Correspondence (2)
·
Correspondence
Memo ITom Lori Haak dated May 10,2000.
Memo ITom Minnehaha Creek Watershed District dated April I 0, 2000.
Letter ITom Sensible Land Use Coalition dated May 5,2000.
Memo ITom Sharmin AI-Jaff dated May 16,2000.
Memo ITom Scott Botcher dated May 16, 2000.
Letter ITom the Office ofthe Superintendent of School District 1]2 dated May 15, 2000.
2000 City Council Work Session Schedule
Letter ITom the Office of County Sheriff dated May 9, 2000.
League of Minnesota Cities Special Monday Fax dated May 15, 2000.
Letter and attachments &om the Office of County Sheriff dated May 10, 2000.
Chanhassen Fire Department Fire/Rescue week of May 8 - May 14, 2000.
Carver County Public Works Department monthly activity update for April 2000.
Press Release ITom Carver County Sheriff's Office dated May II, 2000.
Letter to Rich Slagle dated May I I, 2000.
Letter to Jim Perrone dated May I 1,2000.
Chanhassen Library Quarterly Report - First Quarter 2000.
Association of Metropolitan Municipalities fax dated May 11,2000.
;r
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Cmttr Ðrivt, PO Box 147
ChIlnbimtn, Mi.""otII 55317
Phont612.937.I9DO
Ge.eral F/IX 612.937.5739
E.gi.",ing F/IX 612.937.9152
Public Safay F/IX 612.9342524
\fíb WWw.å.c!J..h_n..m.us
or' ro' fOro' ,
DATE: Mayl0,2000
TO: Scott Botcher, City Manager
FROM: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator ~
RE: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Proposed Rule Revisions
Background:
On May 5, 2000, 1 received Proposed Rule Revisions with the accompanying
Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) ITom 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 revisions would have limited impacts on operations within the
City ofChanhassen.
Description:
Most of the proposed rule revisions provide clarification of existing rules and
therefore have little impact on the City's relationship with MCWD. The revisions
with the potential for impacting City/MCWD relationships are listed below. (The
letter in parentheses indicates the rule in which the revision occurs.)
I. Municipalities would be allowed to exercise sole erosion control permitting
authority if they enter into a written agreement with MCWD (B).
2. The requirement for showing stormwater ponds, ditches, stormsewer
catchbasins and other stormwater conveyances on erosion control plans
would be reduced ftom within 1,000 feet of disturbed areaS to within 100 .
feet and downgradient of disturbed areas (B).
3. The application of a municipality's floodplain ordinances would be
restricted to instances in which the entire 100-year elevation is within the
municipality. The goal is to allow the MCWD to manage the resource on a
watershed level (Le., assess all potential impacts) (C).
4. Fast-track permits could be issued by District staff for removal of
accumulated sediment caused by a stormwater outlet. Only non-native
material could be removed and the elevation or contour of the bed could not
be materially changed (E).
5. MCWD would encourage and foster (without requiring) bioengineering,
landscaping and the preservation of natural vegetation to stabilize shorelines
and streambanks (F).
6. A baseline would be required on rip rap installation plans, staked in the field
and maintained until the project was complete (F).
7. Applicants could be granted exceptions to District rules for specific
protection standards or specifications in instances where the proposed
application would achieve a greater degree of water resource protection than
would strict compliance with District rules (1).
. ~ . , .
. , ..
8. A supermajority (2/3 majority of managers voting) would be required to
approve a variance or exception (I).
9. Agencies of the United States and governmental units in the State of
Minnesota would be exempt ITom the permit processing fee and fast-track
deposits (J).
10. The authority to review potential groundwater impacts would be codified
(N).
1ñis authority is further defined in MCWD Proposed Rule 0, the subject of
my May 4 memo.
II. Authority would be provided to review diversion of storm flows out of the
Minnehaha Creek watershed and ensure they are not injurious to the water
resource management purposes set forth in Minnesota Statutes 103B.201
and 103D.201 (N).
12. The requirement to reduce phosphorus loading at downgradient site
boundary would be to reduce loading by at least 50% on an annual average
removal basis (N).
1ñis rule change is intended, according to the SONAR, to clarifY this
element of the rule without changing its meaning. However, the proposed
language is less clear than the existing language. On May 16, I contacted
Jim Hafner, Senior Technicianfor MCWD, and requested MCWD consider
an alternative wordingfor the rule change.
13. The applicant would be required to demonstrate that the phosphorus
removal criterion was met using a MCWD-accepted model and
methodology (N).
If you have questions about the Proposed Rule Revisions or their implications for
the CityofChanhassen, please feel free to contact me at 952/937-1900, Extension
105.
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navane
Mait
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsioc, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471'()590
Fax: (612)471.0682
Emait
admin@minnehahacreek.org
Web Site:
www.minnehahacreek.01J
Board 01 Managers
Pamela G. BliJrt
James Calkins
lance Fisher
Monica Gross
Thomas W.laBounty
Scott Thomas
Malcotm Reid
oI'T"II-Prin1f1donf~f\a!\efc:ontail'lirlo
Minnehaha Cree.atershed District
Improving Quality ofWater. Quality of Lift 4':.... c.c. ~
J 0"'- /'l-< /?,...,.......,.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
April 10, 2000
Interested parties~
Eric Evenson, M ministrator
MCWD Rule Re . ons
Enclosed for yourreview and comment is a copy of the April 10, 2000 Proposed Rules
Revisions of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) and the Statement of
Need and Reasonablenc;ss (SONAR) of the same date. The proposed revisions include a
number of changes to the existing MCWD Rules. TIle primary purposes of the changes
are: (I) to clarify the meaning oflanguage in the Rulesabout which applicants have had
questions and (2) to revise the Rules to reflect interpretations that have developed in the
course of applying them.
Some of the proposed changes would affect the substance of the Rules, but it is the
MCWD's belief that very few would significantly increase the compliance burden on
applicants. Three proposed changes that wiII impose an additional burden when they
apply include a shoreline survey requirement for riprap insiallation (Rule F), groundwater
protection provisions for projects affecting bedrock (Rule N), and a pemlit requirement
for the diversion of surface flows out of the watershed (Rule N). The MCWD does not
believe that any of the proposed changes would measurably decrease protection of the
water resource, public safety or property. The SONAR explains in more detail the
reasons for each proposed change.
Comments are requested specifically 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. The more specific the comments, the more helpful they
will be to the MCWD Board. On the basis of public comments received, the Board will
make appropriate revisions to the proposed changes before they are adopted.
\Vritten public comment on the proposed revisions 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 Conncil 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. It is
recommended that those speaking at the public hearing also submit a written copy of their
remarks.
Please address an 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 Revisions to the Rules of the Watershed District
April 10, 2000
This Statement of Need and Reasonableness (SONAR) summarizes and explains
proposed revisions to the following rules of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
(MCWD):
Rule A: Procedural Requirements
Rule B: Erosion Control
Rule C: Floodplain Alteration
Rule E: Dredging
Rule F: Shoreline and Streambank Improvement
Rule G: Stream and Lake Crossings
Rule H: Enforcement
Rule I: Variances
Rule J: Fees Charged in Certain Cases
Rule N: Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects
TIle proposed revisions are the result of the MCWD's review of its rules in the light of its
experience in applying them. The revisions are for three purposes: (1) to clarify language
about which the MCWD has received inquiries from regulated parties; (2) to incorporate
interpretations of the rules that have evolved ITom MCWD implementation of the rules;
and (3) to revise the rules in minor ways to address inadequacies in water resource
protection or to eliminate unnecessary burdens on applicants.
Some of the proposed changes would increase the compliance burden, but the Board does
not believe that the proposed changes would place a substantial new burden on the pennit
holder or measurably decrease the protection afforded to water resources or to public
safety or property. It is, of course, the purpose of this process to solicit from all
interested parties any information that might lead to a different conclusion.
1
Proposed changes that would impose a new burden when they apply are a registered
survey requirement for riprap projects (Rule F); a permit requirement for certain activities
potentially altering groundwater flows (Rule N); and approval criteria for stormwater
diversion out ofthe watershed (Rule N). The last two proposed requirements are
expected to arise rarely.
Rule A - procedural Requirements.
First, the proposed rule would allow a person to intervene in a permit proceeding on the
timely filing of a written request. Intervention would not alter the nature of the
proceeding or affect the diséretion of the Board in how the proceeding is conducted. It
would, however, allow the interested party an opportunity to participate in the
proceedings to the same degree as the applicant and would ensure that he or she received
all mailings related to the application. The rights afforded by this provision would apply
only to the proceedings before the District; any right of appeal from an MCWD decision
or right ofparticipation in such an appeal would be governed by existing provisions of
state law and is not within the authority of the MCWD to determine.
The proposed revisions also would clarify six aspects of Rule A:
· The requirement that an applicant for a variance complete an MCWD variance
form.
· The requirement that the application include a "complete" set of exhibits,
meaning a set of exhibits that in the MCWD's detennination complies with all
submittal requirements of the rules.
· The Board's authority tò place conditions on a permit approval, including
requirements to execute or record sureties, maintenance agreements and
declarations, as may be appropriate.
· The applicant's requirement to supply a county-certified list of property
owners along with mailing labels for each property. These are obtained
together ITom Hennepin or Carver County for a fee set by that body.
· The District's authority with respect to pennit renewals and transfers. The
Board may deny or condition a permit renewal if circumstances have changed
such that the terms of the original approval no longer are adequately
protective of the water resource. The fact that the rules have changed since
permit issuance is specifically not a basis to deny or condition a permit
renewal. A permit transfer is granted unless the Board finds that the proposed
transferee has not demonstrated the ability to perform the authorized work in
accordance with the permit terms.
2
· The exception to public notice requirements for fast-track permits. The
present rule erroneously refers to a Rule G fast-track permit. The reference
should be to Rule C.
Next, a new provision would allow the Board, on its own initiative, to reconsider a
previously granted permit if it finds that a material error was made in the application and
that at the time of issuance the applicant did know, or reasonably should have known, of
the error. The proposed standard is an attempt to balance competing interests. On the
one hand, it seeks to ensure that applicants present complete information to the Board.
On the other, it seeks to preserve a permittee's ability to rely on a permit and cannot
subject the permit to withdrawal or modification in the event that information later arises
that the applicant should not reasonably have known about at the time the permit was
issued. Comments are solicited on how the proposed rule draws this balance. The term
"material error" would mean an error that if corrected at the time would have resulted in
permit denial or a substantive change in the permit conditions.
The permit would eliminate existing Rule A Janguage subjecting an applicant to a three-
month waiting period after an application is tabled due to substantial non-compliance.
The MCWD suspects that the spectre of a three-month waiting period is not needed to
ensure good-faith preparation of a permit application, particularly since the applicant will
be responsible for staff and consultant expenses of the MCWD for repeated reviews of
inadequate submittals. The proposed rule also would provide that if an application is
modified substantially after initial public notice, the MCWD may require renotification.
Similarly, renotification may be required if90 days has eJapsed between an applicant's
agreement to an application tabling and the date of application resubmittal.
