ....... •4...44..........4,....
11
, • .
32
33 Li ,
.i4
1:
10,
. „ '■
.19
I■J !' ,
!. -.■
.11
00 0 4... 1 .1
i ---
441 ■
I .1
4/
Ati
49
.,0 W
b 1
b2
i t a
:■3
i W
:,4
tA, T W
_
_
illni V - ....
APR IL 1993 CITY OF CHAKHASSEN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT ....REVENUE APRIL 1993
1 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED/ 0
_ _
____ - -- --• ._ _ .. _ . ___ ___
CITY SUMMAR Y
,
OPERA T/NG FUNDS
KW GE TED .___ _____ COLLEC TED ._ __ COLLECTED .. PERCENT _ UNCOLLECTED _.
, _ _ ___ _. _ ._ PERCENT 3 1
4 1
1 REVENUE - THIS MONTH TO-DATE TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE ::1
'0
5 _ 101 GENERAL FUND 3,398/750.00 _ 60,72600 Mt 146.53 ...... _ . _ 0.36 7.86 3.114,603.47
28.64 21.81 27.02 28.80
11;14/
203 _ FIREIgin_ RELIEF A_SSN• - _ 70,50_0.00 .Q0 __...00 _ _ 1'
o .59 .65 11-'
1 ;:! •
2 208 ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST 261,00000 9,904.00 9* 904 0 00 3,79 5.46 _ , 251,096.00
3' 2.20 3.56 .94 2.32
4
b -- 29 9 ...MOTANI_Ving_LE_ 0 E P_RECA, ___ _3%404040 _AO .0C1 _
2.87 3.14 1: '
7 410
210 CATV 429200.00 AM 30,428.76 91 9 06 _ . . _.. _ __bill a 24
.36 3.65 • 03
' 211 f NV IRCINMENTAL PROTg_C_TI OM _1164.M.Q1), _7067700 . 7, 737.. 59 6:64 _ .. _. ..26 ____ ...1081.7.62.. 50 1 1
2 .98 2.76 .74 1.01
3
4 401 SEWER EXPANSION 258/0D0900 9 00 16,58 .. _ Mt 000. 00
2.17 2.39 , '1
1. 410 PARK ACQUISITION E DE V. _185,244,00 1 Oit_140... 00_ 340_7721104_ 10:70._ _ _16.63______12_OA_42B .00
9 1.56 3.63 3.31 1.39 L:
9
.0 415 , ,__ / 04 MUMJC I P AL S TAT.,,E_A ID_____ _ _ _
_129. 200 00 _____11 7600 0 _
1 _ ___ 700055 _ ___ _ _ ____
_____ _5019 _ .1112 ._ . _122/.4.93. 42 .
1 1.09 • 64 .64 1.13
■; 44:
, 460 Noll •A • : _101,91,4n 00 _...0.4.____ _ Z 0"670. 69CA 144_ ____ _ 'lg.__ 41_750'307 • 69
:4 39.86 1.97 43.92
15
' ' ' 700 UTILITY FUND 02,369,50._ _ _ _ _____________ 22,73 001 L067
14.92 54,07 38.27 12.65
kul
io
12
- -.- . -
-.. -
13
Ab.
14
'.,.,,■•■
1!■
Ili
-..- - - ---
r '
'9 1
i0
)1 :'
-.-
II
■3
.41 . I
3(3
. .1
MO - --111111-11•111-11111N- ----1111111------11111.----1111111--U--11111111-111111111.-1111111-111M-11111----0111-- --- MI -- -11111111-11111111-111111111
APRIL 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT —REVENUE APRIL 1993
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
i
_ ____ _
1 I
' CITY $ UMMARY r
1 !
2 OPERATING FUNDS
4
. . - -, DUDGE TED
REVINUE COLLECTED
THIS MUNDT COLLECTED
TU....DATE
PERCENT ENT _—_JJMCOLLECT ED
TO—DATE LAST YR BALANCE
i 5
710 SE.NE.R / WATER _ EXPA S I DM ___ _. ., _ _a 00______. 17, 322. 27 111,461 .04 _ _ _ __ ._.. _ ., __- 1110.161 a 04CR .. t "1
6.22 10.60 1.03 1
I' 8
" _720 __SU.RE.AC.EkIE R MGM I a_
1.
10 14.9".20.0 ..01:1 _2
—
1 .26 3,1_93 a 35.
_3
4. 74 3. 46 ' 6, 402.38._
111
24.40 _ 18.34__--L12,-197.-62. -
1.04
1.!
r T r
1' a 4Q _MIS TIM I C ,_. e RE it.FLYAUL ON ____ _____.416t240 .00. 7:144.26 140,264.67 .3300 11.92 ...Z75,935.33
3.51 2.57 13.34 2.55 ■ .
141
y1 / 1-
TOTAL_PPIRATIOG__EMIL_ __._ _11,666.50704______ Z78/370.10 _ 1,051,522.27.. 6.95 10,815,064.73
I j
i - I
2,.
