The URL can be used to link to this page

Correspondence · Correspondence AMM Fax News dated May 8-12, 2000. Letter trom Thomas Scott dated May 5, 2000. League of Minnesota Cities Special Wednesday Update received May 10, 2000. Letter to Members of District 112 School Board dated May 9, 2000. Letter rrom Jane Bremer, Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren dated May 9,2000. Code on Telecommunications and Cable Communications. Application for installation of Guide & Informational Signing on Trunk Highways. Press Release trom Sheriff Bud Olson dated May 9,2000. E-mail from Patrick Oxley, response trom Karen Engelhardt dated May 9, 2000. Fire/Rescue calls for the week of May I - 7, 2000. Press Release trom Sheriff Bud Olson dated May 9,2000. Letter to Park Maintenance staff dated May 8, 2000. AMM Fax News dated May 1 - 5, 2000. League of Minnesota Cities Friday Fax dated May 5, 2000. AMM Fax News dated May 1 - 5, 2000. LMC Affordable Housing Symposium, July 13, 2000. Memo trom Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator dated May 4,2000. Letter to David Moes dated May 10,2000. Letter to Rod Franks dated May 10, 2000. nay 18 Z88II 11i:34:81i Via Fax AMM FAX NEWS May 8-12, 2000 (no. 2) -} 1i12 937 5739 Scott Botcher Page 881 Of 881 C£'. G~L' \ ..----- ---...- if" \. J-\~ 'f t,,,; . ." J. ;i~ ...l~ .,,-<;" Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Transportation Bill passes Highways are a big recipient in the legislation The Omnibus Transportation Funding Bill contains a total of $596 million for various transporta- tion related items. This includes $405 million general fund cash, $91 million trunk highway fund appro- priation and $100 million trunk highway bonding. The bill tips significantly to highway funding (only $20 million for Metro Transit). Specifics of the bill include: · $10 million for bus garages. · $6.3 million for transit ways. · $3.7 million for regular route deficiency funding from last year. · $5 million for Advantages for Transit. · $177 million for metro area bottlenecks and $177 million for outs tate corridors. · $39 million for local bridges. · $100 million In bonding for trunk highway construction. · $23.8 million for county roads. · $6.2 million for city roads. · $15 million for revolving loan fund. 4MM N,w.~ Fin is /4Xed to all AMM till møn4gers and administrators, legislat¡lIe tMltu:rs IInd BDørd members. PliuJ$(! sure this fu wirhyoúr Mlllors, ctNlncil""",b4rs 4N1 S1411'0 k..p Ih.", Gbr<4SI 01 ;"'por- lflllllHelro CÎlJ' i$slles. @Cop)'rigkt 2000 AMM ]45 University Avenue West SI. Paul, MN 55103-2044 PhfHI" (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 £-III4il: tamnt@amm145.org . $25.7 million for buildings. . $4.8 million for trunk highway construction sales tax replacement. The remaining $2.5 million plus $1.6 million In cancellations was appropriated for various studies and a small Increase In outstate transit. The original language killing LRTwas deleted. Also,ln last minute maneuvering Tuesday evening $44 million cash was inserted In the Bonding Bill (HF 4078) for construction of a bus transltway. This bill passed Just prior to 7 a.m., Wednesday, May 10. R.S.V.P. deadline for Annual Meeting is Friday If you haven't already, call now to make your reservation for the AMM Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 18 at the Sheraton Midway Hotel In St. Paul. The evening begins with a social hour at 5:30 p.m., dinner at 6:30 and the business meet- ing to follow at 7:30. Rep. Ann Lenczewski Is the keynote speaker. Please call Laurie Jennings (651-215-4000) by Friday, May 12 If you plan to attend. Public Finance Bill still in committee The Public Finance Bill (SF 3730/HF 4090) Is still In confer- ence committee. It contains $19.4 million In metro bonds for busses plus a possible $40 million per year in metro capital bonding authority for bus garages, etc. It is uncertain at this time if the bill or these provisions will survive for consideration Wednesday, May 17, when the legislature recon- venes to consider possible veto overrides. Tax Bill sent to the governor for approval The Tax Bill doesn't include: · Levy limits. · Reverse referendum. · More market value limitation. · Metro Transit property tax replacement. · General small city LGA in- crease. · More sales tax exemptions. Specifics included In the bill are: · Small LGA Increase for Osseo, Kelliher and Darwin. · Income tax reduced .15%, .20%, .15% to 5.35%, 7.05% and 7.85%. · Small marriage penalty credit expansion. · Sales tax rebate equal to about . 40% of last year's (about $660 M). · Auto license tab reduction. Year 1 - current, year 2 - max of $189, year3-10 - max of $99 and year 11 - current $35. CAMPBELL KNUTSON Thomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Ms. Virginia A. Bell 7476 Crocus Court Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Mr. William Glaeser 133 West First Street Waconia, Minnesota 55387 Mr. Roman Roos 1727 Green Crest Drive Victoria, Minnesota 55386 Professional Association Attorneys at Law (651) 452-5000 Fax (651) 452-5550 May 5, 2000 Re: City of Cl1anhassen v. Fox Properties Limited Partnership, et al. Carver County Court File No. C8-99-1713 Dear Commissioners: CC' (Øw <--l ( ----..-- JoeIJ. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl* John F. Kelly Matthew J. Foli Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Brandt .tAlsolictnStdinWuconsin This is a follow up to my May 3"' letter scheduling the viewing of the property in the above matter for Monday, May 22, 2000 at 8:30 a.m. We will meet at Chanhassen City Hall at 8:30 a.m. and go to the property from there. TMS:cjh cc: Mr. Scott A. Botcher Mr. Todd Hoffman Mr. Leland Frankman Best regards, Campbell Knutson Professional Association By:-JO~M:-SCO~ ~ A ~ RECF¡V~n MAY 0 8 2000 CITY Ur vì!r'limi'\V¡)i:N Suite 317 . Eagandale Office Center. 1380 Corporate Center Curve · Eagan, MN 55121 ~;j¡ ltay 18 Z8Ð8 14:1Ii:39 Viii Fax -} I (Y-- -\ Cb~· / Special Wednesday Update Note: This updale may arrive before you receive this weeks Cities Bulletin and iI is imended 10 supp/emem thaI information. Early Wednesday morning, the House and Senate completed work on the major tax and spending bills. The breakneck pace was necessitated by the desire of legislative leaders to be able to override any gubernalo- rial veto oC/he major tax and spending bills. A consti- lutional provision gives the governor extra lime 10 act on bills passed in Ihe las! Ihree days of the session. Wi/houl action on Tuesday/Wednesday morning, Ihe cons!i/ulion allows the governor 14 days to act on bills. Floor activity on Tuesday and early Wednesday was punctuated by numerous recesses where leadership had 10 negotiale contentious unresolved issues between the House, Senate, and Governor's office. The bonding bill was held up over a disagreement on whether a portion of Ihe governor's share of the budget agreement would be used for metro busways. The education bill was deia yed several hours due to a disagreement between Ihe House and Senate over Ihe future of the Profiles of Learning. To make matters worse, the House spent lime debating a Proposed COnstitulioaal amendment for a unicameral legislature, only to have a minorily report adopted that re-referred the bill to the Ways and Means Committee. The committee did not meet and Ihe bill appears 10 have losl the eighth of lis nine lives. The House and Senate adjourned until Wednesday, May 17 at 11:00 a.m. This brief recess will allow the governor to acl on the bills passed to dale. In addition, there are bills remaining that have not been passed by both bodies and there will undoubtedly be lobbying for action on these bills. Wilh these variables, Ills unclear exaclly when they will adjourn sine die. We hope to have a complete summary of new laws available in the CiIies Bu//eIin in the next few weeks. 1i12 937 5739 AdNinistriitor Page 881 Of 881 145 Uníversíty Avenue west, St, ßul, MN 55103-2044 Phone, (651) 281-1200 (800) 925-1122 Fax, (651) 281.1299 TDD (651) 281-1290 Web Síte, hup:l/www.lmnc.org Latest Activity Update Final action was taken on Ihe lax bill, the transporta- tion bill the education bill, the supplemental appro- ' . prlations bill and the bonding bills, Most major provI- sions are summarIzed in the May 10 ediUon of the Cilies Bu//elin. Following is a summary of the Housing funding provIsions of the omnibus sUpplemental spending bill that were agreed to late yesterday after- noon. Funding for housing producUon and homeless preven- tion includes: . $50 million to be transferred from TANF for an affordable housing program - of which $20 million is an interest-free loan to Habitat for Humanity and $30 million to finance rental housing serving families assist low-income households; · $500,000 from federal welfare reform (TANF) funds for family homeless prevention and assis- tance; · $200,000 for YouthBuild: · $175,000 base level funding for the Home Share Program, The legislature also created Iwo supportive housing and managed care pilot projects, one of which will be located outside the Twin Cities metropolilan area. The projects will study whether integrating employment, heaUh care and supportive services will reduce spend- ing for homeless assistance, increase employment and provide alternatives to current services to individuals and families requiring intensive case management and services. The legislature also appropriated $5.6 million for the state's Family Investment Program (MFIP) to cover the cost of eliminaling a requirement that $100 a month be deducted from MFIP grants for low-income families who reside in subsidized housing. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmttr Drivt. PO Box 147 Chanhass,n. Minnesott/55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 General Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Public Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Wéb wurw.â.chmzhassm.mll,us 7'1. r:... .rr/....'