Finally, Rule A would specify that in applying and interpreting its rules, the MCWD will
look to its water resource management and protection mandate as articulated in sections
103B.201 and I03D.201 of the Minnesota statutes. .
Rule B - Erosion ControL
Proposed changes to the MCWD erosion control rule include three matters of
clarification and one further change to reduce the application submittal burden.
The revisions would clarify: (1) the goal of preventing the movement of sediments from
disturbed sites; (2) the provision allowing a municipality to exercise sole erosion-control
pennitting authority pursuant to a written agreement with the MCWD; and (3) the
requirement that the erosion control plan be a stand-alone document.
Submittal requirements would be modified to reduce the area within which artificial
stormwater facilities and conveyances would need to be identified. Presently, all
facilities and conveyances within 1,000 feet of the disturbed area must be indicated on
the vicinity map. This may be overly burdensome and not necessary to ensure that the
erosion control plan will be protective. The rule would require identification only of
3
facilities and conveyances both within 100 feet of and down-gradient of the disturbed
area.
Rule C - Floodplain Alteration.
Several changes are proposed to the language of Rule C. Numerous wording changes,
including a change in the Rule's title, are proposed to clarify the jurisdictional reach of
the rule. The present rule applies to all land within the "IOO-year floodplain" of
waterbodies in the watershed. It is the purpose of the rule to preserve existing flood
storage capacity within the watershed. However, the term "lOO-year floodplain" is a
Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) term of art that may be
understood to refer only to a floodplain as formally delineated by FEMA. The
"waterbody" whose storage is to be protected under the rule is defined to include" all
water basins, watercourses and wetlands" as defined in the Rules. However, many areas
of flood storage defined as "waterbodies" and intended by the Rules to be preserved do
not have FEMA delineations or those delineations are obsolete by virtue of land use and
hydrological changes since the delineations were performed. It has been MCWD practice
to apply its rule to the 100-year flood elevation of each water body. The MCWD
proposes to modify the language of the rule to conform more closely to its practice and
intent and eliminate confusion in the rule arising from the distinction between
"waterbodies" under the MCWD rule and the less-inclusive universe ofFEMA-delineated
waters. In every case, the 100-year flood elevation would be determined by the applicant
on the basis of existing information, with such further independent investigation and
analysis as may be needed. This is not a change from the current rule.
Whereas now, the 100-yéar elevations and fill areas may be determined by a hydrologist
who is not a professional engineer, under the proposed rule they would need to be
determined by a professional engineer. The purpose of this proposed change is to ensure
that the application comes with a professional certification on which the MCWD may
rely.
Thirdly, the present rule defers regulation to a municipality if that municipality applies a
floodplain ordinance that prescribes an allowable degree of encroachment. The proposed
revision would limit this exception to the case where the 100-year elevation is entirely
within the municipality in question. A fundamental purpose of watershed-based water
resource management is to allow water resources that span municipal boundaries to be
managed with an eye toward all uses and impacts. Where a floodplain lies in two or
more municipalities, development or storage loss allowed by one municipality may create
flood impacts for specific land uses in the adjoining municipality. In such cases, the
MCWD perceives that it has a management role.
Finally, the proposed rule would delete language stating that a project subject to Rule C
also may be subject to Rule B or Rule D, as well as the language requiring an erosion
control plan under Rule C. The MCWD believes that applicants are aware that
compliance with Rule C does not eliminate the need to comply with other applicable
regulations. The reference to Rules Band D is underinclusive, in that an activity subject
4
to Rule C may be subject as well to other MCWD rules as well as the laws and
ordinances of other goverrunental bodies. The existing statement is potentially confusing
and unnecessary. The MCWD further believes that a Rule C erosion control plan
requirement is unnecessary, since any project with the potential for significant erosion or
sedimentation damage will be subject to MCWD Rule B and required to prepare an
erosion control plan pursuant to that rule.
Rule E - Dredging.
The primary proposed change to the MCWD's dredging rule is the Board's authorization
of a fast-track dredging permit for sediment removals from stormwater outlets. Fast-
track authority allows MCWD staff to issue a permit without the delay attendant on
bringing the application before the Board for approval. An application qualifying for
fast-track treatment must meet all existing submittal requirements of Rule E. In addition,
the dredging must be solely for the purpose of sediment removal and not proposed to
change the contour of the bed of the affected waterbody. Fast-track dredging
authorization is not permitted for dredging between March 15 and June I: (1) in any
public water; or (2) in other waters if the applicant cannot demonstrate the absence of fish
spawning in the waterbody.
Rule A also has been amended to specify that public notice would not be required for a
Rule E fast-track permit, consistent with existing fast-track procedures under Rules B, C
and F. It is expected that this fast-track process would be used most often by public
entities and others responsible for maintaining stormwater facilities. This authority
would not excuse an applicant from compliance with approval requirements of the DNR
(for projects not covered by the General Pennit that the MCWD issues on the DNR's
behalf) or any other governmental body.
Next, a proposed revision would explicitly incorporate into the rule by reference the
tenns of a Joint Policy Statement executed by the MCWD, the Department of Natural
Resources and the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District in April 1993. This statement
establishes a commitment of the three parties to cooperate on dredging matters and sets
forth standards for approval of dredging activity. These include:
I. That dredging be found to be the minimum environmental impact solution to
achieve navigation.
2. That the bottom width and sideslopes of areas to be dredged are the minimum
necessary for reasonable navigational use, with a bottom width no greater than 15
feet and sideslopes of 3: I absent justification for more extensive dredging.
3. That dredging depths be no more than four feet below the Gray's Bay dam low
control elevation of928.6 feet (NGVD) for individual channels and moorings,
five feet for multiple user channels and moorings, and seven feet for public
channels and deep draft watercraft in certain multiple-user mooring areas.
5
The MCWD's permit decisions since the date the statement was executed have been
informed by and consistent with the statement. The MCWD believes that, as an
expression of policy that informs its permit decisions, the statement should be explicitly
referenced and incorporated into the MCWD rules. The proposed revision would not
change the MCWD's substantive approval standards. A copy ofthe Joint Policy
Statement is available for review at the MCWD offices.
Thirdly, the proposed rule would expand the enumerated purposes for which dredging is
permitted to include actions by public entities for public purposes. This is intended to
allow for dredging for purposes other than navigation. The MCWD, in proposing this
expansion of the rule, believes that the public interest in the integrity of the beds of public
waters and other waterbodies may be balanced with other public interests that would
require disturbance of those beds. Further, the fact that another public body will be
responsible for the dredging activity provides substantial assurance of care and
consultation among alI public bodies with resource protection responsibilities.
Recently, Metropolitan Council Environmental Services applied to the MCWD for a
dredging permit to lay a sanitary sewer force main across a channel below the bed of
Lake Minnetonka. After determining that circumventing the lake was infeasible and
carefully reviewing the advantages and risks of suspending the force main from the
causeway, the MCWD Board detem1ined that allowing the main to be buried beneath the
lakebed was the best decision ITom a public standpoint. The proposed change would
formalize the Board's authority to make such a determination. As with alrother
applications to dredge, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that the proposed
dredging was necessary for the intended purpose and that it would be conducted to
minimize impact on the affected water resource. An activity eligible for MCWD
approval under this authority would continue to be subject to all applicable requirements
of other governmental units. The MCWD will consider further how to more narrowly
specify the other purposes for which dredging may be permitted and welcomes comments
on this point.
Finally, the proposed revisions would include several minor changes for clarification.
Rule F - Shore1ine and Stream Bank Improvement.
The primary substantive change proposed to Rule F is a new requirement that the location
of the shoreline, and specifically of the ordinary high water (OHW) line, be located by a
registered engineer or surveyor before rip rap installation. The Board's existing rules
require only that the OHW line be located and staked before work begins under a fast-
track permit. The MCWD has found that in many cases the OHW line is located by a
contractor without proper field techniques and in a manner that does not provide an
accurate determination of that line or the existing shoreline. Further, compliance with the
requirement to retain stakes in place often is imperfect due simply to the fact that stakes
are damaged or removed during construction. Finally, a contractor acting in bad faith can
move the stakes from their originally confirmed locations in a way that is difficult to
detect. In sum, the current rule is not adequate to allow the MCWD to locate the
6
preexisting shoreline once riprap has been partially or fully installed or to confirm permit
compliance. The proposed rule sets forth a survey methodology that is intended to be as
simple as possible yet still providing for an accurately performed survey. The MCWD
estimates that the proposed rule would add $200 to $300 to the cost of a smaller riprap
project and more to a larger project. The MCWD specifically requests comments on the
need for the proposed requirement, the cost of the requirement and alternatives to it.
Other proposed revisions are as follows:
· Explicit language would make an applicant responsible for ongoing
maintenance of a riprap project within the slope and encroachment limits of
the permit. Specifically, this would require the applicant to correct sloughing
and settling of riprap. The requirement is to address problems that have arisen
where sloughing creates a hazard to navigation and impedes other public uses
of the affected waterbody. In conjunction with this proposal, the rule also
would specify that riprap work would not require a pernlÎt if it does not
involve the addition of new material. Thus, an MCWD permit would not be
required for maintenance. For improvements other than riprap, the addition of
material or a structural change would require a permit. The difference in
treatment recognizes that maintenance of a riprap structure that has sloughed
or shifted does in fact constitute a structural change, but that it is not MCWD
intent to require a permit for this work.
· The proposed rule also would clarify that the structures within the scope of
Rule F include not only bank structures but any other structure on the bed or
banks of a waterbody that can affect the integrity of the water resource. For
example, the MCWD previously has regulated the installation of weirs and
other flow-control structures that mayor may not be an integql part of a
retaining wall, bridge or other structure that independently falls within the
jurisdiction of these rules. The proposed rule would make this scope explicit.
· Next, the revision would specify that riprap proposed for fast-track approval
must constitute the minimum encroachment into the waterbody necessary for
stability. Under the present rule, this requirement applies only to non-fast-
track permits that go before the MCWD Board. The MCWD believes this
omission is inadvertent and is proposing to correct it. Presently, a fast-track
riprap project may extend five feet beyond the OHWL of a waterbody at the
applicant's discretion. As modified, an applicant would need to demonstrate
that a full five feet of encroachment is necessary. .
· A reference to shoreline improvement contractor licensing under Rule M is
obsolete and would be deleted.
Finally, the rule would be revised to include language encouraging bioengineering,
landscaping and preservation of natural vegetation as the first choice for shoreline
stabilization. The MCWD considered language requiring use of one of these methods
7
absent a demonstration that this was infeasible or unlikely to address the stability
problem in a given case. The MCWD determined at this time not to impose a mandate of
any sort for one of these methods, but simply to encourage their use and to indicate that
within its discretion, the Board will look favorably on proposals to do so. It is hoped that
the lesser cost and more natural appearance of these methods will cause some applicants
voluntarily to prefer them. The MCWD solicits comments on the desirability and means
offurther promoting the use of these methods.
Rule G - Stream and Lake Crossings.