I i
21
..,....._
1.'11
I .
1
- - . - -. ..... .. ---. - - ------------- -- — .-- -- .- — — ----- -
„ 1 i
1
It :t
. _ - _ ._ _.....
J4
! ' ,
.1/ .1.1
t
. ..... _ ....-..-.... --..-.-.-... ..-
WI
1411
I .
4 'i
■ 1
431 ' 1
/"
• .-. - .--. -.. _ - '
At,
o f!I . 8!
- - .. - .. ........ .. — - .. - --_ .. ..—
491
r '
bUi
b 1
b•.!
• '',,
-- -
or 56
i I
- — -- __. _ .
111■1---#11111---1111111111-11M-411111--- ___1111111__U11111
APRIL 1993 CITY UF CHANHASSEN SUNMARY BUDGET REPORT ...REVENUE APRIL 1993
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
1 CITY SUMMAAY ill
2 OPERATING FUNDS 1.
3 BUDGETED C ULI.EC TED C OLL EC TED PERC ENT PERCENT _UNCOLLECTED
- - _. - ._
REVE NUE THIS MATH TO-DATE TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE 1 i
BY REVENUE SOURCE h
- HI
jIU•
8 GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 7,601,137.00 .00 31,330.82 .41 • 31 T,569, 806.18
.644.05 2.98 69,19
10 Ill::
" SPECIAL ASSESMENTS 33,500.00 2,840.27 9,135.48 27.27 2.26 24,364.52
‘,2 ■44 4.4.9? _ . 87
__ . _ _ _ ___ _ _ _... .. _ ... _
t.■
WO
14 BUSINESS LIC /PERM 46,1t 0.00 293.00, 26,074.00 56.50 57.94 20o 076.00
15
....s.39
1 NON LIC/PERM 626,300.00 51, 690 .74 193,902.02 30.96 24.87 432,397.98 I ,
18 5.28 18.57 18,44 4.00
FINES + FORFEITS 42, 000 .00 2,538.51 6,209.16 14.78 30.24 35,790.84
.1 .
_
22
" INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV • 165,000.00 7,280.00 15,537.50 9.42 4.22 149,462.50 ■ ,
1.39 g .62 1.48 r
.._. _
2` CURRENT SERVICES 2,371,000.00 190,991.57 513,501 .33 21.66 19.54 1,857,498.67 r '
' 7 19 00 68.61 - 4_81.0.3_ - 17..18 -
18
. .,
29 OTHER REVENUE 961,500 .00 21, 218 .55 210,262.85 21.87 3.00 751,237.15
JO .0.9 14_ ,--_-------- -.7 9 OZ ...- _ ,ZQ . QV__ _ _____ __
:L NON 20, 000.00 1, 525 .46 45,569.11 227.85 201.85 25,569.11CR , ,1
417 451_ _A• 3.3_...... . - .24
J4
L ,
15
**T0 T A L S ** 11,866,507.00 278, 378 • 10 1,051,522.27 8.86 6.95 10,815,064.73
'.I 3t ,
40
.11
-.
i
■
41,I
, ---
- I
45
4' 1, ,
411
-- - -
49 - -----
' I
.0
51 j
. .- ----. -
52
53
VII
54
_
. . .
r - - -- -. - -_ ._ - - _
APRIL 1993 CITY OF CHAN HASSEN DETAIL BUDGET REPORT - REVENUE APRIL 1993 `
FUND 101 GENERAL FUND
1 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED) A'°
BUDGETED COLLECTED COLLECTED PERCENT PERCENT UNCOLLECTED
REVLNUE THIS MUHTH TO -DATE TO --DATE LAST YR BALANCE
GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES I'!