... A _."' L May 9, 2000 Members of District 112 School Board Ms. Beverly Stofferahn, Superintendent 11 Peavey Road Chaska, MN 55318 Dear School Board Members and Superintendent Stofferahn: In a letter dated April 27 , 2000, ITom the Office of the Superintendent, you request the City's consideration for some conceptual elements "in order to make the Chanhassen site a viable option." While 1 have communicated four responsible options in a letter dated April 27, 2000, it appears our letters overlapped in the mail. The City's response is as follows: 1. The City cannot support purchasing 27 acres of the wetland-designated portion of the property at this time. As you are aware, the City is currently involved in condemnation proceedings with another party and there is a possibility that there will be no proceeds remaining to purchase any additional wetland. Additionally, we believe strongly that it is fiscally improper for our taxpayers (some of whom are outside of District # 112) to pay for property that will be preserved as a wetland (given enforcement of state and local laws concerning this type of property) withou, it being purchased. 2. The City feels it is inappropriate to pay for the extension of water and sewer lines to this site including special assessments. As part of your planning process, site development costs necessarily should have been included in your calculations. These costs are borne by enterprise funds, which are operated as separate businesses. The City of Chanhassen has a fiduciary responsibility to operate the enterprise funds in a responsible manner, which includes full recovery of all costs used to construct the infiastructure trom which you wish to benefit. 3. The District has expressed an interest in the City providing funding for any gap between the final purchase price and "available revenue". There are several problems with this request. The City is unable to control the size of this gap, as we are not a party to any negotiations. Secondly, the School Board, not us as potential financier, determines the term "available revenue." Finally, we are assuming ITom your letter (and confirmed by Mr. Johnson) that the proceeds for funding the gap will not be generated by a lease revenue bond sale paid for by District 112. It appears trom the letter that the gap is simply money that the City gives to the District ._, ',/.' II ,.. , . II ·r. , . , , ", I I District 112 School Board & Superintendent May 9, 2000 Page 2 between now and the date of the next referendum (another date we do not control) and then, should the referendum fail, the District would 'consider' participating in a lease revenue bond sale to refund the City. The City prefers not to play banker in the role you envision. I communicated four separate financing tools that could be utilized in concert with the City by which the School District could acquire this or any other property within the City of Chanhassen. The net impact of your proposal is to have the City levy taxpayers on the District's behalf. 4. We can only assume that the proposal you forwarded was conceptual in nature, and that you have not actually 'run the numbers'. In order to give your proposal a fair hearing, we did run the numbers and were taken aback at the financial implications. The dollars you seek are enormous. By our estimates, you seek $675,000 for the purchase of a wetland, $335,000 for inITastructure costs, $208,450 in SACfW AC charges; park dedication $180,000, trail dedication $60,000, SWMP fees (Quality $236,360 and quantity $174,400 (can be waived through construction of a pond» totaling $410,760, and $3,787,430.88 ($3.8 million) in gap financing secured absent an agreement with the District #112. Total request ITom District #112: $5,656,641 or, in round numbers, $5.66 million dollars. It is irresponsible for us to agree to your request. While some of these fees may be able to be legally waived with a smaller financial impact upon the City, we are legally unable to waive others. Even ¡[we waived all the fees listed above, more importantly, your request to provide gap financing as you desire would require the City to severely reduce its liquidity, or borrow for the funds. This cost does not consider any opportunity cost or other costs that may be generated because of these recommended actions. In essence, you are asking the residents of Chanhassen to fund additional moneys that amount to more than 13% of the original referendum. While we view the relationship between the City and School District 112 as two governmental entities working for the common good, we observe that the School District is employing a competitive strategy that pits the cities within its district against each other. When the District #112 seeks municipal financial assistance ITom multiple municipalities, an inter-municipal competitive scenario is created. We don't believe this scenario to be in the best interests of District #112 constituents or member communities. There are several structural reasons why Chanhassen (and Victoria) are at a disadvantage when the School District chooses to embrace its current methodology. District 112 School Board & Superintendent May 9, 2000 Page 3 First, Chaska is served by only one school district It is certainly easier for them to defend the use of municipal dollars to benefit District # 112. Chanhassen and Victoria are served by two or three school districts, and they cannot use city funds on one school district without being ethically (and perhaps legally) unfair to taxpayers that aren't in that district. Every dollar Chaska spends in supplementing School District 112 benefits every one of their residents. In Chanhassen, every dollar we spend on District 112 only directly benefits half our residents. Secondly, the selection of sites appears to have been driven by a 'land-based' decision modeL The School Board appears to have interpreted its mandate as being primarily constrained by land cost considerations. This approach places little (if any) weighted value on the fact that the individual cities served by SDl12 want to have schools that enhance their own community's identity. Chaska's historical efforts in securing school sitings demonstrate how extremely important Chaska residents feel it is to have schools built in their city. The Board should realize that school siting is just as important to the other cities served by District 112. Clearly, we don't believe that the cities in SDl12 should be in competition against each other, each trying to top the others' bids to win the rightto school sites. We believe that the School District has an obligation to site schools within the respective cities in the district in close approximation to the pro-rata population of the cities. We believe that community based education is important to communities as vital entities, but also important to you as educators. The ownership felt by residents of a community toward their school(s) is something that money cannot buy. Thirdly, the raw cost ofland is always going to be higher the closer you are to Minneapolis, and cheaper outside the MUSA line. Land costs will continue to go up, and the relative cost difference between cities is likely to remain much like it is today. Does this fact give those sites outside of the MUSA an advantage over properties within the MUSA, while at the same time encouraging the location of schools away ITom where they are most needed? Community Leaders ITom several cities in District #112 have asked for the development of a land acquisition/school siting policy. We hope the School Board will work to achieve this goal. We as a governing body continue to strongly indicate our desire to have new school facilities located within the City ofChanhassen. In conclusion, we hope that you will rethink the strategy of securing money ITom the City instead of utilizing the tools we are offering to give to you. It is ultimatelv your responsibility to fund the construction of the schools. It is inappropriate for the City to i" District 112 School Board & Superintendent May 9, 2000 Page 4 tax citizens for you (in addition to the SDl12's own levy) or tax persons outside of District #112 for District #112's benefit While this letter does constitute a rejection of your proposal, we continue to stand ready and willing to work with you for the common good of both our organizations and the varied constituents we represent. We can make this happen; let's apply some of our options to the dilemma. We believe they are both creative and responsible. We believe that they will work. On behalf of the Chanhassen City Council, J!æ_ City Manager City of Chanhassen g:\user\scoub\school dist version 1.0 I.doc LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jane E. Bremer DIR. DIAL (612) 696-3297 E-MAIL jbremer@lhdl.com 1500 NDRWEST FINANCIAL CENTER 7900 XERXES AVENUE SOUTH BLOOMINGTON. MINNESOTA 55431-1194 TELEPHONE (612) 835-3800 FAX (612) 896-3333 May 9, 2000 Mr. Scott Botcher City of Chanhassen 690 Center City Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Dear Mr. Botcher: On behalf of my client, Everest Connections Corporation ("Everest"), I am pleased to inform you that Everest is interested in providing broadband telecommunications services, including cable television, telecommunications and high speed data service in the City ofChanhassen. Consequently, we are asking that the City initiate the procedures required by Minnesota Statutes Section 238.081 for purposes of granting a second cable television ITanchise in the City of Chanhassen. A copy of that statute is attached for your reference. Everest is very excited and very pleased to have the opportunity to serve the City of Chanhasssen. We will be contacting you in the near future to arrange a meeting between representatives of the City and senior Everest management. Until then, if you have any comments or questions or if! can provide any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, , / / / / 1.../ 1\ ,I, ~..L. \--.. C>-. .