The proposed revisions would modify Rule G in three respects.
First, the proposal would add language clarifying that the requirement of "minimal
impact" under the rule refers to impacts within the purview of the MCWD as set forth
under the statements of statutory purpose at sections 103B.201 and 103D.20l of the
Minnesota Statutes. The MCWD wishes to provide guidance to regulated parties by
clarifying that in reviewing a proposed crossing for compliance with the minimal impact
requirement the Board will look to water resource impacts broadly in addition to those
impacts specifically listed in the rule.
Secondly, the proposed rule would add a criterion that any crossing preserve wildlife
passage along each bank of the waterbody. The passage would need to be adequate for
species that are native to or may be in the area and approved by a qualified biologist. The
Board would be at liberty to consider other relevant infom1ation as well in determining
the adequacy of the passage. The Board previously has required maintenance of passage
under its "minimal impact" criterion, but wishes to standardize the criterion and make it
explicit in the rule. Commentf;,are invited, inparticular, regarding the means by which
the MCWD may specify more precisely in the Rule the design requirements for the
passage.
Finally, the revision would clarify that the Rule applies to the placemènt of roads,
highways or utilities on either the bed or the bank of a waterbody. The present rule
explicitly uses only the term "bed," which the MCWD means to extend to the top of
bank. The proposed modification would clarify this and avoid any confusion based on an
asserted differentiation between the bed and the bank of a waterbody.
Rule H - Enforcement.
111e rule presently sets forth the MCWD's authority to issue a binding cease and desist.
order when a project violates an MCWD rule or poses a serious threat of impact to the
water resource. By rule, the Board proposes to delegate this authority to MCWD staff.
Cease and desist authority is logically exercised by staff, rather than the Board, to fulfill
its primary purpose of bringing about an immediate cessation ofunpem1itted or injurious
activity. However, the Board believes it is prudent and appropriate to document its
delegation of authority in the rule. In addition, the proposed rule provides that a cease
and desist order may be issued for a violation not only of a rule, but also of the statute, a
8
permit condition or order imposed by the MCWD, or a stipulation entered into by the
MCWD. This change will bring the language of this rule into conformance with the
enforcement language appearing at Section 103D.545 ofthe Minnesota Statutes.
Rule I - Variances.
The MCWD is proposing to create a second source of exemption from a provision of the
Rules in addition to the variance already provided for. Under both the Board's and the
statutory standard for a variance, an applicant must demonstrate that compliance with the
strict terms of a rule would pose a hardship, other than an economic hardship, as a
consequence of a unique feature of the property. With some regularity, the MCWD
encounters situations where an applicant's proposal in fact would bring a greater degree
of water resource protection than would strict compliance with the terms of an MCWD
rule and is preferred by the applicant for cost or other reasons. In some situations, the
Board has found itself unable to allow alternative compliance because the proposal does
not meet the criterion of "hardship" or "uniqueness."
The proposed exception allows the Board to approve alternative compliance on a
determination that the alternative proposal, in the Board's judgment, would achieve a
greater degree of water resource protection than strict compliance with the requirements
of the rule. This language would provide for an exception only to a specific protection
standard or specification and not, for example, to procedural requirements. An applicant
wishing to make use of this exception would bear the burden to demonstrate the level of
protection that would be achieved, and would be advised to consult carefully with
MCWD staff before fornlal application. Specific comments are solicited on the wording
of the exception, whether it properly constrains Board discretion and whether there is a
preferable alternative formulation of the proposed language.
TIle MCWD also proposes to institute a requirement that two-thirds of the managers
voting, rather than a simple m¡ýority, be required for the grant of a variance or exception.
The proposal rests on the Board's judgment that a d.ecision to allow a depaI1ure from the
specific requirements of the rules should rest on a sound consensus of Board members.
Rule J - Fees Charged in Certain Cases.
The statute authorizes the imposition of a $10 application fee for a watershed district
permit. To date, the MCWD has not imposed this fee. Under the proposed rule, the
Board would by resolution set a permit application fee at the statutorily authorized
maximum and would have the option of revising the amount of the fee in the event that
the statute were amended in the future. Although the amount at issue is not substantial,
the MCWD believes that the cost for application review, or that portion of the cost that
the MCWD is authorized by law to recover, should be borne by an applicant and not by
the taxpayers of the watershed at large.
In addition, the MCWD is proposing to establish a deposit requirement for fast-track
pennit applications in an amount sufficient to cover the application fee and the generally
9
limited cost of MCWD staff and consultant time for inspection and related application
review activity, as authorized in Minnesota Statutes §103D.345. The amount of the
deposit would be set by Board resolution on the basis ofMCWD experience in
processing fast-track applications. On determining that a project has been completed, the
MCWD would return the deposit balance to the applicant. The fast-track applicant would
remain liable for any reimbursable MCWD expenses incurred in excess of the deposit
amount pursuant to Rule J. It is the judgment ofMCWD staff, on the basis of experience,
that additional billing for excess costs would occur in only a very few cases and that the
creation of a deposit ITamework would be administratively simpler and provide for surer
collection of payments due than billing fast-track applicants after the fact.
Finally, in the interest of conciseness, the title of Rule J would be changed simply to
4¿Fees.."
·Rule N _ Stormwater Management for Land Development Proiects.
The proposed revisions include two substantive changes to Rule N.
First, the Board is proposing explicit language to set forth its authority to review potential
groundwater impacts. In a recent permit matter, the Board imposed permit conditions to
mitigate impacts to groundwater-supported natural communities from groundwater flow
alterations caused by bedrock disturbance and the blocking of groundwater flow paths
adjacent to bedrock. The district court upheld the applicant's challenge to the MCWD's
authority. It confirmed that the MCWD has statutory authority to impose conditions to
protect groundwater, but stated that the MCWD must implement that authority by
adopting rules. It is therefore appropriate at this time for the MCWD tò include in its
Rules language that implements its statutory authority and clarifies whell that authority
may be exercised. The proposed rule would provide that where bedrock is proposed to be
disturbed or an impervious structure will be placed in contact with the surface of
competent bedrock, the Board may review the project and include permit conditions to
preserve groundwater recharge, flow patterns and quality for beneficial use and resource
protection. The Board expects that very few applications will raise these concerns, but
wishes to ensure its authority to address them when they do arise.
In addition, the MCWD is proposing a standard for approval of the diversion of
stonnwater flows out of the watershed. Presently, such diversions require a permit if they
result from an activity that changes land contours. The proposed change would require a
permit for any activity that would divert surface flows out of the District, even an activity
that did not involve a change to land contour, for example, the installation or
modification of stormsewer facilities.
The proposed criterion is that the diversion will be permitted if it is not contrary to the
MCWD purposes set forth at Sections 103B.201 and 103D.201 of the Minnesota Statutes.
This would allow the Board to review technical issues such as groundwater recharge
impacts and impacts on down-gradient resources. It would also allow for review of
concerns about placing the area where surface flows are generated and the area where
10
impacts from those flows will be felt under separate watershed management
organizations. The MCWD does not expect many occasions in which a diversion ITom
the watershed will be proposed, but the suggested modification would allow the Board to
address each proposal on its facts in light of the identified criteria. If the proposed
activity would involve the creation of impervious surface or a change in land contour, it
would be subject as well to the existing Rule N criteria for control of stormwater peak
flow and quality.
Thirdly, the proposed rule would clarity, without changing the meaning of, three
elements of the rule: (I) the language concerning best management practices; (2) the
standard to maintain existing peak stormwater flow rate at the downgradient boundary of
the site; and (3) the requirement for a fifty-percent phosphorus loading reduction on an
average annual basis.
Finally, the title of Rule N, "Stormwater Management for Land Development Projects,"
would be shortened simply to "Stomlwater Management." Activities in addition to land
development projects may be subject to this rule; the present title thus is unduly narrow.
II
PROPOSED RULES REVISIONS
MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT
April 10, 2000
DEFINITIONS
For the purposes·ofthese rules, the following words shall have meanings set forth below.
"Agricultural activity" means the use ofland for the production of
agronomic, horticultural or silvicultural crops, including nursery stock,
sod, ftuits, vegetables, flowers, forages, cover crops, grains, and Christmas
trees. Agricultural activity also includes grazing.
"Alteration" or flalter" means any activity that will change or diminish the
course, current, or cross-section of public waters and wetlands.
"BMPs" (best management practices) are actions taken to prevent or
reduce detrimental impacts to the environment while maintaining the
natural characteristics of the environment.
"Beds of a waterbody" means all portions of a waterbody located below
the ordinary highwater level.
"Dredgefl means the removal of the sediment or other materials from the
beds, banks or shores of, a waterbody by means of hydraulic suctión,
mechanical excavation or any other means.
"Excavation" means the displacement or removal of sediment or other·
material.
"Fast Track Permit" means a permit issued by staff for standard rip rap,
sandblankets or maintenance fill projects which are installed according to
technical specifications provided by District engineers, or an erosion
control permit issued by staff in accordance with the criteria in Rule B.
flFillfl means any material placed or intended to be placed on the bed or
bank of any protected water or wetland. Fill must be clean, inorganic
material that is free of pollutants
"Flood plain" means the areas adjoining a watercourse or water basin
which have been or hereafter may be covered by a 100 year regional flood.
"General Permit" means a permit issued which is subject to staff andlor
engineer review and board approval.
"Land-disturbing activity" or "land disturbance" means any disturbance to
the ground surface that, through the action of wind or water, may result in
soil erosion or the movement of sediment into waters, wetlands or storm
sewers or onto adjacent property. Land-disturbing activity includes but is
not limited to the demolition of a structure or surface, soil stripping,
I
clearing, grubbing, grading, excavating, filling and the storage of soil or
earth materials.
"Maintenance Fill" means I" or less of evenly spread fill material that may
be placed in the floodplain as bed preparation for sodding or seeding
purposes.
"NURP" means Nationwide Urban Runoff Program developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) to study stormwater runoff from
urban development.
"Ordinary high water level" means the boundary of a waterbody and shall
be an elevation delineating the highest water level which has been
maintained for a sufficient period of time to leave evidence upon the
landscape, commonly that point where the natural vegetation changes
from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial. For watercourses,
the ordinary high water level shall be the elevation of the top of the bank
of the channel. For reservoirs and flowages, the ordinary high water level
is the operating elevation of the normal summer pool.
"Person" means any natural person, partnership, unincorporated
association, corporation, municipal corporation or political subdivision of
the State of Minnesota.
"PID" means Property Tax Identification Number and îs an abbreviated
method to substitute for the legal description for a parcel of property (ex.
03-117-2433 0004 is Section 3 of Township 117; Range 24; Quarter
Quarter 33 and Parcel 4).
"Public waters" means all waters identified as public waters under Minn
Stat.103G.005, Subd. 15.
"Public waters wetlands" means all wetlands identified as public waters
wetlands under Minn. Stat. I 03G.005, Subd. 18.
"Regional flood" means a flood which is representative oflarge floods
known to have occurred generally in Minnesota and reasonably
characteristic of what can be expected to occur on an average frequency in
the magnitude of the 100-year recurrence interval.