3010 CURRENT PROPERTY TAX 1,521,000.00 .00 .00 1,521,000.00
3011 DELINQUENT PROPERTY TAX 70,000,00 __ .00 17,905.75 _ 25.58 31.83 - 52,094.25 I
3041 HOMESTEAD CREDIT 852,300.00 .00 .00
3090 OTHER PROPERTY TAXES 1,000.00 .00 .00 852,300.00 !'
1,000.00 s „,•�.:
' TOTAL GENERAL PROPERTY TAXES 2,444,300.00 - .00 17,905.75 .73 .94 2,426,394.25
' BUSINESS LIC /PERM
1
3203 DOG KENNEL 300.00 50.00 125.00 41.67 25.00 175.00
'i 3204 CIGARETTE 250.00 .00 100.00 40.00 40.00 150.00 i;'._
, __3205 DOG Oft CAT _____ .-. _ _ _________2.000.00. _ ..__`.. ._ 243.00 608.00 ._. 30,40 30. sl ______1,392.00
_
3213 SOLICITOR 100.00 .00 .00 100.00
' 3223 3.2 OFF AND ON SALE 1,500.00 .00 1,461.00 97.40 68.73 39.00
3226 LIQUOR ON AND OFF SALE 40,000.00 .00 _. 22,740.00 56.85 59.84 ._ - ___17,26Q.00 ;
' 3227 CLUB AND SUNDAY - 1,000.00 .00 1,000.00 100.00 100.00 .00
' 3284 RUBBISH 1,000.00 .00 40.00 4.00 2.50 960.00
TOTAL BUSINESS LIC /PERI 46,150.00 293.00 26,074.00 56.50 57.94 20,076.00
3
'_ NON- BUSINESS LIC /PERM
: 3301 BUILDING 220,000.00 190377.50 74,030.43 33.65 27.75 145,969.57
3302 PLAN CHECK 130,000.00 11,227.95 44,936.42 34.57 27.28 85,063.58
'._- 3305 .. HEATING 6 A/C __ " -- - __ -- 30,000.0Q 2,333.x9 _ _.._ _. - 10,460.92. _- -._ - _ 34.87 24.97 _19,539.08
3306 PLUMBING 55,01 5,691.50 19,812.50 36.02 28.88 35,187.50
' 3307 TRENCHING 4,000.00 41.00 303.50 7.59 24.90 3,696.50
' 3308 GUN _. •- 1,000.00 .00 .00 - --
...__.._.._ .__. - _. ._ ..___.ls 000.00
' 3309 SPRINKLER 2,000.00 194.00 1,112.50 55.63 13.56 887.50
3310 GAS PIPING 15,000.00 1,710.50 5,338.75 35.59 29.16 9,661.25
3 ,_,_,3311"- -SION _ _ -- ----- __.__ -- __ .18500.00 _4%1.00 1,120.00_.__.._ _-_ -.- -_.-._ -.- 74.67 8.40 _______ 380.00
1 3316 SEPTIC TANK 3,500.00 .00 435.00 12.43 8.57 3,065.00
1
4 I
3 '
3
A
7
=II -- IIIIIIII--IIIIIIII--MII---IIIIIIII---- --MIN- --11111---41111- -11111
APR IL 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN DETAIL BUDGET REPORT ...REVENUE APRIL 1993 1
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
_ FUND 101 cENEAAL___FUND________ ____._______ __. _ .. _ _ .
: 11
I
BUDGETED COLLECTED COLLECTED ' PERCENT PERCENT UNCOLLECTED 2 1
2
REVENUE. THIS Man TO-DATE TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE
3
4 _ --
4 NON-BUSIVEiS LIC/PERM 5
I;
3320 STABLE 200.00 • 00 10.00 5.00 5.00 190:00 7 ,
3328 WETLAND AL I.ERATIPI __ _. _ _ 10000400 ________ _200.00 200.00 20.00 27.50 . ----BOO. 00 _ _ 4
' 3329 DEMOLITION 100.00 .00 25.00 25.00 25.00 75.00
10
8 3390 MI SC PERMITS 1,500.00 75.00 175.00 11.67 3.46 1,325.00
44.......44memoommommow moomm...................
......4.4.4........■■■ 11 .!
") TOTAL NON-36S1NESS LIC/PERM 464,000.00 411250.74 157,960.02 33.98 27.21 306,039.98 131
1 I 1
11
1 2
FINES + F ORF EiTS . - - -- - - -- _. ...... ____ __ _ _ . ___ . ____._ _ - _ _ ________,
1 3401 TRAFFIC & ORD. 'VIOLATION 33,000.00 2,035.38 4,142.03 12.55 31.73 28,857.97 II ;
4 3404 DOG/CAT IMPOUND 7,500.00 166 • 00 1,389.75 18.53 28.75 6,110.25
i ' 1 1,
' __ 3405. _ __UHL R F I N ESIP__Fal.ALLIES _ _ 1,500.00 237.13 577.38. 38.49 16.19_ 922.62.
1 b
110.111■••■•••11.11MINIIMMGED %NOM MD ••••••• 111■••■■•■ I '
17 TOTAL FINES + FORFEITS 42,000.00 2,438.51 6,109.16 14.55 30.37 35,890.84
1" INTERGOVERNMENTAL REV.