--L~~ ~, J~ Jane E. Bremer, for v LARKIN, HOFFMAN, DALY & LINDGREN, Ltd. Enclosure cc: Michael B. Roddy, Chief Operating Officer Everest Connections Corporation Brian T. Grogan, Esq. 0577404.01 ~!l!!! ~¡~ ~~~~~ 1111 [~itlìi;iti:~~ :~ t i1;~ t~ ~ ¡ili: ; d~i'~ i~ . ",H1i:!ióõë,iif:- pg.t ~[8 i"§.' e: BP.~JP.tt i:~ ¡ 11.i~111~ u ~jj~~ i~~!~i¡ ".i1 fr(';igll; 'Ii H;; i!; ¡rf· it e. Ii h Pp."'ê'"B-2. 1.- o·""!lJ llto.a. "-I!§. ¡fc.ai'- B Ii' .j ,!:I~:!i!""BB,ig.f;lg2."'!I.!o.g. Oil<a.¡¡".@Qi ë i!il!n I ~~i(lUi!it[¡~mtf¡ì !~m¡ Jt~ l~!! ¡;....¡;¡;!! S,t.. i1i;'!".14,,"8i...Qn·gii~'9.!! '8...i"~¡1! xi" ~!lI!~ .¡5l t iL >~,:,~.æ"''<!.!I~Ê" ~ag ".~ { 1... !f:¡;l<'" ..d~~t i~ l ~~i ~i!;ä.~ã~g";il[l.ft !~f8~ II- ~. lzl!.f 2 '" p.," B,if¡g a[;i';;.f~gog:4" SI!. r·!: [!: {O~!. rf!Jii~1 ;:j;~ 19ti!~~g.1;1t~~H.. ~ílil~. [refš¡ fl=-:¡; g~ . ::,,1i!:! .!l.S,,¡rIt~"'ß.ãSil g . OS s11§ as !I¡;e:i . '~i ~ ~ U f. ~~J; iti~¡I~! ~~l~g;:~: li f~~ ß. l ¡ [i=¡ [.~. .' ~r=¡:5 I .. -I;' a.!l-2.' g"!1l!1asSIra'B~§. ã. ij¡'gg i1 to....Bt Š !i:; ¡; . . ~~~i !í!:i~n f~Big.H:~~ §¡ptlfi t~§ih I" !~i[r ~;!~\:¡~lth:!liJ~}!'¡ ~i ¡¡Ii ~t l~Uæ. ¡¡l~~ ï~=J~ ß.lhi~¡¡ll§~il!l:, 11 fH~r~18~ § Îf!:i 1 &'....P::c¡,,'" to.a.2.!,¡;s EP'õ·" His!!- 6-1I,ui e gt';'~ R' ijS~ð{!I.¡lui'ge!.9,li¡!.lIå.ã J!I. U~ ...i ....~;; ~. iti~.ffl~ii~li.J¡bht~b:;~þln~ Ë 11i ! ¡ [il i~~ !," ~J tJ U II ~ I i! I il~t> i~u~ tl i I fit. MluiJf!rih~~~ ¡htWiiJ. Jd I! ·.l~ 2~2.5~lfl ;:~t~I" Ii' i'~l'id:~ilU .f~iÞ!I~iitJ.~¡ti·l·tlt· !}al in· f .'!I II S [=8 If go g I!: & 5" 4 ~ -U. ~ ~.. . I I:: ! ã.. ......i S f ¡¡.".. ~ III!! g " I ¡¡ ë:;r iii .. R. ... B;:; ...;'....'9.1' " ...··þoB¡¡.:!! 0 þ!to."~I!I' . i' óõ .. S '8 II ¡;' ~. g. It& g. ¡¡. J;- It § go . f § e.g t ~i nlHi ~ f W.! ~l:f i!~H fdtU, ~~.?~Þ!Hg..g- t~i9. ~ ~rj·B¡rl¡;!~~9·[f II II -" e:a ¡¡ _. BOIl It !I" Iê & B' · o· JI~E 1 ..._ f§:rli'o...,§,.g ¡[.. ... ... .!! -:!i IIi!-' :¡; l~ " " _ !I II - Ii· < ... n"" !!. go R ¡¡; [ ~ .... ¡:: . ...=~ ~rt[I~~l'f ~ t i 1ä. ~'. ·.~~!t!~J;~li ¡:!I. i i It 0 So ~ 'ª .. to. ~ a·..:;..a l R. ~g. ir! ri~ å É- ¡- II 8. [g!l.': ~l!e[ ~ii ~[I!:U -= ã' ; i t ~ if¡ fIg. ~gpi~ oJ¡;" .,'P.;;~iiJ! r B o· i1.'g if f!l. ~ u;~~ ltbï:gi 2 ¡!lä{¡¡;¡ e~t· t 8 R.~I I· f'!l~r !;; r'\t~ ¡; i5 ~t ¡; t.. ~ . . .. fa .~ ::s ~f~~'~ ~ . !¡!I! . ~i d sa ...;'¡r !ì!! g Co . . I! !.Iji:¡¡ . UI t ti~ t· hi ~ [~... ! "" . p!-" [ t! if ~ ~. ~¡ ~ ~ .,. n I!. ¡;. ::r cr :I :I .. .. "- I!. 1" ¡;. .. 1 !I 11 .,. g 5' b'1 ... ;.if U,f i.~t ~ g !:~:g,§ å}§ 2 ~ § S 3 i Ii ~ :-3 š.~ ¡~ ~â g5 <3 &-9 ~ ä. 8 ~ ¡:¡;:i¡;,;:...ste!i.. ålf!.. >! 'g.¡:~!I!t" ~¡¡..'!!.. å:¡;.n:"'¡;.¡;.¡;.i"š'''.ZI'' ~ it.. ~" ,,¡;.. õ ....... s: .. ¡; "e 8'''~ ¡¡§. .. in ¡...... .....l!.õM CiO nmiunnuünUUUiUl!Ih!HH\i¡\ - ¡¡"...a....[ ~p i¡ira,sa.t nn" g...J'!¡;.¡.~~..... !!-!l"'~ ~ ¡:"" '" ~il~;:.~i~;'O~"i!ni"~!i~~ii~~ilU t...t~¡~~i ~i" = ...."" .. .06 ... :\ ~ _ S ¡;'::O" ;:J. it .. e: .. i!. < õ t .,.¡; ~iìg:Š;I!::r~ a,i ..~i"šJ."ii~a"~¡;, ~~;;-; iLg ~ a-" g.&i~ "[ 'g.! = ô'" !I" ¡;." If ~ '0 - ",'0 >! a a ".. 'O! ¡¡ ~ a... '" i 3. ¡¡ ,,-"8 .ä I!. ~nfi~~ iH!'H,~mnij ;i'iU i I.n ~Ii li. ",gJ::o= ª~"<.!SI...,¡¡¡a,!I':¡.¡¡- a ..."I!-!!,I!. !I n"'''!i ¡; ã' . ~~: ~~ U. [~H:i"~"'i¡.:¡i ~. ~i~¡:åi: ~ ~iii ~. ai ...." !!'.~ ~¡; 0 !!B"¡¡s i.. aš-¡; §¡ .. §iõ E'" ". <!t" !;; ~ !~~ .~~ ": ~ .~hh~('~ . H~f~l i ¡V l · ~{ ~ ~~ I 1.; i~ :~~;.~ l:'!!- ft!!-i 1.:¡ s ~ ª-§" ~ i l= .~ å~i ~i ¡(E. I" .e~~ª ~!ii<4~'!I õih 11& ~ [i- ¡;. i Ii"'" a.e: ~t < "¡;';¡Eiö" ".~~ ... g-¡¡'õ l 8' i.._ ¡¡ '§ II: ~H ~! I. iWg.!pl ~ I~õ;! ~ ¡. ~ ~ i~ I alii ~~ l~ ¡¡"'S[~¡¡8!:: go ~iiB. ~: go a g; ::I l~l i~ ::1 .~ 1ãil~! ~f ~ ~lU: ~ l ä ~ ~ i~ ~ .' illlh lH~I¡¡Ië-i¡r .5~~f ~ ~a,§ ~f;: ã!~~ [~, ¡¡.~ ~~ª-~ ! ~~a.~g!"i~:a ~¡;..ä¥t>aa,¡¡t· š.IIfU·~ wam ¡h a~~ îi t - · 0ii"2.~a Þ"g-!.:;~~:;.Q.i ¡sQ." ~ Imt¡h~limb UUi ,:U¡;if~'}~a,i~~!!~è.g.UI a, ª,g:;i~ a c::.ä;g ¡;~5-;~:Š <t a, a ñ is ë. r ~~iil~[ ~íBU[l!if :!t!;" ~ ~n..'!S." <!!..~iO"'"" ¡:~!I .. ~"~:i¡;.ä:jI¡:~ !i"'a g."'!i; ii~~" R .. ...¡;_t ¡;.¡;.¡:.... [ '¡¡' 1It=-'=~~ ~r~¡:ë:2.E!.°el ocil ~~ h'~ ~r:t~~9[;t ;1;1':- g ~ ~~a ä.1!:.i~ ~~t~ 2'-;; g,; ¡¡~ ~ng,Q,.....0 .... DI::I=>~J:í·CD 2.g-E.S¡'< iM2. 2.0 ~Oq go!! 0.9 e.a.. 9- ., o"d ....di II 0 "1., a t:.. If.... ð . n t~..;.a go! =,~g-::rffia ~ ~! Sl ó' .... ..~¡;¡;."¡¡; ...."'i...sø.<t.. ~·f~[~ lii~t h~! i :g; [it õ i..,"" (n_ ~.... II 0 ð" cr .., cT~ 3 era- õi'; g:~ ¡;l-;ii3'" g.t!!.e,.. o Q..$Ø'<'< P ='< ñø..o Õ 0 ñ2. P !?Dl2. i ~...~ i ~;i !" ¡¡!I . ~il.l ~ g! t l1I,a-1! . 2:L II !t~l i 1'1 ~! ~ "ñ 1 ~ õ õ é!;. f ! I ¡;"'a¡; .¡¡S g~;' ¡ '0" !2 ~tl~ 1 U~l f[~l ~ Iii ~ ... ".,.! ...::oa. g>...e;. - j,:'= p l~¡;~ gl"~" ·:-OU S ~ ~ ~ i"1'OI !I ~. ~ 1'01 i ~ If ~ a. ~ ~ ""irU ~ u' g,! ä. h is ~1;~a. 'g,¡1i ¡¡qa, 0 g>'" n ~s,.g.. !í'8.. ¡:n -It a e:~,,~'.8-~~g ~~ä. [I!.¡;' ~ " .. .. \I ~ .. a. ¡;¡:,g .. § i ~ ¡.. '" ii'~t1¡~ III ~ll iL...t S' a.;il!:~ & pl!:' ¡: _~¡;¡;.¡;...~a.'= z ~ g ~. õ (I ;- a cG.g.· 2.: i a .~. ;:[!I ~ l(!~ ii~ ~ .. .1'¡;!;-" ¡:¡O~ E!: .. .. .. ~ '" . ",:I.; .. ~ " !!.I'!~ ¡;.. a qq L .... if j! a. .U.~ã' n,~ å. ª-~,g: ¡¡Si ~H It å o;g!;i .g¡r¡ ¡;~.. ¡: 2' P g.ii- 8,1'" s i"~ -< IS ... :=;;ø.1Ø .... ~ a...:r ~ g ti ;g ~i ~ [ U ~ ~ ¡; ~ B-.tnoc:t '< røOQ "i'"~ D) !? .l ~ õ -,ê <1:'.(0...0>' ~.' ~ / 7'~ -..- MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION t~ Application for Installation of Guide and Infonnational Sigoiog on Trunk Highways (T.H.) (Revi...", 3/13/98) Applicant Name Street Address Todd Hoffman, Park & Recreation Oirector, City of Chanhassen 690 Citv Center Drive City. St:lte:ul<l Zip Chanha~~an, MN 55317 Phone: ( 952) 937-1900 axr. 1?1 Facility Name Bandimere Communitv Park Exact Location of Facility 9405 Great Plains Blvd., Chanhassen, MN Requestcd Signing Localion(s) Intersection ofT.H. 101 and Bandimere Community Park No. of Signs Requested: Eastbound 2 e direction¿l. ~'''81 t~ ~igned: Soulhbound EX:lcl Dist:lllee frolll Signed Intersection 10 Business: lIIiles. Applicant must read, complete, and sign Ihe reverse side (Certificalion of Compliance) prior 10 Ihe fabrication and installation of Ihe sign. ~ TOTAL CURRENT COST = 7â::l. ¿J tJ (includes fabricalion, installation, anð overhead) MAKE CHECK OR MONEY ORDER PAYABLE TO: COMMISSIONER OF TRANSPORTATION Mn/DOT Use Only o BiII (State Agencies only) o Payment Received Dated Authorized Authorized Signature Minnesota Department of Transportation Permit No. _ Area T.R. -'- R.P. C.S. (over) APPLICATION FOR INSTALLATION OF GUIDE AND INFORMATIONAL SIGNING ON TRUNK HIGHWAYS (Revised 3/13/98) CERTIFICATION I(We) the undersigned do hereby certify that this facility conforms with all applicable laws and regulations concerning the provisions for public accommodations without regard to race, religion, color, sex or national origin. AGREEMENT I(We) agree to accept the sign(s) format, design, structure, and location(s) determined by Mn/DOT, in compliance with all pertinent state signing standards, and to make payment in advance for all current costs for the fabrication and installation of signs by Mn/DOT. If signing needs to be fabricated and installed under contract, I(We) agree to pay the amount determined by contract bid prices. l(We) do also agree to pay any costs incurred in relocating signs, if feasible, to achieve proper spacing distances. I(We) do also agree to participate in any additional maintenance and/or sign replacement costs for the guide and information sign(s) resulting from damage, vandalism and other such occurrences beyond the control of Mn/DOT. I(We) agree to pay MnlDOT for all current costs required to repair the sign panel and/or sign structure. If total replacement is required, I(we) agree to pay Mn/DOT, in advance the current cost for a new sign panel and/or sign structure. In addition, I(we) understand understand that I(we) will be billed in advance for replacement costs at the time the signs must be refurbished due to natural deterioration. Additional guide (trailblazing) signing from the trunk highway intersection/interchange to the business will be the responsibility of the applicant and the local road authority, and must be inplace prior to the installation of trunk highway signing. I(We) the undersigned, herewith accept the terms and conditions of the regulations of the Commissioner of Transportation and agree to fully comply therewith to the satisfaction of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. MnlDOT may remove the sign(s) for any failure to comply with these terms and or non-payment of any repair or replacement costs. --é/rl ~~ Date: j -7'L/V Applicant's Signature. ,'V4'"'q Facility Name: B/lI'JtJ/ld£LE W~//¥'I'C#tl'/y'ý '/?; !1'.c::::::: - (PLEASE PRINT) .- Bandimere Community Park "! '" -fw .,1 ~i · i '" ~~ ... .,; .1. 14 .1. 8 II 54.1 49.8 ,I. 8 .1. 20.8 98 3.0ft Radius, 1.0- Border, White on Brown; Arraw 13 - 14.0" 180·; "Bandimere" E Mod; "Community Park" E Mod; 11fv¿J,(ftJ4J . CARVER COUNTY I.S. Fax:612-361-1582 May 9 '00 (C,.