"Subwatershed" means one of the fifteen major subwatershed planning
units within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
"Waterbasin" means an enclosed natural depression with definable banks
capable of containing water which may be partly filled with waters.
"Waterbody" means all waterbasins, watercourses and wetlands as defined
in these rules.
2
.Watercourse" means any channel having definable beds and banks
capable of conducting generally confined runoff ITom adjacent lands.
During floods water may leave the confining beds and banks but under
low and normal flows water is confined within the channel. A watercourse
may be perennial or intermittent.
"Wetland buffer zone" means an area of native, unmaintained, vegetated
groundcover abutting or surrounding a wetland. Buffer width is dependent
on wetland size (see Rule D, subsection 2.c.).
"Wetlands" means all wetlands identified as wetlands under Minnesota
Stat. 103G.005, Subd 19.
Agencies:
ACE:
ACOE:
BWSR:
.CHS:
COE:
DNR:
DOER:
EPA:
FEMA:
HUD:
LCMR:
LGU:
MDA:
MDH:
MES:
MGS:
MPCA:
NRCS:
OWM:
PCA:
RC&D:
RDC:
SWCD:
USF & WS:
WD:
WMO:
Army Corp of Engineers (federal)
Army Corp of Engineers (federal)
Board of Water and Soil Resources (state)
Community Health Services
Army Corp of Engineers (federal
Department of Natural Resources (state)
Department of Employee Relations (state)
Environmental Protection Agency (federal)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (federal
Housing and Urban Development Department (federal
Legislative Commission on Minnesota Resources (state
Local Government Unit (local)
Minnesota Department of Agriculture (state)
Minnesota Department of Health (state
Minnesota Extension Services ( state)
Minnesota Geological Survey (state)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (state)
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Office of Waste Management (state)
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (state)
Resource Conservation & Development (federal)
Regional Development Commission (regional)
Soil and Water Conservation District
U.s. Fish & Wildlife Service (federal)
Watershed District (local)
Watershed Management Organization (local)
Associations:
ADA: Association of (Watershed) District Administrators (state
AMC: Association of Minnesota Counties (state)
MACDE: Minnesota Association of Conservation District Employees (state)
MACPZA: Minnesota Association of County Planning and Zoning
Administrators (state)
3
MASWCD:
MAWD:
MLA:
NACD:
SWCS:
Programs:
ACP:
CLWP:
CRP:
FDR:
LAP:
MFIP:
RIM:
SLR:
WCA:
RULE A
Minnesota Association of Soil and Water Conservation Districts
(state
Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts (state)
Minnesota Lakes Association (state
National Association of Conservation Districts (national)
Soil and Water Conservation Society
Agricultural Conservation Program (federal)
Comprehensive Local Water Planning (state
Conservation Reserve Program (federal)
Flood Damage Reduction (federal)
Lake Assessment Program (state)
Minnesota Forestry Improvement Program (state)
Reinvest in Minnesota Program (state)
Streambank, Lakeshore, and Roadside Program (state)
Wetland Conservation Act
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
L APPLICATION REQUIRED. Any person undertaking any activity for which a permit
is required by these rules shall first submit for review a permit application, engineering
design data and such other information to the District as may be required by these rules to
determine whether the improvements are in compliance with the criteria established by
these rules. All permit applications must bear the original sígnature of the landowner. An
interested person may intervene in a permit proceeding by filing a written request to
intervene with the District before the final decision on the application. The request shall
state the nature of the person's interest and a copy shall be hand-delivered to the applicant
or received at the applicant's address stated in the application before the time of the final
decision. An intervenor shall have the rights of a party in the proceeding before the
District.
2. FORMS. Permit applications shaH be submitted using forms provided by the District,
including a variance form if a variance is requested. Fomls are available from the District
office located in the Gray Freshwater Center at 2500 Shadywood Road, Excelsior, MN
55331. Permit applications shall be addressed to:
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Gray Freshwater Center, Navarre
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
4
3. ACTION BY BOARD OF MANAGERS. The Board of Managers shall act within 45
days of receipt of an application and e61f1plete set oÍfßE uireEl exhibits in compliance with
the submittal requirements of these rules. as determined by the District. Permit decisions
will be made by the Board except as provided for in specific rules. Variance requests will
be acted on by the Board pursuant to Rule I. The Board may ~prove or deny an
application and. ifa¡Jproving. may impose reasonable conditions Conditions may
~~~I~~~~~ o:~:rw::~ c~~;~st:~ with the ~Ies. requirements for sureties. maintenance
:':: ~ s . d ar t s d may requITe that those documents be properly executed
;~,:~:._:~~:~~;:~;~¡;i~sua~ce.. The Boar? may rec~nsi~er a permit ifit finds that a
11 t al isrepresentatlon was made III the applicatIon and that the correct
information was available at the time ofthe application.
4. CONFORMITY WITH MUNICIPAL PLAN. The District will review applications for
permits involving land development only after the applicant demonstrates that the plan
has received preliminary approval from each municipality in which development is to
take place. The requirement of preliminary municipal approval shall mean:
(a) Preliminary plat approval if required for the development; or
(b) Ifplat approval is not required, approval by the municipal plalming
commission or a written statement from the responsible municipal official
that, on preliminary review, the development appears to meet municipal
approval requirements.
5. NOTIFICATION PROCESS. Persons applying for a District pem1Ìt must supply a
certified list of property owners and mailin~ labels for each property on that list obtained
from Hennepin County or Carver County who reside within 600 feet of a parcel on which
the proposed project is to occur. District staff will send notice of the proposed project to
the individuals on the mailing list for the applicant at the applicant's expense. A copy of
the list will be retained with the application at the District office. The application will not
be processed until the list has been submitted to the District. Notification is required for a
permit application submitted under the following District Rules:
Rule B - Erosion Control
Rule C - Floodplain Alteration
Rule D - Wetland Protection
Rule E - Dredging
Rule F - Shoreland and Streambank Improvement
Rule G - Stream and Lake Crossings
Rule N - Stormwater Management
Notification is not required for a fast-track pen11it under Rule B, C E or F or G.
6. ALTERNATIVE NOTIFICATION.
5
Before application is made, the Board, on written request, may approve alternative
notification for any of the following projects:
(a) A linear project, including but not limited to a road, sidewalk or trail,
one-half mile or more in length.
(b) A project on a parcel or contiguous parcels with an area of 100 acres or
more, where no more than five percent ofthe area will be disturbed,
provided the disturbed area does not include a wetland.
(c) A project where the applicant proposes to combine notification under
this rule with notification required under the approval procedures of
another governmental body.
The applicant must demonstrate that an alternative means of notification will provide
adequate notice to residents near the proposed activity.
7. TIME FOR SUBMITTAL. A compJete permit application which iIleludes all required
exhibits shall be received by the District at least 21 full days prior to the scheduled
meeting date of the Board of Managers. Late submittals or submittals with incomplete
exhibits will be scheduled to a subsequent meeting date.
8. TABLED PERMITS. Pennit applications tabled at a board meeting due to revisions
needed for compliance with District rules will be addressed at the next board meeting if
the revisions are submitted within 3 working days of being tabled. Otherwise, pennit
applications and resubmittals will be treated pursuant to paragraph 7 of this rule. Pernlit
applications tabled dlJe to slJbstantial nan eOfI1.plianee ',vith Distriet rules are slJbjeet to a
three month waiting fJeried Before they ean Be reslJBmitted te ensme that the apfJlieation
is serreet and esmplete. The District may require re-notification purs~ant t~~ara~aphs 5
and 6 ifresubmittal constitutes a substantial change in the proposed p oiect if9 days
has elapsed between the date of the Board's action to table and the date of resubmit tal.
9. PERMIT RENEWALS AND TRANSFERS. A pern1Ît is valid for a one year period
from the date the applicant is advised in writing that the Board has approved the permit
unless it is otherwise suspended or revoked. To renew or transfer a pernlit, the permittee
must notify the District in writing, prior to the permit expiration date, of the reason for
the renewal or transfer request. The request will be reviewed by the Board of Managers at
the next available board meeting provided all information submitted to the District is
current. The Board may impose different or additional conditions on a renewal or deny
the renewal in the event of a material change in circumstance~ other than a change in
District rules. A transfer shall be a.pproved unless the Board mds that the proposed
transferee has not demonstrated the ability to perform the authOri~~d wo~ i~ acc~rdance
with the conditions of the permit. in which case the Board may it ose c ndition on or
deny the transfer. +he District f.dfI1.inistrator staff may approve transfer ofa fast-track
pennit. Permit transfer does not extend the permit term.
10. REGULAR MEETINGS. Regular meetings of the Board of Managers are conducted
on the second and fourth Thursday of each month, no earlier than 6:00 p.m., and are held
(;
at the Minnetonka Community Center, 14600 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN,
unless otherwise noticed.
11. B~~~:F~~ D~C~~~;~. All inteJ:Pretat~ons of~hese .rul~s and pennit decisions
under s w 11 rate and be consIstent wIth Dlstnct pUl:poses set forth III
s~ctions 103B.201 and 103D.201 of the Minnesota Statutes.
RULE B
EROSION CONTROL
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to require preparation and
implementation of erosion control plans for land disturbing activities, in order to limit
erosion from wind and water; reduce flow volumes and velocities of stormwater moving
off-site; reduce sedimentation into water bodies; and protect soil stability during and after
site disturbance. These measures should reflect the following principles:
(a) Minimize, in area and duration, exposed soil and unstable soil conditions.
(b) Minimize disturbance of natural soil cover and vegetation.
(c) Protect receiving water bodies, wetlands and storm sewer inlets.
(d) Protest aEljaseIlt properties from seElimeat Ele¡3ositioR. Retain sediments from
disturbed properties on site.
-
(e) Minimize off-site sediment transport on trucks and equipment.
(I) Minimize work in and adjacent to water bodies and wetlands.
(g) Maintain stable slopes.
(h) A void steep slopes and the need for high cuts and fills.
(i) Minimize disturbance to the surrounding soils, root systems and trunks of trees
adjacent to site activity that are intended to be left standing.
(j) Minimize the compaction of site soils.
2. PERMIT REQUIREMENT. Unless specifically excepted by section 3 of this rule,
land-disturbing activity shall require a permit incorporating an erosion control plan
approved by the District and shall be conducted in accordance with that plan. A fast-track
pem1it may be issued for routine erosion control projects on a finding that the application:
(a) Complies with the submission requirements of section 4 of this rule;
(b) Includes an erosion control plan that:
(I) Complies with section 5 of this rule;
7
(2) Provides for maintenance and inspection in accordance with section 9
ofthis rule; and
(3) Provides that there will be no stockpiling of more than 50 cubic yards
of soil or other material subject to erosion by wind or water that is not
covered, vegetated, enclosed, fenced on the down gradient side or
otherwise effectively protected from erosion.
Any request for a variance from a requirement of this rule must be decided by the Board
of Managers.