- '" 3502 M.S.A. MUNI. ONSTR. 14,000.00 .00 8,257.50 58.98 55.49 5,742.50 1. '
_3509 UTNE. R A J E L J A X E S _._ 25.000.00 _a 00 -8 00 _ ________. 25,1100.00 _
22 3520 GRANTS, COUNTY 14,000.00 .00 .00 14, 000.00
2
...Nam aolmanoosom 4.4.0........4
-1'
24 _ T CI T A L INT EllaciVE.P.48.ERIA.L_RE V. __ ...... 53, KO .00_____ .___ _____.00 ..... 8/257.50 15.58 10.82.._.44,142.5O .- -. - 1
! t
.''' CORRECT SERVICES ,
36 SALE f..0.0__CUPAMS____ _ ..___ . _ Zs KO .00 _ 313.84 . 1/059.72 _52.99 . 46. 26 .940.20_. _. 1 '.•
" 3602 USE 6 VARIANCE PERMITS 15,000.00 3,680.00 11,009.00 73.39 25.57 3,991.00
3603 REZONING FEES 1,500.00 500.00 1,000.00 66.67 500.00
3 0 3604_ ASSES1.ROLL_UAR7m.HES 5/000.00 580.00 _ _ 2,380.00 _ _ ________________ _47.60 30.56_24620.00
-" 3613 NISC • - GENERAL GOVT. 1,400.00 339.52 1,171.23 83.66 31.40 228.77
-" 3615 ADM IN CHG - H.R.A. 50,000.00 • 00 • 00 50, 000.00 14
." _ 3616_. AD MINA_ __C 116_.__...1__* .1C.3161,__DE VA 208000600 .00 _00 1.34_________20,000.00..--- H
. .
34 3617 MISC. ENGINEERING 2,000.00 90.86 280.88 14.04 • 75 1,719.12
'.g. I'.
". ., .
1 1
21
:13
.19
10
21
41
4.4
1441
i 1
. - - ---..---- .- i
41
. '
4 /1
4 ,
.
- -_-- --
-_---------- - _ - _ -. - .- ..- _ - -.
. .
49
. , 4
1,0
■ 4 ,
51 1
4 1
52
- -
. .- - ----.
. ,
56
- . -. - -_ - - - ■■r r - - -- - - -
APRIL 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEH DETAIL BUDGET REPORT - REVENUE APRIL 1993 1
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED) i
FUND 101 GENERAL FUND -_, -
' BUDGETED COLLECTED COLLECTED PERCENT PERCENT UNCOLLECTED
i REYCNUE THIS MONTH TO -DATE TO -DATE LAST YR BALANCE ii``
3 CURRENT SERVICES ,"
3618 ADM IN CMG OTHER FUNDS 50000.00 .00 .00 5,000.00 7!d
• __ 3619 INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT FE 550000.00 ______ .. .00 ._, .00 .02 ___ 55,000.00 ,, i
3623 ANIMAL CONTROL X20000.00 .00 3,942.00 17.92 19.31 18,058.00 I " I
3 3629 MISC. PUBLIC SAFTEY 500.00 81.50 543.50 108.70 21.80 ,1,,
43 ,1,,
3 _--_ 3632 PARK__AQM155.1Q .___
N_ FEES ._ _. ___13.000.00_ 400 _ ..__ -.. _ ._ .00 __._._._ ____ _._ _ - - -__ .13,.000.00 .__ _ ' ' ,I
I
1 3634 PARK FACILITY USAGE FEE 10500.00 660.94 707.68 47.18 13.39 792.32 1
2 3635 WATERCRAFT R E N T A L ______ •_____ .00 __ X 00 13.39 _ 4,200.00 II
3 3636 SELF - SUPPORTING PROGRAMS 700600.00 - 7,387.64 33,511.71 47.47 76.88 _ 37,088.29
^ 3637 SENIOR PROGRAMS 500.00 10005.50 1,675.01 335.00 10175.01CR 'I o t.'
3639 MISC. _PARKS , 4.--14 E
_ C.._.
.._._.. _.. ______ - - ZOO .00..._----____ 187.00 _.._.. _____ 187.08 _. - _ _. -- _ .93.64 2.50_ -- - -- 12.92 '�j
6 3649 MISC PUBLIC WORKS 2,000.00 800.00 1,445.00 72.25 24.46 555.00 1'
F TOTAL ,_ . CURRENT SER VICES 2720200000 __- 1 -_.._ ._____..._ 58 581__...__.._..- __.- __ __.._ 21.64_.__ 18.11_.__ _
0 OTHER REVENUE
1 . ,_._3801 . _,INT. E _.._.._- __- .7Q,000.00__ _--- _- ._ --__ -. -_ -- ..00 _. - _ - - -- _ -•_ - .- -_- ._.. - - -- _ 3Qt000.00_ ..
2 3802 EQUIPMENT RENTAL 6 SALE 500.00 •00 .00 77.00 500.00 ''
3 3807 DONATIONS 1,500.00 200.00 200.00 13.33 .52 1,300.00 '„j
^_- 3808 - INS. RECOVERIES 6 REIM. 10.0(0.00 - .00 .3,445.27 _,__ .__ _.344.53 99.79 . . i
3812 CONTRACTOR VER IFICATION .00 135.00 440.00 440.000R
6 3816 SAC RETAINER 2,000.00 120.00 30482.00 174.10 18.67 1,482.000R I
_3818 SURTAX RETAINER 800.OQ __.._ 69,55.__.__ - ..__ - ,. 302..02_. 3.7.83_ _ __ 19.29 497..38 . __. _ 1 °,
e 3820 MISC. - OTHER REVENUE 500.00 .00 .00 41.68 500.00
0 TOTAL OTHER REVENUE _ .__._7603 - ,_..___ _... .5.24955____ _ ._ 70869•.09._.____ _ 10,31 _._ .9.34._._- _.- h8,430.11 '
21 NON- REVENUE
9 )--3903 _-_R.EFUNQ.S.(REIMBURSEMENTS .00 542..20__._ - ._.. 100.56..40._ _ - -� __-- - - - - -. . - - - - -. 1,Ol5.40CR _
4 3980 CASH OVER /SHORT .00 1.00 1.00 1.000R
TOTAL NON•REVENUE _ - .00 593.20 - 1,057.40- ._._ _ ___.._._ 1,057.40CR
9 .1
....... - mow_- ......- . --.... ........ - .. ...... ---........................