~I -::- 10:51 P.01/02 Press Release Date: 05-09-00 Time: 9:00 AM Original AGENCY: SHERIFF: BUD OLSON CLASSIFICATION: HONORARY MEMBERSHIP - MINNESOTA SHERIFF'S ASSOCIATION LOCATION: CARVER COUNTY TELEPHONE: 612·361-1212 Carver County Sheriff Bud Olson is asking citizens interested in fighting crime to join him ill becoming an Honorary Member of the Minnesota Sheriff's Association The Honorary Membership Program was created to allow good citizens an opportunity to lend their support for more effective taw enforcement. Membership dues are used to train sheriffs and their deputies in modem law enforcement technologies to better serve our citizens, Carver COWlty residents should receive membership applications in the mail soon, "One problem we have is getting an application to everyone who might want to join", Sheriff Olson said. "If you don't receive one by mail, feel fiee to pick up an application at our office, or you can send your name, address and check of $25.00 to Minnesota Sheriff's Association, 1210 South Concord Street, South St. Paul, MN 55075." The Sheriff said, "All new members will receive a membership card, a membership decal for their home or car, and a year's subscription to our magazine, THE NORTH STAR SHERIFF". "I really hope every law abiding citizen in Carver COWlty will take advantage of this opportunity to become involved and show their support for good law enforcement by joining the Minnesota Sheriff's Association when their membership letter is received", stated Sheriff Olson, Founded in 1885, the Sheriff's Association is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to provide training and technical assistance to help sheriffs protect the lives and property of the citizens of their county. The Association has provided public safety :-iii CARVER cruNTY 1. S. Fax:612-361-1582 May 9 '00 10:51 P.02/02 materials to children throughout the state. In July of 1997, "Bears To Kids" were provided to the many young victims of the flood in East Grand Forks, MN. More "Bears To Kids" were given to the young people after the devastating tornado hit the area of southwest Minnesota in the spring of 1998. In addition, many Sheriffs' Deputies from allover the state volunteered their time and servioes to assist those in need at both locations. £!!jelhardt. Karen From: Sent: To: Subject: Engelhardt, Karen Tuesday, May 09, 2000 1 :59 PM 'Poxley12@aoJ.com' RE: Response Web Page Submission Dear Mr. Oxley: Thank you for your email. I would suggest that you contact Carver County Social Services. Their phone number is 952-361-1600. They have a transportation service called CART that provides service to senior citizens, limited income, and medical appointments. From your address, it doesn't appear that you live in Chanhassen. If you don't you may want to check with the county where you live. Hope this information helps you. Karen Engelhardt Office Manager -----Original Message----- From: Poxley12@aol.com [mailto:Poxley12@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 5:10 PM To: choffmgr@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: chmgr@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Response Web Page Submission ** Submitted Information ** Full Name: Patrick Oxley Home Address: 215 Woodlawn Ave My e-mail address: Poxley12@aol.com My daytime phone number: 698-5263 Comments: I just want to know if you have any systems in your public transit department for the poor. For example, if they can somehow prove they're financially challenged, they get a discounted rate. Do you have anything like that? I am using a Mozillaj4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.0; AOL 5.0; Windows 98; DigExt) Web Browser. End of my message. 1 Mon Tues Tues Tues Weds Thurs Thurs Thurs Fri . Fri Fri Fri Fri Sat Sat Sat Sun Sun May 1 4:32 PM May 2 7:58 AM May 2 10:50 AM May2 9:14PM May 3 7:36 PM May4 1:17PM May 4' I :25 PM May 4 8:28 PM May 5 5:01 AM May 5 10:07 AM May 5 6:27 PM May 5 6:34 PM May 5 10:03 PM May 6 8:27 AM May 6 12:01 PM May 6 4:24 PM May 7 12: 14 PM May 7 4:27 PM j 5· t , .. .. . ~" " .. , " ,. ~ '-::: . CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT FlRElRESCUE WEEK OF MAY 1,-MAY7,2000 Lake Drive Leslee Curve West 78th Street Hallgren Court Coulter Drive Maplewood Circle Lake Drive East Pontiac Lane Bridle Creek Trail Highover Drive Lake Susan Hills Drive Valley Ridge Trail South Highover Drive Mission Hills Way East Highway 5 & Hwy 101 Sommergate Foxford Road West 78th Street Fire alann - false alarm, no fire Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire Medical- cut head Medical- diabetic reaction Medical- cut head Child's head stuck in deck Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire Medical- trouble breathing Medical- diabetic reaction Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire Fire alarm - false a1ann, no fire Medical- person unconscious Fire alarm - false alarm, no fire Medical- woman in labor Medical- unfounded, cancelled enroute Medical- trouble breathing Medical- person fell Medical- trouble breathing CARVER COUNTY I.S. Fax:612-361-1582 Ma!:l CL'. GL/V'-V{' \ ----- 9 '00 8:43 P.Oll02 Press Release Date: 05-09-00 Time: 9:00 AM Original CLASSIFTCA TION: CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ....-/. BtJDOL'lON ~-~ NATIONAL P WEEK AGENCY: SHERIFF: LOCATION: THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES TELEPHONE: 612-361-1212 Sheriff Bud Olson ann01U1ces the beginning of National Police Week Activities in Carver County. May 15th each year is designated as National Law Enforcement Memorial Day in America. This time of year is very important for the Carver County Sheriff s Office because 3 deputies have been killed in Carver County while serving the Office of Sheriff, Deputies Richard Lura and Ronald Kalkes were killed on November 28, 1973 while responding to a medical in Chaska. Their police vehicle was struck by a train as they attempted to help a person in need. On August 2, 1988 Deputy Donald Reimann was chasing a motorcycle in rural Carver County when he suffered a massive heart attack. His squad left the roadway, and responding deputies attempted to save his life. The families of these men will be joining Sheriff Olson and the Carver County Sheriff's Office Honor Guard for graveside services and a brunch on Sunday, May 21st. Sheriff Olson's family has been personally touched by violence. On May 16th, 1982 Bud's best mend and brother-in-law was killed in Roseville, Minnesota while trying to stop a vehicle for a stop light violation. Officer Bruce Russell had served 11 months as a police officer when he was killed while trying to apprehend the violator. Through the investigation of this shooting, officers learn.ed the person that shot Officer Russell had escaped from a federal half-way house, stole his ex-wife's vehicle, obtained a gun, and was intoxicated when he ran the red light. Sheriff Olson said, "Law enforcement is an honorable profession. Men and women each day risk their personal safety in order to protect the people they serve. We must never forget the sacrifices these fine men and women make for each of us." The quality of life in our communities is a freedom we enjoy as a result of the labor of our law enforcement officers. We honor our men and women who serve on the ftontlines and behind the scenes in order to safeguard our constitutional rights. CARVER cruNTY 1. s. Fax:612-361-1582 Ma!:l 9 '00 8:43 P.02/02 Sheriff Olson asks each person to take a minute on National Law Enforcement Memorial Day, May 1 Sth, and remember those who have served and retired, those who still serve and those who have sacrificed their lives to keep all of us safe. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmln Drive, PO Box 147 Chanhl1JJm, Minn'JOta 55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 Gmeral Fax 612.937.5739 Engineering Fax 612.937.9152 Pub/ic Safety Fax 612.934.2524 Wfb WUlW.ci.c!Jfl1z!Jllssen,mll.us May 8, 2000 Mr. Dale Gregory 7091 Redman Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Similar letter sent to: Jim Theis Charlie Eiler Dean Schmœig Brad Morse Jerry Chalupsky Rob Heinen Dear Dale: I am writing to commend you on ajob well done at the Lake Ann Park ballfields. The ability the crew displayed in working together is second to none. Each employee was called upon to complete work which matched their skills and job responsibilities. As a unit, you were able to complete a large project which provides a significant benefit to the city. Thank you for doing your part! I feel a great deal of pride for being associated with such a capable group of people. Thanks again for all you do for the city! Sincerely, ~} Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:ns c: Scott Botcher, City Manager Mayor and City Council Park and Recreation Commission Personnel File g:\park\th\parkmainstaffitr.doc rf,,, r:...., "rrl.".,/.",^^".. A ~."...:..,.. ""...".....;..., ...:.,. .f.... ,./... " .f.... ./ I I" I ' II ·r, I , , , nay 85 Z88II 14:41:25 Via Fax AMM FAX NEWS May 1-5,2000 (no. 2) -} 1i12 937 5739 Scott Botcher Page BB1 Of BB1 êc, CoUvL c..: ì Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Comprehensive plan forum set for May 16 ^ Metropolitan Council presentation I""\on comprehensive plan monitoring is scheduled for Tuesday, May 16 from 8:15-9:30 a.m. at the League of Minnesota Cities building. All members are invited to attend. Please call theAMM (651-2154000) by Friday, May 12 to reserve a seat. Call now to attend AMM Annual Meeting If you haven't already, call now to make your reservation for the AMM Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 18 at the Sheraton Midway Hotel in S1. Paul. A social hour will begin the evening at 5:30 p.m., with dinner at 6:30and the business meeting at 7:30 p.m. Please call Laurie Jennings (651-2154000) by Friday, May 12. AMM NhVS Fax is laxod 10 011 AMM eil)' m(Mâg~r$ fi.~d tld",i~i$1"('orf, J~gi$ltl'ilÞ~ contacts and Board m~mb~rs. Pleâ$t share llliff4X w;,hµu.r ma)'Ol'$, c~"cilmtmMrs .nd $/.11 to k..p the", Gbro.st 0ll",por- lQlfl metro dr)' issue$. @Copyrlgkt 2000 AMM 145 Uß;vtrsftp A.llenut Wt$l' SI. P.ul, MN 55103-2044 Phon" (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E.....I1: ."''''