3. EXCEPTIONS. The following land-disturbing activity shall not be subject to the
requirements of this rule:
(a) Activity that: (I) disturbs an area ofless than 5,000 square feet; and (2)
involves the grading, excavating, filling, or storing on site ofless than 50 cubic
yards of soil or earth material.
(b) Routine agricultural activity.
(c) Emergency activity immediately necessary to protect life or prevent
substantial physical harm to person or property.
(d) Activity otherwise subject to this rule, where a written agreement between the
District anE! the æunieipality within ."..hich the aetivity takes !3!aee prs'.'iE!es that
on the Basis ofællHiei!3aI eHforceæeRt efits erasioR eOHtrol orE!inanee, tRe
District will Hot e)¡ereise erosioR eOHtrol !3eræittiHg autHority oyer the activity
where the District has entered into a written agreement with the municipality
where the activity takes place providing that the District will not exercise erosion
control permitting authority within the City under the circumstances in question.
4. PERMIT APPLICATION. A written application for an erosion control pemlit shall be
submitted by the owner of a site or an authorized representative. The application shall
contain the following:
(a) Site address.
(b) Property owner's name, address and telephone number.
(c) Names, addresses, telephone numbers and responsibilities of all contractors,
subcontractors and other persons who will engage in the land-disturbing activities..
(d) Names, addresses and telephone numbers of persons responsible for preparing
the erosion control plan.
(e) Documentation of all applicable county, municipal or township approvals for
the proposed action or a statement that no such approvals are required.
(I) Application date.
8
(g) A statement that the applicant: (a) consents to site inspection by the District
and its authorized agents at reasonable times as necessary to evaluate the permit
application or determine compliance with the requirements of this rule; and (b)
will notify the District and afford access for District inspection as set forth at
paragraph 10.
(h) Signature of each property owner with a certification that he or she
understands that the proposed activity must be conducted in compliance with this
rule and the approved erosion control plan, and that the application is complete
and accurate to the best of his or her belief. When a property owner is not a
natural person, the application shall bear a signature of one authorized to act on
the owner's behalf and documentation of the signatory's authority.
(i) An erosion control plan as described at paragraph 5 of this rule.
G) A soils engineering report as described at paragraph 6 of this rule, if requested
by the District.
(k) A geological report as described at paragraph 6 of this rule, if requested by the
District.
(I) A statement that the applicant is aware of fee requirements set forth at Rule J
of the District's rules and agrees to pay that fee as determined due by the District.
5. EROSION CONTROL PLAN. The erosion control plan is a se¡¡arate stand-alone
document that shall include the following:
(a) A vicinity map showing:
(1) The site location i¡\relation to surrounding roads, steep slopes, other
significant geographic features, buildings and other significant structures.
(2) All receiving waters, including lakes, streams 1!llil wetlands,
stoFfflwater P8R¡JS, ditches aRd staff!! sewer catch basiRs, within 1000 feet
of the area to be disturbed. and all stormwater ponds. ditches. stom) sewer
catch basins and other stormwater conveyances within 100 feet and
down~radient of the area to be disturbed.
(b) Site plans for existing and final proposed conditions drawn to appropriate
scale. The plans shall contain:
(I) Contours sufficient to show drainage on and adjacent to the site.
(2) Site property lines.
(3) Identification and location of all on-site water features and facilities
including any lake, stream or wetland; any natural or artifÍcial water
diversion or detention area; any surface or subsurface drainage facility or
stormwater conveyance; and any storm sewer catch basin.
9
(4) Location of all trees and vegetation on site, with identification of that
which is intended to be retained.
(5) Location of buildings and structures on site.
(6) Proposed grading or other land-disturbing activity including areas of
grubbing, clearing, tree removal, grading, excavation, fill and other
disturbance; areas of soil or earth material storage; quantities of soil or
earth material to be removed, placed, stored or otherwise moved on site;
and delineated limits of disturbance.
(7) Locations of proposed runoff control, erosion prevention, sediment
control and temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures.
(c) Plans and specifications for all proposed runoff control, erosion prevention,
sediment control, and temporary and permanent soil stabilization measures.
(1) Plans and specifications shall conform to the provisions of the manual,
"Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" (Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, reprinted 1994), as revised, or if a facility or measure is not
addressed in that manual, then to the provisions of the "Erosion and
Sediment Control Manual" (Hennepin Conservation District, 1989), as
revised.
(2) All erosion and sedimentation controls proposed for compliance with
this rule will be in place before any land-disturbing activity commences.
(3) Plans shall provide that stockpiles of soil or other materials subject to
erosion by wind or water shall be covered, vegetated, enclosed, fenced on
the downgradient side or otherwise effectively protected from erosion in
accordance with the amount of time the material will be on site and the
manner of its proposed use.
(4) Plans shall include measures and procedures to reasonably minimize
site soil compaction and shall provide that all compacted soil shall be
broken up to a depth of at least six inches before revegetation.
(5) Plans shall provide that all silt fence installed after January 1,2000
shall be the color orange.
(6) Plans shall provide that all fabric fences used for erosion and
sedimentation control and all other temporary controls shall not be
removed until the District has determined that the site has been
permanently restabilized and shall be removed within 30 days thereafter.
(d) A detailed schedule indicating dates and sequence ofland alteration activities;
implementation, maintenance and removal of erosion and sedimentation control
measures; and permanent site stabilization measures.
10
(e) A detailed description of how erosion control, sediment control and soil
stabilization measures implemented pursuant to the plan will be monitored,
maintained and removed.
(f) On the request of an applicant proposing to landscape an improved residential
property and a finding that certain required information is not needed to assess the
characteristics of the property and the adequacy of proposed control measures, the
District may reduce the submittal requirements of this section.
6. SOILS ENGINEERING AND GEOLOGY REPORTS. On a detennination that the
condition of the soils is unknown or unclear and that additional information is required to
find that an applicant's proposed activity will meet the standards and purposes of this
rule, the District may require soil borings or other site investigation to be conducted and
may require submission of a soils engineering or geology report. The report shall include
the following as requested by the District:
(a) Data and information obtained from the requested site investigation.
(b) A description ofthe types, composition, permeability, stability, erodibility and
distribution of existing soils on site.
(c) A description of site geology.
(d) Conclusions and revisions, if any, to the proposed land·disturbing activity at
the site or the erosion control plan, including revisions of plans and specifications.
7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. The District may require any additional information
or data, as it finds relevant and necessary to evaluate and act on an application.
8. SURETY. The District may require the applicant to file a bond or other surety in
accordance with Rule K. For a fast-track pem1it, the surety must be in the form of a
performance bond, a letter of credit or a cash escrow. The surety shall be maintained
until:
(a) Final site stabilization and removal of erosion and sedimentation controls, as
determined by the District, and the payment of all fees and amounts due to the
District;
(b) Forty-five (45) days after written noti fication to the District under paragraph
I I (d), if the District has failed to respond in writing; or
(c) Such earlier time as the District may advise the applicant in writing.
9. MAINTENANCE. The permittee shall be responsible at all times for the maintenance
and proper operation of all erosion and sediment control facilities. On any property on
which land-disturbing activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this rule,
the permittee shall, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and
all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work
is perfom1ed on the site, and at least weekly, until land-disturbing activity has ceased.
11
ll1ereafter, the permittee shall perform these responsibilities at least weekly until
vegetative cover is established. The permittee shall maintain a log of activities under this
section for inspection by the District on request.
10. NOTIFICATION AND INSPECTION. ll1e applicant or its authorized agent shall
notify the District in writing at the following points:
(a) On completing installation of perimeter erosion and sedimentation controls.
(b) On completing land-disturbing activities and putting into place measures for
final soil stabilization and revegetation.
(c) When the site has been permanently stabilized and revegetated.
(d) When all temporary erosion and sedimentation controls have been removed
from the site.
At each stage indicated, the applicant shall not proceed with site activity until the District
has been notified. At the stage indicated at paragraph lO(a), the applicant shall not
proceed with site activity until the District has been notified and allowed two full
business days to inspect the site and, as necessary, confer with the applicant. Within the
two days specified, the District may advise the applicant that it is extending the period for
inspection by up to five additional business days.
RULE C
FLOODPLAII\! ALTER.\TION PRESERVATION OF FLOOD STORAGE
CAPACITY
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Preserve existing water storage capacity below I DO-year flood elevations on
all waterbodies in the watershed to minimize the frequency and severity of high
water;
(b) Minimize development below proiected ~ 100-year fleodfJlaiR water level
elevations which will unduly restrict flood flows or aggravate known high water
problems.
2. REGULATION. No person shall alter or fill land below the proiected I OO-year 4ffiOO
water elevation of any ·?'etlaml er IJll131ie water or wetlaRd a waterbody without fífst
sesuriRg a permit from the District. A Fast Track permit is FeE uired may be issued for I"
or less of fill withiR tHe fleodfJlaiR in preparation for sodding or seeding pUFfJeses. ^
fleedplain alter-atien fJennit is reE uireè for aR:¡' fill in tHe fleedfJlaiR e)[seeèiRg I" in
è€ptfl.
12
3. CRITERIA. FOR FLOODPLAIN .^.LTBR.^.TIOÞ!. FleeåJ3laiR ~ filling shall not
cause a net decrease in fleeè storage capacity below the projected I OO-year fleeè ~
elevation unless it is shown that the proposed filling, together with the filling of all other
properties on the affected reach ofthe waterbody to the same degree of encroachment as
proposed by the applicant, will not cause high water or aggravate flooding on other
properties and will not unduly restrict flood flows. The allowable fill area shall be
calculated by a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota af BY a
Ejllalifieå kyårelegist. All new residential, commercial, industrial and institutional
structures shall be constructed such that all door and window openings are at a minimum
of two feet above the 100 year high water elevation.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit
application. One set _ full size; one set - reduced to maximum size of II "x 17".
(a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing
elevation contours of the work area, ordinary high water elevation (QlnY:), and
regional flood elevation. All elevations must be reduced to NGVD (1929 datum).
(b) Grading plan showing any proposed elevation changes.
(c) Preliminary plat of any proposed land development.
(d) Determination by a professional engineer ar Ejllalifieå kyàrelegist of the leea!
I DO-year fleeè water elevation before and after the project.
(e) Computation of change in fIeeè water storage capacity resulting from
proposed grading.
(f) EfssieR CeRtri31 Plan J3reJ3areå BY a Ejllali¡:¡eà iflài\'iàlial sAewiRg J3rol3eseà
methaås efretaiRiRg wateràeme sedimeats en site àuring tAe J3eried sf tAewerk
aRE! IJRtil Bare seil sllrfases Rip¡e BeeR severed er re\'egetated.
CD ~ Soil boring results if available.
5. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) If a If the I OO-year elevation is entirely within a municipality and that
municipality has adopted a floodplain ordinance wffieI¡ prescribesing an allowable
degree of floodplain encroachment, that ~ ordinance governs the allowable
degree of encroachment and no permit is required under this rule.