--- --- --- - --
' TOTAL 101 GENERAL FUND
--_ - - ._ -- _ _.._. 3,3980750.00 _ ._� 60 284 . -- __ _- ._.._..__. 8.36 7.04 3.11.4/.403.47
.^
b - - --
7
5
Il
1
.:3
ili
it
MIL ._._ ___ .111111111__1111111_11111-W--111111----1111111-1111111--111111111----1111111__ _11.1111____11111111-111111111-__IM _
•
I
APR IL 1993 CITY oF CHANHASSEN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT -EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993 ....
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED) ..,
_ _ „.
C I T Y - - 5 U ti - M A ft Y , - _ ___
2 ..a.
OPERATING FUNDS 1 ...,
BUDGETED _________ EXPENDED ___ EXPENDED . ____ . . _ . _ _ - PERCENT PERCENT __
_LINENCUMBEREO-__
EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH YEAR-40.-DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE 1,,l_
101 GE M E R AL F,UND 3,509,20301 306, 328.27 973,300.01 _48,240.52 28.46 45.49 2,567,662.47 "1
48.46 48 .96 50.73 47.60
II-
f I.R.E.M.E.NIALLIIF_A SS II a_. .. ..... . __ ___ . 57,20.0a.00_ ...00 00_ _51,200.00_,
.77 1.06 , 0
1 .1L-
208 ADMINISTRATIVE TRUST Z62/400.00_________ ...._400. ___ _ _22658.39 _ _______ _ 1.01 16.19 . , _259,341.61
3.54 .14 4.81 , 1/1
..
3__ 219.___MDIOR
VEHICLE OE P US 3212_420.00 .14,248.91 1.4.2-41 • 91_ -Us/54 * 3Z_ _29.26 38.43 _232,316.72 ____ _ ' "
4.43 13.47 4.39 4.31
8 210 CA 1' V _ 55,70009 3,742.00 _ _ _ 12,321.39 _ _ .. ___ _1916_69 _ _ _ 22• 47 2.69 ___43,1136. 92
• 75 .60 .64 .80 ,..1
0 1 -
' _ 211__EUIRONNENTAL PROT.ECTION _115/0.0.0..00_ _2a901 .30 6/506.36 . _ 11,710.4-45 15.89 5,463_ W4723.19
2 1.55 .46 .34 1.79 . 1
! ' -
400 ....... C A_P_ITAL_PlO J EC_LS __A OM 1 N e_ ..00 11, 245 460 _ _ _ 43/ 200.01 .... _12/.727.34_ ._ ___ . _ _ ...... ._-___ 55,927.35CR .... ■ :
2.92 2.25 1.04
'i ^•'-
' - _in __SEILER EXPANSION 466/.010400 _4130.. _32.14.3.,21C.R__ • 72 __10.72_____469._993 A 21
8 6.30 • 17 8.71
9 i =
41Q __P ARK AC QUIII T 104_.£1_0 E V 1_._ _176,1)50.00 Ii.849 .85 _____ .. _ 4,765427 _______ . ______ ._._ ._ _2 •70 5.66.____ 1719384. 73
1 2.39 .30 .25 3.19 1,11
3 _ 4.15 _MUNICIPAL STATE 4I0 _971000 a_0_0_ _3/ 22.0., 56 1.22.0156 _ _ .3.43Z __93, 779 .44 __ .. L: r
4 1.31 .51 .17 1.74 -
.'' 460 H.R.A. 204300.00____54,530.21 _121P/0209 _______21232961 __ 43.69 37.55 _1580.9.64. 80
3,81 8.08 6.31 2.95
li
H ' -
0 0 I 1
, 4
/ 1:: - 1
.8 I. .1
0
9
-- - ....------ --
ii ■■
...1
.4
- ' ■1
! .
-..,-.