@o",,,,U5.org Legislature nears adjournment With four legisiative days remain- ing, the 2000 Legislature could adjoum within the next week. Adjoum- ment is contingent upon the comple- tion of several outstanding issues. Among them are the form and amount of the rebate, the capital budget and the tax and appropriations bills. Based on the agreement to allocate $175.0 million to the House, the Senate and the governor, the confer- ence committees will attempt to complete their worK by eariy next week. Among the issues to be re- solved are: LEVY LIMITS Depending upon the amount and type of tax relief - property or income - there could be an argument for no levy limits. For example, ifthere were a minimum of property tax compres- sion and change, levy limits would not be needed. TAX INCREMENT FINANCING (TIF) The TIF subcommittee has met several times to discuss the various issues and take testimony. While no final subcommittee report has been made, the major issues seem to be the proposed amendments to the duration limits for economic development districts and special laws. TRANSPORTATION If the tab fees are reduced as proposed by the govemor, the issue of replacement revenue must be re- soived. The original tab proposal included a constitutional amendmentto dedicate a portion ofthe motor vehicie tax to replace the lost revenue. PUBLIC FINANCE The Public Finance Bill is In confer- ence committee. The bill authorizes $19.5 million in additional bonding for regional transit, permits counties outside the metropolitan area to estab- lish Economic Development Authorities (EDA) and allows a city to consider the transit opt-out altemative. BUSINESS SUBSIDY The bill passed the House with the economic development related language contained in the Omnibus Appropria- tions Act. The Senate bill does not contain the amendments. A conference committee has been appointed to resolve the differences. It is possible that the conference committee report could remove the additional amendments and limit its work to the business subsidy amendments. The major differences are the subsidy threshold, the required content of the wage goals and the retroactive report- ing. RELIEVER AIRPORTS The bill (HF 849) requires legislative approval to reclassify an airport from a reliever to an intermediate airport. The difference between the two airport types is runway length (5,000 feet). The Senate bill includes the airport mitiga- tion program for the cities located adjacent to or near the intemational airport. The bill will be subject to a conference committee. The legislature has completed action on numerous bills. Since .Apr1l17, 34 bills have been sentto the govemor for approval. Of the 34,25 have been signed into law, two have been vetoed and seven are pending action. Among those awaiting action is the Public Corporations Bill. The Data Practices Conference Committee has completed its worK and the House and Senate next week should discuss the committee report. &, ~~~ .;, z-",..¡ MI...I. aw. o.r;./J "-w~ Fax -} 1i12 937 5739 adMinistrator Page 8B1 Of B81 C(~l FRIDAyFAX A weekly legislative update from the League of Minnesota Cities Number 14 May 5, 2000 Thirty-three and a third- Solution or confusion? This week, the Senate, governor, and House agreed to a fragile com- promise of how to use the perma- nent $549 million state surplus. . Each of the three parties will designate how their $175 million share is to be allocated ($24 million has already been accounted for through the passage of Katie's Law on predatory offenders and build- ing a state-wide criminal justice database) . Events at the Capitol over the past two days, however, make the details appear even more confusing than before the compromise was an- nounced. As of Friday, the picture looks like this: · Governor's Share Probably reductions in license tab fees with a backtill of revenue into the Highway User Trust Fund. The governor has alluded to an alternative where he might reserve the money for his "big plan" reform package scheduled for the 2001 session. · House Share Probably will be dedicated to a package of permanent income tax reductions. · Senate Share Will likely be used to increase funding for education, nursing homes and environmental spending. The Legislature is also discussing how to divvy up the available one- time resources. Aithough the House and Senate have agreed on a one- time sales tax rebate, the House supports a larger rebate while the Senate supports additional spend- ing for education and other uses. To add additional confusion, even the size of the bonding bill has yet to be finalized and the contentious issue of light-rail transit has not been fUlly resolved. Among the Initiatives that appear to be out of the picture are the House's proposal for phase three for prop- erty tax reform and the Senate's proposal for more Local Govern- ment Aid for small cities. If phase three property tax reforms are dead, we hope levy limits will also be allowed to sunset. During the mark-up of the House tax bill, Committee Chair Ron Abrams described levy limits as a transi- tional tool for Implementing prop- erty tax reform. If no transition, no transition tool can be justified. Conference committees have been instructed to meet over the week- end and wrap up their bills by noon on Monday. The House and Senate are scheduled to meet In floor sessions on Tuesday. But until leadership agrees on spending targets for the one-time money among the various bills, it. will be difficult for conference committees to make much progress. In addition, there are only three legislative days remaining this session. With little time remaining, don't be surprised If the whole thing falls apart again. Will tab cuts equal municipal state aid cuts? Now that the Senate, House, and administration have agreed to the one-third, one-third, one-third split of ongoing funding, public policy watchers are questioning how the details will be worKed out. One of the options the administration is considering for Its third is reduc- tions in license tab fees. Among the biggest concerns with using $175 million for tab cuts Is how the state will address the potential hole in ongoing transportation funding. While several legislators have supported a constitutional amend- ment to dedicate MVET revenues to transportation funding rather than to the general fund, it is unclear whether the administration's proposal will secure MVET revenue for roads. One possible compro- mise being discussed would main- tain the current tab fee structure and dedication, but would provide tab fee reductions to individuals via an offset credit paid from the state's general fund . This Is a variation on a bill offered this session by Rep. Ray Vandeveer (R-Forest Lake). The status of additional one-time transportation funding is similarly unclear. The governor and the Senate want a greater share of any resources dedicated to transit, while the House wants to provide most of the one-time money for transporta- tion project acceleration and con- gestion mitigation. Without sUfficient transit resources, the governor could choose to veto any bill. Call the governor and your legisla- tors this weekend and early next week urging them to protect ongo- ing transportation funding. GIS bill Language previously Included In the GIS liability bill, introduced by Rep. HOlberg (R-Lakevllle) and Sen. Hottinger (DFL-Mankato). has been Incorporated In the omnibus data practices conference commit- tee report, which was agreed to WedneSday. The report now moves to the House and Senate floors. FOT mort! information on elly leglsltulve Is~es~ rontacl any member of the Lea.g~e of Mbmesota CUtes Intergovernmental Relations team. (651) 281-1200 or (800) 925-1122 nay HZ ZII88 89:58:17 Via Fax AMM FAX NEWS May 1-5, 2000 -} 1i12 937 5739 Scott Botcher Page 881 Of 881 cc -~ GV^ Vl ''1" . _.~ ., \ . '\ \ ,. r'" \"':.;" l ~ '¡, 1>\ v" Association of Metropolitan Municipalities UPCOMING MEETINGS TUESDAY, MAY 16 The Univers~y of Minnesota will sponsor a public forum entitled, 'Public Problems, Quality Solu- tions'- The forum will include a discussion of applying quality principles to public issues. Presenters include Paul O'Neill, who is the chair and CEO of the Alcoa Corporation, U of M President Mark Yudof, Humphrey School Dean John Brandl and Minnesota Plan- ning Director Dean Barkley. For more information call Robin Anderson at 612-624-3492. FRIDAY, MAY 19 The League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) is sponsoring a Trans- portation Summit at the Mlnnetonka Community Center. Call Kevin Frazell at 651-281-1215. THURSDAY, MAY 25 The AMM and LMC are co- sponsoring a Legislative Review Session at the LMC building. To register, caJl the LMC at 651-281- 1200 or complete the registration form in the April 19 edition of the (LMC) C~ies Bulletin. AMM No",. Fax is laxod 10 all AMM cil, I1Itlntlgtt's IJlld tldmitlls,râlors, ItgiS/ARllt €Dnlact$ fi.nd BÞard members. Plt.1 short IhÎ$/1lX willi your lJfâ)'Drs, cOûncilmtmMrs aNI Slolllo hoop Ih.m GbroO$/ ollmpor- IJJ.nllfUlTo ell)' iSSMI$. @Cop)'rigkt 2000 AMM 145 Univt1'$Ry Â~nut Wl$l' SI. Paul, MN 55103-2044 Phon<: (651) 215-4000 Fax: (651) 281-1299 E-mail: omm@ammU5.org AMM hosts comp plan forum The Metropolitan Council Is dev- eloping a process to measure a city's progress in meeting goals outlined in a city's comprehensive plan. The AMM is sponsoring a meeting for members to discuss the process with the Met Council. The meeting will be held on Tues- day, May 16 from 8:15-9:30 a.m., in the St. Croix Room of League of Minnesota Cities (LMC) building. Met Council staff will begin the meeting by explaining the proposed process, followed by a discussion period. The process, which is described as a short-term solution, would collect data from cities projecting significant growth over the next ten years. It Is estimated that approximately 15 cities would be involved in the voluntary program. For the long-term the Council envi- sions that the geographic Information system (GIS) will provide the needed data. Priortothe implementation of the GIS supported process, the Council will collect data from approved plat. The needed Information such as the number of acres and number of proposed units is contained on the plat data. If you are interested In attending, please contact the AMM at 651-215- 4000 by Friday, May 12. Coffee, rolls . and juice will be served. Public Finance Bill in conference committee The Public Finance Bill (SF 3730 and HF 4090) Is In conference committee at the moment. The bills contain amendments to various laws related to public finance. For example. both bills extend the sunset to June 3D, 2005 for the special service and housing Improve- ment districts. The bills also include authority for a metro city to opt-out ofthe transit district, issue bonds under joint powers for airport improvements and to finance Internet improvements under certain conditions. BUSINESS SUBSIDY BILL The Business Subsidy Bill has passed the Senate as a separate bill while the House bill is on the fioor. The latter was amended in the Rules Committee to include the non-appro- priation economic development amendments contained in the Omni- bus Finance Bill. The House amendments include changes to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) state law, the Board of Boxing and numerous other economic develop- ment programs. Legislature approves Public Corporations Bill The House approved the confer- ence committee report on the Public Corporations Bill on April 27. The bill authorizes the continuation of existing public corporations but requires new corporation to be authorized by the passage of a special law. The bill also requires the existing corporations to be subject to the Open Meeting, Financial Reporting and Data Practices acts. May 82 2888 18:47:41 Via Fax -} 1i12 937 5739 AdMinistrator Page 881 Of 881 LMC cc·c::::.o"""c..., 1 -1'"',,- (.