(b) Projests '.vitàiR Reeål3lain areas wkisk alse iRvelve skaRges in lanà ase
rSEjliire a J3efHIit IIRàer Rlile B. Prajests iR fleeE!J3laiR areas ·.vkich alse alter
\\'etlands FeE¡1:lire a peRRit Hader RHle D.
RULE D
WETLAND PROTECTION
13
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) achieve no net loss in the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of
Minnesota's existing wetlands;
(b) increase the quantity, quality, and biological diversity of Minnesota's wetlands
by restoring or enhancing diminished or drained wetlands;
(c) avoid direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the
quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands;
(d) minimize direct or indirect impacts from activities that destroy or diminish the
quantity, quality and biological diversity of wetlands;
(e) rectify the impact of any such activity by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring
the affected wetland environment;
(f) reduce or eliminate the impact of such activity over time by preservation and
maintenance operation during the life of the activity;
(g) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by restoring a wetland;
(h) compensate for the impact on the wetlands by replacing or providing
substitute wetland resources or environments.
2. REGULATION.
(a) The Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the rules implementing the
Wetland Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as
amended, are incorporated as a part of this Rule and shall govern draining and
filling in wetlands.
(b) Excavations in wetlands for the purposes of wildlife enhancement must
comply with the criteria described in the DNR publication "Excavated Ponds for
Waterfowl" (1992). Excavation in wetlands for any other purpose is governed by
the substantive and procedural standards, criteria and requirements set forth in the
Wetland Conservation Act, as amended, and the rules implementing the Wetland
Conservation Act as set forth in Minnesota Rules chapter 8420, as amended, with
the exception that replacement must be at the ratio of I acre of replaced wetland
for each acre of excavated wetland.
(c) Wetland replacement, where permitted, shaH occur in the same subwatershed
as the associated wetland impact.
14
(d) The project must provide for a buffer zone of the following size:
Size of Wetland Width of Buffer Zone
o - 1 acre 16.5 feet
1 - 2.5 acres 20 feet
2.5 - 5 acres 25 feet
> 5 acres 35 feet
· Buffer zones are required around wetlands, and public water wetlands.
· Buffer zones must also be created around all replacement wetlands.
· Activities including, but not limited to mowing, yard waste disposal and fertilizer
application shall not occur within the buffer zone.
3. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the Combined Joint
Notification (CJN) form. One set - full size; one set - reduced to a maximum size of
lI"xI7".
(a) Site plan showing:
(1) Property lines and comers and delineation oflands under ownership of
the applicant;
(2) Existing and proposed elevation contours; including the existing
runout elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet;
(3) Area of the wetland portion to be filled.
(b) Complete delineation of the existing wetland(s), including data sheets with
detailed information on field indicators (soils, hydrology and vegetation) and
summary report. Wetland dçlineation's should be performed during the nomlal
growing season for this area of the State (May I - October 15). Delineations
performed outside of this time frame mayor may not be permitted, depending on
potential wetland impact in relation to the entire development or project. Wetland
boundaries need to be staked in the field.
(c) Identification and area of the total watershed area presently contributing
stormwater runoff to the wetland.
(d) A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps followed for the
sequencing process and including documentation supporting the proposed
mitigation plan. A description of the nature and amount of the proposed fill
material and details of the annual monitoring plan must also be included.
(e) Wetlands proposed to be excavated for wildlife ponds must also submit a cross
section and construction specifications which include the following design
criteria:
(I) ponds should be irregular shaped and a minimum size of 2500 square
feet
(2) pond depth not to exceed 5 feet and to have an undulating bottom
15
(3) ratios of basin side slopes ranging ITom 3:1 to 10:1
(horizontal:vertical)
(4) The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the
OHW of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the
Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain. However, fill may be
placed in a wetland subject to the Wetland Conservation Act to the extent
permitted in Minnesota Statutes 103G.2241, subd, 10.
(5) vegetation restoration plan which includes the disturbed area being
seeded to native grasses for a minimum of 150 feet around the dugout
(6) the reserved organic soils should be spread over the entire excavated
area to encourage and support plant growth
(I) Information showing whether the subject wetland is protected by either the State
or municipality or both.
RULE E
DREDGING
I. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to preserve the natural appearance
of shoreline areas, recreational, wildlife and fisheries resources of surface waters, and
surface water quality.
2. REGULA nONS. No person shall dredge in the beds, banks or shores of any protected
water or wetland in the District without first securing a penn it from the District, and
posting a bond or letter of credit pursuant to Rule K.
3. GENERAL STANDARDS. All pemlitted dredging shall comply with the following
standards:
(a) The spoil disposal site must be identified and found not to be below the OHW
of a public water or public water wetland, wetland subject to the Wetland
Conservation Act of 1991, or floodplain and not prone to erosion.
(b) In cases of an identifiable source of sediment under the control of the
applicant, the plan shall include remedial action to minimize deposition of
sediment into a waterbody or off-site.
(c) Prior te re'.-iew by the District, Before District review, all dredging proposals
that involve dockiAg navigational access to docking structures shall be submitted
to and approved by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and, in the
case of Lake Minnetonka, by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District. This
application is subject to the dredgin~ standards of the DNR. MCWD and LMCD
Dredging Joint Policy Statement (April 1993).
16
(d) The proposed project shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a
specific need with respect to all other reasonable alternatives such as dock
extensions, aquatic nuisance plant removal without dredging, beach sandblankets,
excavation above the bed of public water, less extensive dredging in another area
of the public water, or management of an altemative water body for the intended
purpose.
(e) The dredging shall be limited to the minimum dimensions necessary for
achieving the stated pwpose. (Reference General Permit 95-6150, 'Excavation for
Navigation', paragraph 5).
(f) If the dredging will be accomplished by means of hydraulic dredging the
following additional standards will apply:
(1) The spoil disposaJ site shall have a minimum storage capacity equal to
four times the calculated volume of solid material to be removed, a
minimum free board between the top of the projected water surface
elevation and the top of the dike of one foot, if no outlet from the spoil
disposal is proposed.
(2) The construction of the spoil containn1ent site shall be with earthen
dikes. No such dike shall exceed 5.5 feet in height at any point. Dikes
shall have a minimum 4 foot wide top and side slopes of 2: I or flatter. The
dikes shall be adequately compacted by traversing with appropriate
equipment during construction.
(3) Proposed emb'!ßkments which differ from the standard in 3(1)(2) shall
comply with generally accepted engineering principles and be designed
and certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of
Minnesota.
(4) Spoil containment sites oflimited storage volume which propose a
discharge back into a receiving water body through a control structure
shall meet applicable State water quality guidelines for the receiving water
body. Weekly monitoring of the instantaneous discharge shall be
performed and paid for by the applicant. The results shall be promptly
forwarded to the Dislrict Engineer for comparison to state water quality
standards for turbidity and total suspended solids.
(5) A restoration plan prepared by a qualified individual shall show
proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on site during the
period of operation. The plan shall show final grades and how the site will
be restored, covered and/or vegetated after construction. Sites with high
erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodible soils may
require a cash deposit to ensure performance and any necessary remedial
actions.
4. CRITERIA.
17
(a) Dredging shall be permitted only for the following IJI!Ij3Ðses:
(I) To maintain, orremove sediment from, an existing public or private
channel, that does not exceed the originally permitted requirements; or
(2) To implement or maintain an existing legal right of navigational
access; or
(3) To remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or
contaminants; or
(4) To improve the public recreational, wildlife, or fisheries resources of
surface waters; or
(5) Actions by public entities for public purposes.
(b) No dredging shall be permitted:
(I) Above the ordinary high water level or into the upland adjacent to the
lake or watercourse.
(2) Which would enlarge a natural watercourse landward or which would
create a channel to connect adjacent backwater areas for navigational
purposes.
(3) Where the dredging will alter the natural shoreline of a lake.
(4) Where the dredging might cause increased seepage or result in
subsurface drainage.
.(5) Where any portion of the dredged area contains any slope steeper than
3: I in a marina or channel, or steeper than 10 to I for an area adjoining
residentiallakeshore.
(c) Dredging identified in 4(b )(1-3) above may be permitted where the project
complies with applicable DNR rules.
5. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit
application. One set - full size; one set - reduced to maximum size of II "x 17".
(a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing
elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and
regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGYD
(1929 datum).
(b) Profile, cross sections andlor topographic contours showing existing and
proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic
contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot.)
(c) In the case of projects using hydraulic means of sediment removal and on-site
spoil containment the applicant shall supply:
18
(1) Cross section ofthe proposed dike.
(2) Stage/storage volume relationship for the proposed spoil containment
area.
(3) Detail of any proposed outlet structure, showing size, description and
invert elevation.
(4) Stage/discharge relationship for any proposed outlet structure from the
spoil containment area.
(5) Site plan showing the locations of any proposed outlet structure and
emergency overflow ITom the spoil containment area.
(d) Site plan showing the proposed location of floating silt curtains.
(e) Support data:
(I) Description and volume computation of material to be removed.
(2) Description of equipment to be used.
(3) Construction schedule.
(4) Location map of spoil containment area.
(5) Erosion control plan for containment area.
(6) Restoration plan for any proposed permanent on-site spoil containment
site showing final grades, removal of control structure, and a description
of how and when the site will be restored, covered or revegetated after
construction.
(7) Detail of any proposed floating silt curtain including specifications for
the silt curtain.
(I) In the case of projects where dredging:
(I) Might cause increased seepage or result in subsurface drainage, or
(2) Will remove sediment to eliminate a source of nutrients, pollutants, or
contaminants, a minimum of two soil bearing logs extending at least two
feet below the proposed work elevation shall be required.
6. FAST-TRACK PERMIT. A fast-track permit may be issued bv District staff for the
removal of accumulated sediment caused by a stormwater outlet. The application
otherwise must comply with all provisions of this rule. In addition to the requirements of
sections 3 and 5 of this Rule. the following criteria shall be met:
(a) Authorization shall a.vply only to removal of sediment identified as non·native
material accumulated due to stomlwater runoff or erosion.
19
(b) Dredging shall not materially change the elevation or contour of the bed of the
affected basin.
(c) No dredging in public waters shall occur between March 15 and June 1. No
dredging in another waterbody shall occur between March] 5 and June I un~ess
the applicant demonstrates that fish spawning does not occur in the waterbo y.
RULE F
SHORELINE & STREAMBANK IMPROVEMENT
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Assure that improvement of shoreline and streambank areas to prevent erosion
complies with accepted engineering principles in conformity with DNR
construction guidelines. ami
(b) Preserve the natural appearance of shoreline and streambank areas; and
(c) Encourage and foster bioengineering. landscaping and preservation of natural
vegetation as preferred means of stabilizing shorelines and streambanks.
2. REGULA nONS.
(a) No person shall construct a shoreline or stream bank improvement, such as rip
rap, ØI' a retaining wall, or a bioengineered or landscaped bank to prevent eí·osion,
or for any other purpose, such as boat ramps and sand blankets, without first
securing a pemlit from the District, and posting a bond or letter of credit pursuant
to Rule K.