• - - - ---- _-- _ -_ -__ -IIIIII--- M- --111•11 _
APR 1993 CITY OF CHAHHASSIN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT – EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
1 C I T Y S U M M A R Y I,
2 OPERATING FUNDS
_ BUDGETED ._ -_. __. EXPENDED .- EXPENDED PERCENT PERCENT __ UNENCUMBERED 1 'i
4 – EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH YEAR •TU ••DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO –DATE LAST YR BALANCE 1,
467 ECONOMIC DEVELOP. DIST. .00 ,_____ 2,263.54 _. 2,263.54 _ . ._ ___ ,2,263.S4CR
.36 .12 .04
K I :f>
i 700 UT LIT _____ It599,100.U0-- - -. - -- 136,426.28 -- 588,871.06_ - - -.— -_. 31341.69 37.03 35. 86 @7,25
X1.59 21.80 30.70 18.67 i I
11 1,,
1:, 710 SEWER /WATER EXPANSION _ -__. .00 _.-____. __ _ .00_ 4,0 - _4t 036.000R H"''
f.f •21 .07
i.
f•20 SUR _WATER MGMT. _,__ ''
,i _ 7
-- _. ._ __ � � � __..- Zb6,8Q0.00. –__ -- 6,793.00_ ._..__ 46,1.96.44_._. -_ ._ .__. Zt4 �.4 :22 __ -- .10.10 _ 17 _.-- 218 - '•�
0 3.60 1.09 2.41 4.05
1,
1f3 800 HISTORIC PRESERVATION _._ 110,200.00__ _._- 9,136.41 ,_ Z9, 092175 ___ ___ __._._ 27.42 22.78 -. .___ -79,764•12
1.49 1.46 1.52 1.48
71
I• .
24 _TOTAL OPERATING, FUNDS___.______,_ ._.?1406,223.00 ______ 625,08001 .- 1,910,440.07._. ., - ___93t79.4•.52.____ _ _ 36.73 .5,393:986.41
1 5
l i t
30
3%'
34
35
1
35
.333
,391 •
14
f 4Jl - - -
44
45
•4)
431
49! t ,
50
51
_..
52 ;
`59
54 l '',-
._ -_
IC ' %
me _.. - - -_11.- - -- -.. -011 - -- I____- - - -111111- - -- - - - -.— - - -11111 --11111111-11111111---111111--111111 - MI- .1111.----11111111-- M
l APRIL 1993 CITY OF CHARNASSEM SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT - EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993
1 1 ( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
' C I T Y S U M M A R Y `
12 OPERATING FUNDS
' BUDGETED . _ EXPENDED ._ EXPENDED __ -.. ._ _ _..._..______PERCENT PERCENT ._- UNENCUMBERED -.- ;
EXPENDITURES ______ __ -..
MONTH YEAR -TO -DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO- -DATE LAST YR BALANCE
BY TYPE OF LXPE.NUITURE._.. __,._...___ . -_ -- _ '
r j ',
1H PERSONAL SERVICES 2,734,825.00 267,667.40 834,749.31 30.52 29.70 1,900,075.69
- - - - .36.93- — - - 42.10 - - .43.51 __ _35.23. _.. _ '
,o 1 "
`" MATERIALS + SUPPLIES 470,421.00 31,322.37 85,651.43 23,151.28 23.13 16.07 361,618.29 l
- - - -�_ _._ ._ -- ,_ -_ .- _ _ - _ -- .. 6_.35.. ___ -_ . 5.41 . _ _ 4.46 6.70
'1 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,629,237.00 190,124.68 813,651.93 54,858.70 23.93 46.32 2,760,726.37
— — - .------ _ _S2i.00__ - ___. -. -- 30.39 . - . _ 42.41 ..._._._ — -
ku CAPITAL OUTLAY 534,540.00 129,421.98 171,446.34 13,923.48 34.68 31.02 349,170.18
,' �_ _..__ .____. -._. _._. T .ZZ.___._ ____ _ 29060 _ _ _. 8.94
M=' ": MISC. DISBURSEMENTS 37,200.00 7,149.58 12,941.06 1,863.06 39.80 18.64 22,395.88
i„
_. -- --- __._.... —.._ �.._____...._.__. .__- ------ --- ___��Q__ -._ —__ _ .1.14 .- .. -. -- -- .67 - -. -.
..� ._._•- .___._._.— _- _— _.____ _ -. �.w�Mw ►,I'M___Mw�M.� 1� _ _. _.. -. ._. ._ ._..._
M '; ** T O T A L S 4* 7, 406, 223.00 625,686.01 1,918,440.07 93,796.52 27.17 36.73 5,393,986.41
M' ,
03-i ,
■ 0,.1
H i
7 , . ' :
V
M.,3
t ____ - _— -. - ___ _ - -- -- - -- -- __ __.._._...-- - -. --- ---- - --- __. I ..