~ ~ Affordable Housing 1~~ r,f ¡¡ 'ìR ~ Symposium " _ July 1 3, 2000 . St. cloud Civic Center _ Co' sponsored by Minnesota NAHRO The Affordable Housing Crisis in Our Minnesota Communities Few humaJI needs are more fundamental thaJI the need for a home. But even In these da.ys of a stronger economy, Minnesota. faces a severe shortage of decent, safe housing at prices thal all C3J1 afford. The crisis affects communities Ibroughout the region-not just in central cities. Join us for Ibis one-da.y conference packed full of informa1lon aJld ideas geared especially for Minnesota.'s city officials. Don't miss this on-target collection of perspectives and straleglesl Program includes: ReglslIa.Uon: 8:00 a.m. Opening Keynote: crtUcallssues In Affordable Housing Across Minnesota. _ Tom Fulton, President, Family Houstng Fund of Minneapolis and St. Paul _ WtlTTen Hanson, Presfdent, Greater Minnesota Houstng Fund Concurrent Sessions: _ Bastc Tools Toward Affordable Housing-sessions for small towns, regional centers a.nd metro clUes _ From Din to Development-a case sUldy of the Implementation of a successful development project _ The Local PoUUcs of Affordable Housing-helping elected oIDclals sUlVlve the lough Issues _ Workshop on Wheels-a closeup view of the local affordable housing scene Closing Keynote: AdvaJlclng the Ca.use of Affordable Housing In Minnesota. _ Governor ]esse Ventura (Invtted) _ Katherine Hadley, Commlsstoner, MlnTliJsota Houstng Finance Agency Adournmen~ 4:00 p.m. Hurry-register now! Registration fee: $95 Housing: For overnight a.ccommoda11ons call the Best Western Kelly Inn at (320) 253-0606. CanceUatlon poUcy: All caJIcellatlon requeslS must be In wrtUng, posunarked by Thursday, July 6, 2000 aJld are subJect to a $10 handUng fee. Registration Form - LMC Affordable Housing Symposium July t 3,2000 . St. Cloud Civic Center· St. Cloud, Minnesota Registration fee: $95 per person LMC -.-...... """_........ City Contact person Telephone number Registrant's name Title Addre~ City State Zip Make checks. payable and mail to: league of Minne:s.ota Citie:s., 145 Univeriity Avenue \'\9:s.t, Sf. Paul. MN .5.5103-2044 Questions? Call Jodie boley (651) 281-1251 or Rebecca Erickson (651) 281-1222. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Crnter Drivr. PO Box 147 Chonhassrn. Minnrsoto 55317 Ph07lt612.937.1900 Grnrrol Fox 612.937.5739 Enginrrring Fox 612.937.9152 Pub/ic Softty Fox 612.934.2524 U7eb www.cÏ.chnnhmstn.mn.tlS ce. CøV\^-"':\ DATE: May 4, 2000 TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources CoordinatorJ¡.kJ RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rule Revisions Background: On May 2, 2000, r received Proposed Rule 0 (Groundwater Resource Protection) with the accompanying Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Written public comment will be received at the MCWD office until 4:30 P.M. on May 18, 2000 and a public hearing will be held at the May 11, 2000 MCWD Board of Managers' meeting. Impact: The proposed rule would have limited impact on operations within the City of Chanhassen. Description: Proposed Rule 0 was developed following MCWD's review, and subsequent approval, of the reconstruction of Hiawatha Avenue in Minneapolis. According to the SONAR, the project involved the excavation of bedrock during construction and placement of retaining walls on or in direct proximity to bedrock. The MCWD permit review raised concerns since several rare natural communities are supported by groundwater flowing from the bedrock in the Minnehaha Creek gorge. The review found that bedrock modification for the reconstruction of Hiawatha A venue could alter the course of groundwater through and over the bedrock and thus compromise the integrity of the rare natural communities. A groundwater investigation conducted by MCWD found that the proposed project could potentially divert groundwater ITom the seeps and springs. MnDOT complied with permit conditions, but challenged the authority of MCWD to impose the permit conditions in a lawsuit. The Hennepin County District Court judge deciding the lawsuit ruled that MCWD could only impose permit conditions related to groundwater flow through adopted rules. Proposed Rule 0 would allow MCWD to require a groundwater study as a part of the application process for projects that may disturb bedrock. The rule would authorize the District to review activities within the watershed that may affect groundwater recharge and flow patterns. In addition, it would transfer the cost for groundwater investigations ITom the residents of MCWD to the applicant. The following should be noted with regard to Proposed Rule 0: I. MCWD does not anticipate implementing Rule 0 on a regular basis. Throughout most of the Minnehaha Creek watershed, bedrock lies under layers of glacial material. Deeper utility work may require bedrock alteration and would be reviewed by MCWD. Future utility projects within the City of Chanhassen may fall into this category. Only the area of Minnehaha Creek gorge and the Mississippi River bluffs have bedrock The City of Chonhossrn. A ~winl[ community with clean lakes. quality schoob, a charminl[ downtown, thrivinl[ bUIin",,,. and beauti(ùl parks. A ![Yeat place to live, work, and pia} at a depth that it would be encountered by surface construction activity. Neither area lies within the City of Chanhassen. 2. Proposed Rule 0 does not address other activities that may affect groundwater flow patterns. MCWD intends to review such activities and supplement Rule 0 as it may be adopted. If you have questions about Proposed Rule 0 or its implications for the City of Chanhassen, please feel ITee to contact me at 952/937-1900, Extension 105. ,," Gray Freshwater Center Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre Mail: 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior, MN 55331-9578 Phone: (952) 471'()590 Fax: (952) 471-oea2 Email: admin@minnehahacreek.org Web Süe: VNIW.minnehahacreek,o'9 Board of Managers Pamela G. Blixt James Calkins Lance Rsher Monica G,oss Scott Thomas Malcolm Reid Robert Sch,oede, .<n.Prinledonrecydeclpapercontaining V!";J alleas! 3O"fo POSt COOSLmer waste Minnehaha Creek. Watershed District Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life '7"1"11 . ...~, DATE: TO: FROM: RE: April 30, 2000 Interested Parties __6 r. _ Eric Evenson, MC~istrator MCWD Rule RevisIons I.,.. o ;' 2000 CII ! vr ", ""'" ,,,,,,;;,EN Enclosed for your review and comment is a copy of the April 30, 2000 Proposed Rules Revisions of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (Proposed Rule 0 -- Groundwater Resource Protection), with the accompanying Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) of the same date. On April 10, 2000, the MCWD distributed for public comment proposed rules modifying a number of provisions of the MCWD's existing rules. Among the proposed modifications is language that would be added to existing Rule N (Stormwater Management) goveming protection of groundwater flows. The enclosed Rule 0 proposes to place the proposed groundwater language instead in a separate rule and to provide more guidance on information submittal requirements and how proposed activities subject to the rule would be reviewed. Also, whereas the proposed rule in the April 10, 2000 rulemaking document would require preservation of both groundwater flow and quality, the enclosed Rule o would apply only to groundwater flow. Comments are invited on the need for and reasonableness of the proposed revisions; any compliance burdens or costs that they would impose; their impact on water resource protection; and whether the purpose for the change may be better achieved by a means other than that proposed. On the basis of public comments received,. the Board will make appropriate revisions to the proposed changes before they are adopted. As noted in the April 10, 2000 memorandum aœompanying public distribution of the proposed rule, written public comment on the proposed rule will be received at the MCWD offices until 4:30 P.M. on May 18, 2000. Comments may be mailed, faxed or delivered. In addition, a public hearing will be held at the May II, 2000, MCWD Board of Managers' meeting in the City Council Chambers at the Minnetonka Community Center, Minnetonka, Minnesota, at 6:45 P.M. At that time, all interested persons will have an opportunity to address the Board directly on the proposed changes. On the basis of a timely request, the Board may extend the comment period. Please address all comments and inquiries to: Jim Hafner, Senior Technician Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 2500 Shadywood Road Excelsior MN 55331 Voice: (612) 471-0590 x282 Facsimile: (612) 471-6290 MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT STATEMENT OF NEED AND REASONABLENESS Proposed Rule 0 of the Watershed District April 30, 2000 (Supplement to Proposed Rule of April 10, 2000) This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) summarizes and explains a proposed new Rule 0 of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). Section §103D.341, subdivision 1, Minnesota Statutes, states: "The managers must adopt rules to accomplish the purposes