(b) A fast track permit may be issued for routine rip rap projects that conform
with the requirements set forth in paragraph 3(b) of this Rule.
(c) A fast track permit may be issued for routine sandblanket projects that
conform with the requirements set forth in paragraph 6 of this Rule.
(d) Maintenance of an existing shoreline or streambank improvement does not
require a permit under this rule unless it involves the addition of new material to
the improvement or. for proiects other than riprap structural change in the
improvement.
(e) An improvement within the meaning of the rule shall also include any water
control structure affixed to the bed or bank of a waterbody.
3. CRITERIA FOR RIP RAP PLACEMENT. Rip rap placement shall comply with the
following criteria:
20
(a) General standards:
(1) Rip rap material should be durable, natural stone and of a gradation
that will result in a stable shoreline embankment.
(2) The finished slope of the rock ITagments, boulders and/or cobbles
should not be steeper than a ratio of3 feet horizontal to I foot vertical
(3: I) under normal conditions. Steeper slopes will generally require larger
sized rip rap. The minimum finished slope shall be no steeper than 2: I
(horizontal to vertical). Any rocklboulder stabilization project with a
proposed finished slope steeper than 2: I (horizontal to vertical) shall be
evaluated in accordance with the conditions for retaining walls.
(3) No rip rap or filter materials should be placed more than 5 feet
wateTWard of the shoreline measured from the ordinary high water level
(OHW) elevation under normal conditions. The encroachment into the
water is the minimum amount necessary to provide protection and does
not unduly interfere with the flow of water. The maximum encroachment
waterward of the OHW is 10 feet.
(4) A transitional layer consisting of graded gravel, at least 6 inches deep,
and an appropriate geotextile filter fabric shall be placed between the soil
material of the existing shoreline and the rip rap to prevent erosion of the
embankment and to prevent settlement.
(5) Rip rap placement should not be attempted when underlying soils are
not capable of supporting resulting loads. In these cases, a qualified soils
specialist should be consulted.
"
(6) The thickness ofth~ rip rap layers should be at least 1.25 times the
maximum stone diameter.
(b) Routine rip rap projects eligible for a fast track permit: Rip rap projects shall
qualify for a fast track permit issued and signed by an authorized representative of
the District so long as the project is perro_ed by a shereliae impre'/emeFl!
eelltraeler lieensed lIader Rille M and meets the following specifications:
(I) Rip rap material shall be durable stone meeting the size and gradation
requirements ofMnDOT Class III or IV rip rap;
(2) The finished slope of the stone shall not be steeper than 3 feet
horizontal to I foot vertical (3H: I V);
(3) The Orøiaaty High Water Level (OWN) er NakJfal Onliaary High
'Hater Level (NOH\',') shall be leeated aad staked prier Ie begÎlmiag
weffi;
Q)f41 Property comers and lines which delineate the lineal feet of
shoreline to be treated shall be located and staked prior to beginning work;
21
@~ Rip rap or filter materials shall not be placed more than 5 feet
waterward of the staked OHW or NOHW, and shall not be placed on
property not owned by the applicant; the encroachment into the water is
the minimum amount necessary to provide protection and does not unduly
interfere with the flow of the water.
æ~ A transitional granular filler meeting the requirements of MnDOT
360 I.B, at least 6 inches in depth, shall be placed between the native
shoreline and the rip rap to prevent erosion of the fine grained soils. A
geotextile fabric meeting the requirements of MnDOT 3733 shall be
placed beneath the transitional layer to enhance stability; and
(6)~ Underlying native soils shall not be classified as organic soils or
peat.
(c) Rip rap installed pursuant to a District permit shaH be maintained within
slope and encroachment constraints established in the permit.
4. RIP RAP REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the rip rap
pennit application. One fuH-size; one set·reduced to maximum size of II" x 17".
(a) 5ite plan showing property lines, delineation ofIands Hnder ownership of the
applicant, delineation of the e)[isting shoreline, e)[istilJg eontoHr elo'.'ations (if
a'.'ailaèle) and locatiolJs and lineal footage of the proposed rip rap treatment.
Site plan showing:
. Survey locating the existing OHW contour. meander of the existing
shoreline and location of property lines:
· Elevation contours of the upland within 15 feet of the OHW and
referenced to accepted datum· and
· Plan view ofIocations and lineal footage of the proposed riprap treatment.
The plan shall show the location of an upland baseline parallel to the shoreline
with stationing. The baseline shaH be staked in the field by the a.pplicant and
maintained in-place until proiect completion. Baseline origin and terminus eacb
shaH be referenced to three fixed features measured to the closest 0.05 foot. with
measurements shown and described on the plan. Pewendicular oŒets from ~he
baseline to the OHW shall be measured and distances shown on tbe plan at 2 _
foot stations. The plan shall be certified by a registered engineer or surve~or.
(b) Cross section detailing the proposed rip rap, drawn to scale, with the
horizontal and vertical scales noted on the drawing. The detail should show the
finished rip rap slope, transitional layer design and placement, distance lakeward
of the rip rap placement, ordinary high water level elevation and material
speci fications.
(c) Description of the underlying soil materials which will support the rip rap.
22
(d) Gradation, average diameter, quality and type of rip rap material to be used.
Normally, a Class III gradation is sufficient (see below).
(e) Gradation, quality and type of filter blanket material to be used. Normally,
Type I gradation is sufficient
(f) Manufacturer's material specifications for proposed geotextile fabric(s).
(g) Materials used shall be non-polluting.
5. GUIDELINES. The engineer shall publish or make available to interested persons a
typical cross-section for shoreline protection in compliance with this rule.
6. CRITERIA FOR LAYING SAND BLANKETS. All permitted sandblanketing shall
comply with the following standards.
(a) The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand must
contain no toxins or heavy metal, as defined by the MDNR, and must contain no
weed infestations such as, but not limited to, water hyacinth, alligator weed, and
Eurasian watermilfoil, or animal life infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra
mussels or their larva. Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
(b) The sand layer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 50 feet in width along
the shoreline, or one-half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and my not
extend more than ten (10) feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
(c) Only one installation of sand or gravel to the same location may be made.
during a four year penod. After the four years have passed since the last
blanketing, the location may receive another sandblanket. No more than two
applications may be made by an individual landowner during their residency at an
individual project site.
(d) Exception. Beaches which are operated by governmental entities, and
available to the public, shall be exempted from the following restrictions: (i) that
sandblankets be no more than 50 feet in width. See subsection (6. b.) of this Rule;
and (ii) that sandblankets be installed no more ITequently than once every four
years. See subsection (6.c.) of this Rule. Permits shall be required for all public
beach sandblankets.
7. SANDBLANKET REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany
the sandblanket permit application.
(a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing
elevation contours ofthe adjacent upland area, ordinary high water elevation, and
regional flood elevation (if available). All elevations must be reduced to NGVD
(1929 datum).
23
(b) Profile, cross sections and/or topographic contours showing existing and
proposed elevations and proposed side slopes in the work area. (Topographic
contours should be at intervals not greater than 1.0 foot).
(c) A completed Sandblanket Permit Application form, available from the
District.
8. CRITERIA FOR RETAINING WALLS.
(a) Wooden seawalls and/or steel sheetpiling retaining walls shall comply with
accepted engineering principles.
(b) The applicant shall submit a structural analysis which shows that the wall will
withstand expected ice and wave action and earth pressures.
(c) The applicant shall submit a survey prepared by a registered land surveyor
locating the finished wall and shall file a certificate of survey with the District.
Cd) Refer to the following section for retaining walls along streambanks.
9. CRITERIA FOR STREAMBANK STABILIZATION. The physical characteristics of
creeks and streams create site specific erosion control issues. There are a number of
erosion and sediment control practices designed for use along channels. Emphasis should
be placed on the structural stability of the project rather than secondary factors such as
aesthetics, convenience or cost. As with all District shoreline improvement permits, a
licensed contractor must be used to perform the work unless the landowner is personally
doing the work themselves. In addition to an application, required exhibits include:
. site plan prepared by an engineer or registered land surveyor showing property
. lines; the ordinary high water (OHW) elevation and floodplain elevation; existing
streambank and contour elevations
. cross section detailing the proposed erosion control practice; including slope
dimensions (length, width, height) of proposed project and distance waterward
· material specifications
· documentation of structural stability (design calculations by a professional
engineer)
The engineer shall make available to interested persons recommended criteria for
streambank stabilization projects.
] O. CRITERIA FOR OTHER SHORELINE IMPROVEMENTS. Other shoreline
improvements, such as boat ramps, shall comply with accepted engineering principles.
RULE G
STREAM AND LAKE CROSSINGS
24
1. POLICY. It is the policy ofthe Board of Managers to discourage the use oflal¡e beàs
¡mà beàs beds and banks of water bodies for the placement of roads, highways, and
utilities.
2. REGULATION. No person shall use the èeès bed or bank of any waterbody within the
District for the placement of roads, highways and utilities without first securing a pelmit
ITom the District.
3. CRITERIA. Use of the bed or bank:
(a) Shall meet a demonsirated public benefit, and
(b) Shall retain adequate hydraulic capacity, and
(c) Shall retain adequate navigational capacity, and
(d) Sball preserve wildlife passa~e along each bank by means that: (i) account for
wildlife that are native to the site or may be present and Iii) are approved by a
qualified biologist: and
WftB Shall not adversely affect water quality, and
(Q~ Shall represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect
to all other reasonable alternatives. The term "minimal impact" shall refer to all
resources within the protective mandate of the District under Sections I03B.201
and I03D 201 of the Minnesota Statutes.
4. REQUIRED EXHIBITS. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit
application. One set - full size; one set - reduced to maximum size of II "x 17".
(a) Construction plans and specifications.
(b) Analysis prepared by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist showing
the effect of the project on hydraulic capacity and water quality.
(c) An erosion control and restoration plan.
RULE H
ENFORCEMENT
1. VIOLA nON OF RULES A MISDEMEANOR. Violation of these rules, a stipulation
agreement made, or permit issued by the Board of Managers pursuant to these rules, is a
misdemeanor subject to a penalty as provided by law.
2. DISTRICT COURT ACTION. The District may exercise all powers conferred upon it
by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D in enforcing the rules adopted hereunder, including
25
criminal prosecution, injunction, or action to compel performance, restoration or
abatement.
3. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER. The District may issue a cease and desist order when it
finds that a proposed or initiated project presents a serious threat of soil erosion,
sedimentation, or an adverse effect upon water quality or violates any rule of the District,
a condition of a District permit or order or a term of a stipulation entered into by the
District. This authority may be exercised by District staff.
RULE I
VARIANCES AND EXCEPTIONS
I. VARIANCES AUTHORIZED. The Board of Managers may hear requests for
variances from the literal provisions of these rules in instances where their strict
enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration. The Board of Managers may grant variances where it is
demonstrated that such action will be keeping with the spirit and intent of these rules.