I= - -IM- 1111111-11111--1M-M_M_-111111_1111111111111LAIIIIIIL. NM -- 11111111._ ___111111111_11111111
APRIL 1993 CITY OF CHAEHASSEM SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT -.EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993
. ( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
' CITY SUMMARY -
11
2 NON-U PE R AT ING FUNDS
BUDGETED __. EXPENDED _ , EXPENDED ... PERCENT PERCENT _UNENCUMBERED _ _ '
EXPLNDITURES -- THIS MONTH YEAR-T0-DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE
Y 5
" I BY TYPE J. F_ EXPENDITURE._ _
8 PERSONAL SERVICES
.00 7,069.57 21.758.96
1
1!,
21.758.96CR '1
1,15 .60
10
1
" MATERIALS .1. SUPPLIES
}
.00 1,135.32 4,082.19
13 - -
1"1 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
.00
.. 18.
91,936.77
.11
184,279.83 „
9,808.20 114
4.082•19CR I,..
194,088 • 03C R
1.3
14.95 _ 5.07 5.28
'' CAPITAL OUTLAY .00 2.57.316 .60 6110409.36 33,896.32 645* 305 • 68C R i.
111
1 .
-
19
, .
DEBT SERVICE • 00 256,537.50 2,709,067.38 2, 789, 067•38CR
2;
41_. 7_2 - _76 .73 - 75•82 - -
- _
123
2 1 MISC • DISBURSEMENTS • 00 970.72 24,360.79 75.01 24, 435. 80CR ! .1
1;4
.616
1
1213
i
1 **TOT A L S ** • 00 614,966.48 3, 634,958.51 43,779.53 3.678.738.04CR
130
-- . -- -_, _ 32
33
,
34
3:.
46
-- —
3 /,
I 313
40
41
! 1
43
, 1 44
4. ,1
L .
, 43
11 —
,491
51
F32 ...
I 1
ba ■
t,4
...-- .. .... — -
..„
..
— .. —..- .--..-.. -..... .......,..
= -. .-------- - ---_- -- - - --- -- --- -- . _- .-
APRIL 1993 CITY OF CHANHASSEN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT - EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993
FUND 101 GENERAL FUND
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
1 BUDGETED EXPENDED EXPENDED PERCENT PERCENT UNENCUMBERED 'I
4 4
2 EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH YEAR -TD -DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO -DATE LAST YR BALANCE I
4 000 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **r * * * * * ** .00 180.00 180.00 180.000R
.06 .02 .01 ,
_ .__.._ _ - - . „I
111 LEGISLATIVE 89,000.00 4,607.83 28,389.74 52.17 31.96 24.78 - 60,558.09 1j
8 2.48 1.50 2.92 2.36 „'
i, ,l
11, 112 ADMINISTRAiORS DFFICE 213,070.00 21,435.75 66,879.93 1,938.62 32.30 28.57 144,251.45 ,.';,
11 5.94 7.00 6.87 5.62 I,
. i
1-i 113 FINANCE 124,700.00 36,412.38 50,243.95 40.29 27.33 74,456.05
3.47 11.89 5.16 2.90 1 1 -,,
16 114 LEGAL 57,000.00 .00 3,913.86 16,921.12 36.55 14.06 36,165.02
1.59 .40
Ili 1.41
" 115 PROPERTY ASSESSMENT 57,900.00 48.75 113.25 .20 57,786.75 F,'.
` � 1.61 .02 .01
21 2.25
2 - ' 117 CITY HALL 173,750.00 9,596.75 116,203.59 3,073.39 68.65 52.24 54,473.02 H
23 4.84 3.13 11.94
24 2.12
2 121 POLICE 547,515.00 12,346.22 50,119.69 20.40 9.16 9.68 497,374.91
25 15.25 4.03 5.15 19.37
2, i
28 122 FIRE PREVENTION f ADM 242,260.00 47,596.90 80,641.94 3,453.41 34.71 31.90 158,164.65 4' 1
29 6.75 15.54 8.29 6.16
3 0
11 123 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION 2,555.00 - -- - - -_ - -- .00 39.97 1.56 17.35 ____ ._ --- 2,515.03
.07 .10
3:t
34 125 CODE ENFORCEMENT 390,546.00 38,502.10 127,282.75 529.62 32.73 30.90 262,733.63
3' 10.88 12.57 13.08 10.23 I' ..
ff I4
I.