of [the] chapter." Among the watershed district purposes of chapter 103D and its companion, chapter 103B, are to promote groundwater recharge, preserve groundwater storage and flows, protect groundwater quality and provide for beneficial groundwater use. Minnesota Statutes §§ 103B.201, 103D.201. The purpose of the rule is to provide for review of certain activities within the watershed that may affect groundwater flows in order to preserve those flows and the beneficial uses they support. On April 10,2000, the MCWD distributed proposed rules modifying a number of provisions throughout the MCWD's Rules. Among those proposed modifications is language added to present Rule N governing stormwater management. The proposed language includes explicit reference to groundwate~ protection as among MCWD policies and sets forth a permit requirement related to preservation of groundwater flow: "Where the activity subject to this rule will or reasonably may disturb competent bedrock or place an impervious structure in contact with the surface of competent bedrock, the plan shall provide for preservation of groundwater flows and quality." The present rule text starts from the standard enunciated in the April 10, 2000 proposed rule but places it in a separate MCWD rule, proposed Rule 0, and offers further detail on information submittal requirements and how proposed activity would be reviewed. For reasons noted below, the Rule 0 language refers only to flow preservation and not to groundwater quality. Absent any compelling basis communicated to the MCWD during the public review process, any groundwater rule that is adopted will not pertain to groundwater quality. The language provided here specifically seeks to articulate what constitutes a material impact that an applicant must take steps to avoid. 1 ,'d Finally, this supplemental text proposes language for an exception to the general requirement stated above, applicable to borings, well, and smaller-diameter conduits. It is the intention of the MCWD to review this text in conjunction with the April 10, 2000 proposed rule document. A public hearing and comment period is provided for public review of the proposed rule. The MCWD will carefully consider all comments received in deciding whether to adopt a new Rule 0 and in making any modifications to the proposed rule. The proposed rule is not intended to encompass all potential groundwater impacts. First, the rule does not address groundwater quality. State agencies, induding the Pollution Control Authority, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Department of Health, the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Environmental Quality Board, have substantial responsibility for protecting groundwater quality. Minn. Stat. §103A.204. Within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the counties are given specific authority to prepare groundwater plans that serve to coordinate the efforts of political subdivisions. Minn. Stat. §103B.255. A program of careful groundwater quality protection involves management of both point and non-point source discharges of pollutants, contaminated site management, and the planning and regulation of land use. The MCWD is not undertaking to regulate in this area independent of this established framework and within the limited time frame that the present rulemaking process allows. With respect to the groundwater flow regime, however, the DNR is the only governmental agency that implements a regulatory program to preserve groundwater flows. Minn. Stat. §§103G.255-103G.297. Further, the DNR program applies only to groundwater appropriation, whereas other types of activities may adversely affect groundwater flows. It is the purpose of this rule to ensure that such actions are effectively reviewed for their impacts before they are undertaken. The proposed rule arises from recent MCWD experience in reviewing the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) Hiawatha Avenue reconstruction project within the City of Minneapolis. In that instance, the project involved excavation into bedrock for the construction of storm sewers and grit chambers and, to a limited extent, for road subgrade. In addition, continuous footings for retaining walls were to be placed on or directly proximate to bedrock. The construction was very near to the Minnehaha Creek gorge at its confluence with the Mississippi River, where a number of rare natural communities are supported by seeps and 2 springs that emerge from within the bluff. Although it was generally known that groundwater flows tended easterly toward the bluff and the river, very little information existed to confirm the directions and quantities of localized groundwater flow within the alluvial and bedrock layers feeding the seeps. In that case, the MCWD approved the permit but included conditions allowing for project modification in the event that MCWD groundwater investigation revealed that construction could potentially divert groundwater from the seeps. The investigation revealed that water tables affected by the construction did appear in part to support the seeps. One grit chamber was located in proximity to an inferred vertical bedrock fracture and intercepted substantial flows. As a result, in cooperation with the MCWD, MnDOT revised permeability specifications in the field for backfill material around the grit chambers, storm sewer lines and retaining wall footings to preserve routes of groundwater flow to the bluffs. The fact that the MCWD did not at that time have a groundwater rule in place was unfortunate in three respects. First, in order to ensure protection of the groundwater resource, watershed residents were forced to bear the costs of groundwater study, a large part of which MnDOT otherwise would have borne as a part of its environmental review and permit application preparation. Second, rather than preceding permit approval and construction, the investigation of groundwater concerns occurred after permit issuance and contemporaneous to construction. With a clearer advance awareness of the potential concerns to be addressed, MnDOT would have completed its review of potential impacts before its application came before the Board. Fortunately, the concerns that did arise after construction commenced could be addressed easily in the field. Had the hydrogeology of the site been such as to raise more thoroughgoing concerns, the difficulty in addressing them effectively, and the expense of doing so, might have been substantial. Finally, although MnDOT complied with the permit conditions and took actions requested by the MCWD to minimize groundwater impacts, it also challenged in a lawsuit the authority of the MCWD to impose the conditions. In early April 2000, after the protective actions described above were taken and much of the intrusive construction work was completed, a judge of the Hennepin County District Court ruled that the conditions were not enforceable. The judge confirmed the MCWD's statutory authority to impose conditions for groundwater protection, but stated that the MCWD could implement that authority only through 3 adopted rules. Order (AprilS, 2000) (Court File No. MC 99-01316). Therefore, it is appropriate at this time for the MCWD to adopt regulatory language to implement its statutory authority and clarify when that authority may be exercised. The proposed rule would provide that where competent bedrock will be disturbed or an impervious structure will be placed in contact with the surface of competent bedrock, the Board will review the project and include permit conditions to preserve groundwater recharge, flow patterns and quality for beneficial use and resource protection. Competent bedrock is defined consistent with Minnesota Department of Transportation specifications, as solid intact rock such as limestone, large boulders, and thick layers of limestone floats that are larger than 0.4 cubic meter and cannot be excavated with typical equipment used for excavating soil on a project of larger scale. Review for bedrock impacts or structures in contact with bedrock is proposed specifically in light of the MCWD's experience with the MnDOT road construction project. While surficial flows through unconsolidated material may be generally homogenous over a fairly wide cross-sectional area, groundwater flows through limestone or other well-cemented bedrock will follow horizontal or vertical partings that will tend to be very narrow or localized. Creating new pathways by bedrock fracturing or blocking existing pathways (particularly flows through unconsolidated material directly above bedrock) with impervious structures may materially change groundwater flows. In the experience of the MCWD, it is extremely unusual for construction to involve bedrock disturbance or the placing of structures against bedrock. Throughout the watershed, bedrock lies under significant depths {)f glacial materials. Only in the area of the Minnehaha Creek gorge and the Mississippi River bluffs is bedrock sufficiently shallow that surface construction activity may come into contact with it. The MCWD suspects that some deeper utility work throughout the watershed, such as storm sewer construction, may in the past have required bedrock penetration without the awareness of the groundwater concerns that it may have posed and without being brought to the attention of the MCWD. Under the proposed rule, this work now would be reviewed by the MCWD. Nonetheless, because of the watershed geology and the limited area where bedrock is likely to be disturbed by construction, the MCWD expects that this element of the rule will be applied very rarely. The rule 4 would apply to the next phases of the MnDOT Hiawatha Avenue reconstruction project. Resources at risk from construction will include Camp Coldwater Springs, a protected cultural resource and unusual, groundwater-supported natural community, and other natural communities fed by bluff seeps. This proposed rule follows the direction of the District Court