3HI
L
3
41
4':
44
45
4
414
•
49
50
51
1
IZ...1__
, -
--
APRIL 1993 CITY JF CHANHASSEN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT - EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993 4
( 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
1 FUND 101 GENERAL .FUND __ BUDGETED EXPENDED EXPENDED ' PERCENT PERCENT UNENCUMBERED fit
1 EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH YEAR •TO •DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO -DATE LAST YR BALANCE !, n
■ 3
' 126 ANIMAL CONTROL 76,222.00 6,258.21 21,887.06 10.00 27.99 27.40 56,324.94 1`'
- 2.18 2.04 2.25 2.19
1,
' 131 ENGINEERING 138,750.00 13,163.26 40,539.12 18.13 29.23 25.82 98,192.75 ' i
3.87 4.30 4.17 3.82
3 „
10 132 STREET MAINTENANCE 554,625.00 39,530.91 135,804.65 6,870.85 25.72 21.60 411,949.50
' ; 13.95 L
15 .45 12 .90 16.04 i'
" 135 STR. LIGHTING + SIGNALS 124,000 .00 12,459.13 47,726.42 9,881.96 46.46 26.64 66,391.62 1';1
" 3.45 4.07 4.90 2.59
15
"i 137 CITY GARAGE 169,040.00 19,885.91 54,943.48 2,985.85 34.11 29.00 111,910.67 ;
" 4.73 6.49 5.65 4.36
14
138 PARK MAINTENANCE 176,300.00 13,889.72 40,820.87 1,818.63 24.19 24.88 133,660.50 ! I
4.91 4.53 4.19 5.21
211
141 COMM. SERV. COMMISSION 2,075.00 58.38 639.68 17.34 31.66 41.33 1,417.98
2:1 .06 .02 .07 •06 ' '
": 142 COMM. SERY• ADMI4. 54,420.00 - - 4,771.31 16,080.35 27.00 29.60 28.60 38,312.65
'/1 1.52 1.56 1.65 1.49
'" 144 SENIOR CITIZENS CENTER 23,740.00 2,689.77 6,652.63 344.34 29.47 16,743.03 I'
"
•66 . 88 .68 .65 1;
10
' 145 RECREATION PROGRAMS 105,250.00 5,084.26 24,685.64 9.32 -
! 23.46 16.07 80,555.04
2.93 1.66 2.54 3.14
13
" 146 SELF SUPPORTING PROGRAMS 71,845.00 3,453.45 15,490.80 186.66 21.82 19.20 56,167.54 '
` 2.00 1.13 1.59 2.19
,
"I
°ti
.1
'
1•q
1
1 7
10
■
.0
,1
■
.J
,n,
IIIII1_ 111111LAU___111111____- INMII1_--MIII--IIIIIIII--_IIIII-IIIII---IIIIIII-IIIIIII-IIIIII-IIIIIII---IIIII. - - IIIIII- - 111111111-11110----11111
r APRIL 1993 CITY OF C HALHASS EN SUMMARY BUDGET REPORT =.EXPENDITURES APRIL 1993
1 1 33.33 PERCENT OF YEAR EXPIRED)
,..... FUND 101 GENERAL. FUND _ _. _. __ _ _
BUDGETED EXPENDED EXPENDED ' PERCENT PERCENT UNENCUMBERED
0, EXPENDITURES THIS MONTH YEAR-40•-.DATE ENCUMBRANCES TO-DATE LAST YR BALANCE
-
' 4 BY TYPE OF EXPENDITURE
- PERSON AL SERVIC_ES_____ _ _. _ 1, 844,425 .0Q______ 192,329.00 585/ 379.60 .., _ ._ ._ _ _. ._ , __. _ 31.74 29.65 _1,259,045.40
, 51.39 62.79 60.14 49.03
lw'
eti
lir
9 . __MATERIALS_ t SUPPLIES 314,171.00. 23,128.72._____.64,225.26 -8*-222* 20 .23..28_ _19. 30_______2_41,023.54 _ _____ 1 1 :
10 8.75 7.55 6.60 9.39 1 ,.4
1,11
" 1 C ON T RA CT UAL_ SE R.VICS S„.____ ________ __ __It 375, 737 • 00_____ 7_7* 649 .42 _ _ _307,283.66 ._ _ ... _ ..35s.759 • 68. 24.94 73,67 ,1* 032,693. 66 ■ 1
38.33 25.35 31.57 40.22 1,!
1 141
' CA P ILA L_CLUILAY .32".1.211,01). 104634.42_ 1041..634.42 24.6.0IL.1. .4.0 • 82 19,185.46
35.98_
1,, .90 3.47 1.09 .75
p1,
■
1 11 1 RISC • _MOOSE MENT S _.__ _.-22t,0.200 -_ ___..2*58.5•91 _ .._ __5t777.07 _ __. ._ ____958.52,____ _ .30.00 _ 2.08 ...... _ 1.5s.714.41 H'1
1-191:1 •63 • 84 .59 ' • 61
1 1 12 21
.. ,
22 'i
$.231 .............■■■■■■■■■■esowdmemem■mwdomeqweno..................■■■■■■................ LC
24 1 - ** T_. O_T__A L _S * 4 _ 3t.509a Z03.00 _ , .306a 320.27_ 973,300,01 _ _ _ .. .. 40s 2i0.5.2._______ .. 28.46 ._. 45..49.._. 2,567,662.47 .... I sl
•I
1121 1.
/1
228 - - - _
I ' ,
II'
I "1
032:
:T11 1.;1
.14
I I i
I I/ - - ----- .- --- --------------- - - - .... - --.--_ ___ .. ' , I
I ,I
l
11
i40 1
.. ,
0 41
421 ! I
-
4.11
0441
48 __
481 1'1
--_----- -
49 .... - _.
1
811 , I
82
V
10C
_ -