judge that the MCWD adopt a groundwater rule in order to review MnDOT's further proposed work and carry out its responsibility to manage and protect groundwater-supported resources. Other activities, beyond bedrock disturbance and the obstruction of basal flows, can affect groundwater flow patterns. These include the creation of impervious surface, land contouring or diversion of surface flows away from or toward groundwater recharge areas, and the replacement of excavated materials with fill or structures of a different permeability than the materials removed. Adopting rules to address these activities, however, involves determinations as to the scale of activity that should be subject to MCWD review and the standards that would be applied to that activity to determine when conditions would be required to mitigate potential impacts. The MCWD has not had a sufficient opportunity to review these activities and make reasonable determinations for the purpose of this proposed rule. Accordingly, the MCWD is limiting the proposed rule largely to the issues that will arise in the imminent MnDOT construction activity and similar activity affecting bedrock that any other party may wish to undertake. The MCWD has gained specific familiarity with these types of potential impacts. It is the MCWD's intent to continue its examination of other activities that may affect groundwater flows and when that examination is completed, to review the management and regulatory activity of other bodies in this area, and thereafter as appropriate to supplement Rule 0 as it may be adopted in the present proceedings. To assess groundwater impacts, an applicant would need information concerning: · Surface water resources and plant and animal communities near the activity; · The role that groundwater underlying the site plays with regard to those surface water resources and natural communities; and · The likely impacts of the proposed activity on groundwater flows. 5 The rule expressly would limit the list of required submittals to minimize the compliance burden on more moderate development activities and others that appear plainly not to raise concerns. It is expected that applicants will consult with MCWD staff before application to allow the MCWD staff to clarify application needs in the given case. For many development activities, MCWD staff may agree, without further investigation, that no substantial impacts are foreseeable. For others, the applicant's burden may be met with existing resource and project design information. During the comment period, the MCWD will be reviewing existing resource inventory and groundwater data for the watershed in order to consider whether the final rule should specify certain available data that may be used to meet submission requirements. Public comment on this subject is particularly encouraged. It is expected that only a very few projects of substantial scale would encounter the need for significant independent resource inventories, groundwater studies or construction impact analyses. The proposed rule sets forth two criteria for permit issuance. First, the applicant must demonstrate that the proposed activity is reasonably necessary for structural or site design reasons or to avoid substantial added construction expense. This is intended as an avoidance analysis. The MCWD does not intend to second-guess an applicant's design plans or require an extensive analysis of project alternatives. However, the fact is that hydrogeological knowledge in particular always is incomplete and inferential, and that even where care is taken and risks of impacts minimized, a potential for harm will remain. Accordingly, the MCWD believes it is appropriate to require some demonstration that the proposed activity, whether bedrock disturbance or the obstruction of basal flows, cannot reasonably be avoided. The applicant may meet this burden by providing a reasonable justification for the action on structural, design or economic grounds. Second, the applicant must show that the activity will not alter groundwater flows to the material detriment of beneficial groundwater' use, surface water resources or valued plant and animal communities. Under the rule, what constitutes a material impact will be determined by weighing the nature and value of the potentially affected resources, whether the damage is irreversible, the cost to repair the damage, and the likely effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures. If the work as designed would present a reasonable possibility of impacts, options 6 that would be considered, separately and together, would include design changes, field responses to potential problems, and monitoring. The MCWD is soliciting comments on the need for and reasonableness of the proposed rule. In particular, the rule would provide an exception for bedrock disturbance or potential obstruction of basal flows from borings or wells for site investigation and from the installation of a pipe or other conduit with a diameter of one foot or smaller. This exception would apply, for instance, to the installation of electric and telecommunications facilities and similar small-diameter intrusions. Comments are requested on this language, whether it is overly broad or, conversely, whether there are other activities that should be excepted from the rule when the potential groundwater impacts are weighed against the compliance and administrative costs of regulation. Comments are requested as well on whether the rule as a whole encompasses the proper range of activities that may affect groundwater and on the need for and reasonableness of the rule. Although, as noted, groundwater flow impacts from impervious surface, land contouring, diversion of flows, or altered permeability by filling will not be addressed in this rule, comment on the need for review of these activities, and on the appropriate sort of review, is invited. Comments that are specific and that contain factual information that helps to refine the rule language are most useful. 7 PROPOSED RULES REVISIONS MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT April 30, 2000 (Supplement to Proposed Rule of April 10, 2000) RULE 0 GROUNDWATER RESOURCE PROTECTION 1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve groundwater recharge and flow patterns to maintain beneficial uses of groundwater and the integrity of groundwater-supported surface water resources and plant and animal communities. 2. REGULATIONS. A permit shall be required ITom the District before engagmg m: a. Fracturing or excavation of competent bedrock. b. Placing an impervious structure in contact with the surface of competent bedrock. 3. EXCEPTION. A permit is not required for activity specified at section 2 that consists of a boring or well for site investigation or the installation of a pipe or other conduit with a diameter of one foot or smaller. 4. GENERAL STANDARDS. A permit shall be issued on a demonstration by the applicant: a. That the activity specified at section 2 is necessary for structural or site design reasons or to avoid substantial additional construction expense for an otherwise permitted use of the property; and b. That the activity will not alter groundwater recharge, flow or quality so as to materially affect beneficial uses of the groundwater or the integrity of a groundwater-supported surface water resource or plant or animal community. c. In determining the potential for a material effect, the Board of Managers shall consider the extent of the possible alteration; the nature and value of the potentially affected beneficial uses, surface water resources and plant and animal communities; the irreversibility of or cost to undo the potential damage; and the effectiveness of proposed measures to prevent, mitigate or remedy the damage. 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS. The applicant shall submit information on water resources, and plant and animal communities, hydrogeology, impacts of the proposed activity on recharge and groundwater flows, and such other information, as needed to demonstrate that the standards of paragraph 4 are met. 2 ,'itiì CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Gmtfr Drivt, PO Box 147 ChanhflSSt1J. Minn($(}/4 55317 PhoTlt 612.937.1900 Gt1JfralFax 612.937.5739 Enginttring Fn.r 612.937.9152 Public Softty Fax 612.934.2524 U?b Uiww.cichanhossf1l,ml1,US May 10, 2000 Mr. David Moes 6241 Near Mountain Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear David: Congratulations! On Monday, May 8, the City Council acted to re-appoint you to the Park and Recreation Commission for another 3 year term. You have faithfully served the commission and our residents in the past and I look forward to your continued service. I'll see you on Monday night at 8:00 p.m. when we meet with the members of the City Council. Again, congratulations on your re-appointment! Sincerely, /;t?¿J Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:gmb c: Scott Botcher, City Manager City Council Park and Recreation Commission file: RA-l72 g:\parlc\tIlIPRCAppoinlrœntMœŒIQO CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 City Cmf" Drivt, PO Box 147 Chanhassen, Minntsota 55317 Phon, 612.937.1900 Cm"a/ FIIX 612.9375739 Enginerring FIIX 612.937.9152 PIth/it Safety FIIX 612.934.2524 W'tb WWW.cÌ.chflllhassm.mIJ.us May 10, 2000 Mr. Rod Franks 8694 Mary Jane Circle Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Rod: Congratulations! On Monday, May 8, the City Council acted to re-appoint you to the Park and Recreation Commission for another 3 year tenn. You have faithfully served the commission and our residents in the past and I look forward to your continued service. l'l1 see you on Monday night at 8:00 p.m. when we meet with the members of the City Council. Again, congratulations on your re_appointment! Sincerely, - ~) Todd Hoffman Park and Recreation Director TH:gmb c: Scott Botcher, City Manager City Council Park and Recreation Commission file: RA-l72 g:\p:11k\th\PRC Appointm;;!1ttFrank.'i2000 '1'