2. STANDARD. In order to grant a variance, the Board of Managers shall determine that
the special conditions which apply to the structure or land in question do not apply
generally to other land or structures in the District, that the granting of such variance will
not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, and that the variance will not impair
or be contrary to the intent of these rules. A hardship cannot be created by the landowner,
the landowner's agent or representative, or a contractor, and must be unique to the
property. Economic hardship not grounds for issuing a variance.
3. TERM. A variance shall become void after one year after it is granted ifnot used.
4. VIOLATION. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation
of the District rules and shall automatically te¡minate the variance.
5. EXCEPTIONS. The Board of Mana¡¡ers may grant an exception from a provision of
these rules requiring a particular treatment or mana¡¡ement m~thod. or setting fo~h a
desi¡¡n specification of such a method. on a determination that the proposed ap~licati~n.
with such further conditions as the Board may impose. will achiev~ a ~reater de¡?ree f
water resource protection than would strict compliance with the provision.
6. SlJPERMAJORITY REQUIREMENT. A variance or exception must be approved by a
two-thirds maiority of mana¡¡ers voting.
RULE J
FEES CHARCED IN CERT.....IN CASES
26
1. FINDINGS. The Board finds that:
(a) public awareness of and compliance with the permitting process will be served
by a policy offtÐt charging a minimal permit application fee. By encouraging
applicants to seek permits for potential projects, the public benefits by reduced
inspection and enforcement costs;
(b) it is in the public interest that certain projects, involving larger scale
development or development in sensitive locations, be inspected by District staff
to provide the Board sufficient information to evaluate compliance with District
rules and applicable law; and
(c) from time to time persons perform work requiring a permit from the District
without a permit, and persons perform work in violation of an issued District
permit. The Board finds that its costs of engineering inspection and analysis in
such cases exceeds those where the applicant has complied with District
requirements. The Board further concludes that its annual tax levy should not be
used to pay such costs which are incurred because of a failure to meet District
requirements. Therefore, the Board adopts a rule charging fees to the responsible
persons in such cases.
2. FEE. A permit processing fee in an amount set by Board resolution shall be paid by
each applicant before the :\p. )lication is acted on by the District. A site inspection by
District staff shall be performed in the following cases:
(a) commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential developments;
(b) single fan1ily residential.developments greater than 5 acres or of any size if
within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed;
(c) any alterations of a floodplain or wetland;
(d) any dredging within the beds, banks or shores of any protected water or
wetland;
(e) where any person performs any work for which a permit is required under
these rules without having first obtained a permit from the District, or, performs
any work in violation of any terms or conditions of a permit issued by the District
under these rules; or
(f) any project which, due to its location, scope, or construction tec1miques,
requires inspection in order to determine compliance within District rules and
applicable law.
In these cases, the applicant or person responsible for the violation shall pay to the
District a fee equal to the District's actual costs offield inspection of the work, including
investigation of the area affected by the work., analysis of the work, services of a
consultant, including engineering and legal consultants, and any subsequent monitoring
27
of the work, which in the case ofa violation are incurred after notice of violation from the
District. Inspection fees shall be at least $35.
3. PROCEDURE AND PAYMENT OF FEE.
(a) The District shall notify any person perfonning such work described in
paragraph 2(a) of this rule of the violation. If a permit has not been issued for the
work, the person performing the work shall promptly apply for a permit. If a
permit has previously been issued, the Board shall rescind the pennit if it finds
violations of permit terms.
(b) Upon receipt of a permit application exhibits and completion of any necessary
inspection and analysis showing that the work is to be performed is in accordance
with District requirements, the Board may issue a pern1it. Upon permit approval,
the Board shall notify the person who is liable for the fee described in paragraph 2
of this rule of the fee due. The fee shall be paid to the District within thirty (30)
days from the date of permit approval and shall be received by the District prior to
actual issuance of the permit.
(c) In cases where the permit approved by the Board requires further monitoring
of the project by District staff, the District shall notify the applicant of the
monitoring fee due. The fee shall be paid to the district within thÍ11y (30) days
from the date of notice and failure to pay the fee shall constitute a violation of the
permit terms and the Board may rescind the permit.
4. RECOVERY OF FEE. The fee provided for in this rule may be recovered by the
District by any legal action authorized by law.
5. FAST-TRACK DEPOSIT. In the case ofa fast-track pernlit application under these
rules. in lieu of the operation of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this rule an applicant at the time of
application shall provide a d~osit in an amount set by Board resolution to cover the
application fee and District costs in the event of inspection. On a detennination that the
proiect has been completed in compliance with the permit the balance of the deposit
shall be returned to the applicant. This paragraph shall not limit the responsibility of the
applicant for additional fees under section 2 and paragraph 3(c) of this rule
~ 6. GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES EXEMPT. The fee in Paragraph~2 and 5 shall not
be charged to any agency of the United States or any governmental unit in the State of
Minnesota.
RULE K
PERFORMANCE BOND OR LETTER OF CREDIT
I. FINDINGS. The Board finds that:
28
(a) It is the policy of the Board of Managers to conserve the water resources of the
District by assuring compliance with the District's Rules in the performance of
activities within the District.
(b) Requiring a bond or other surety to be submitted with a permit application and
conditioned on adequate performance of the authorized activities and compliance
with District Rules is an effective way to conserve the water resources of the
District.
2. SURETY REQUIREMENT.
(a) A perfomlance bond, letter of credit or other surety in a form approved by the
District shall be submitted to the District with each application for a permit for an
activity regulated under Rule B - Erosion Control, Rule E - Dredging, Rule F -
Shoreline and Streambank Improvement, or Rule N - Stormwater Management,
with the exception that a surety is not required for installation of a sandblanket.
(b) The District may require a surety to be submitted to the District for other
permit applications in an amount set by the Board of Managers.
(c) The surety shall be submitted by the permit applicant but the surety principal
may be either the landowner or the individual or entity undertaking the proposed
activity.
3. SURETY AMOUNT.
The amount of the surety shall be set by the Board of Managers by resolution as the
amount the Board deems necessary to cover the following potential liabilities to the
District:
(a) Post-pemlit field inspection, monitoring and related fees authorized under
Minn. Stat. § 103D.345;
(b) The cost of maintaining and implementing protective measures set forth in or
incorporated into the permit; and
(c) The cost of remedying damage resulting ITom permit noncompliance or for
which the permittee otherwise is responsible.
4. SURETY FORM AND CONDITIONS.
(a) The surety shall be in a form acceptable to the District and, if a commercial
surety, from a surety licensed and doing business in Minnesota.
(b) The surety shall be in favor of the District and conditioned upon the
applicant's performance of the activities authorized in the permit in compliance
with all applicable laws, including the District's Rules, the terms and conditions
of the permit and payment when due of any fees or other charges authorized by
law, including the District's rules. The surety shall state that in the event the
conditions of the surety are not met, the District may make a claim against it.
29
(c) The surety must be good for at least a one-year period and shall contain a
provision that it may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days prior written
notice to the District by the surety.
5. SURETY RELEASE.
(a) For a surety covering a single project, on written notification of project
completion, the District may inspect the project to determine if it is constructed in
accordance with the terms ofthe permit and District Rules. If the project is
completed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District Rules and there
is no outstanding balance of money owed to the District for the proj ect, including
but not limited to unpaid Rule J fees, the District will release the surety. If the
District has not inspected the project and made a determination of the project's
compliance with the above criteria within 45 days of District receipt of written
notification of project completion, the surety is deemed released.
(b) A surety covering more that one permit application will be released by the
District on written request of the principal if the conditions listed in either of the
following subdivisions are met:
(I) Pursuant to an inspection by the District of the final project covered by
the surety, the District determines that the project is completed in
accordance with the terms of the permit and District Rules and there is no
outstanding balance of money owed to the District for the proj ect,
including but not limited to unpaid Rule J fees. If the District has not
inspected the project and made a detemlination of the project's
compliance with the above criteria within forty-five days of District
receipt of written notification of final project completion, the surety is
deemed released.
(2) The applicant submits a new surety in a foml and amount satisfactory
to the District.
RULE N
STORMW ATER MANAGEMENT FOR Ll.ND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
1. POLICY. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to:
(a) Require stormwater facilities to be included in land development projects
where practicable and effective.
(b) Manage stomlwater and snowmelt runoff on a regional or subwatershed basis
throughout the District to:
(1) promote effective water quality treatment, where feasible, prior to
discharge to surface waterbodies and wetlands;
30
(2) limit developed peak rates of runoff into major surface water bodies to
less than or equal to existing peak rates; aaà
(3) promote infiltration of both precipitation and runoff; J!llil
(4) preserve ~roundwater recharge. flow patterns and quality to maintain
beneficial uses and the integrity of groundwater-supported surface water
resources and plant and animal communities.
2. APPLICABILITY OF STORMW A TER MANAGEMENT PERMIT
REQUIREMENTS.
As provided herein, before creating any impervious surface or changing the contours of a
parcel of land in a way that affects the direction, peak rate or water quality of storm flows
from the parcel, a developer of land for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional,
or public roadway, sidewalk or trail uses shall submit a stormwater management plan to
the District, and secure a permit from the District approving the plan. Any activity that
wi1\ divert storm flows out of the watershed must demonstrate that the diversion is not
ini~rious to waterresource management pUl:poses set forth in sections 103B.201 and
103D.201 of the Minnesota Statutes. All permit applications shall conform to and be
reviewed in accordance with the provisions of Rule A of these rules. The plan shall
provide for compliance with the requirements of this rule for BMP's, rate control and
water quality control, as applicable. Where the activity subiect to this rule will or
reasonably may disturb competent bedrock or place an impervious stmcture in contact
with the surface of competent bedrock. the plan sball provide for preservaiion of
groundwater flows and quality. The applicability of the stormwater management
requirements set forth in this rule to a given development or redevelopment is set forth at
paragraphs (a) through (e) of this section -and summarized in Figure I.
31
(a) Single-Family Homes. A permit is not required for the construction or
reconstruction of a single-family home or its residential appurtenances.
FIGURE 1. SUMMARY OF STORMWATER MAtlAGfMENT
PERMlnING AND REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
011 THE BASIS OF DEVELOPMENT TYPE AIW DfftSITY
PROÆCT
REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
SINOlEFAMlLYtt::ItÆ NO PERNlT
CONSTRUCTk)N
SU3OMSIOt< NOÆ.,.". BMP'S RlI'JOFfRATE RlNOFF QUAu:rV
SHGle FAML Y CONTROl. BMP'S ANJ RATE
DENSlTV ::: 2lNTSlAC CONTROL,8MP'S
SUBDMSIOt< NO ÆRM" arolP'S RUNOff RUNOFF QUALITY AND
SNOLE F AMI!. V RATE RA IE CONTROL, BMP'S
DENSITY ~ 2LNTSlAC; CONTROL,
M...I..TI-LNT """"S
RESl)fNTIAl
DENSITY < 8 LNTSlAC
COMMERCLAL _S RlJ'oIOff RATE CONTROL. RUNOFF QUAliTY
NDUSTRtAt AND aMp'S AND RATE
NSnTUTIONAL; CONTROL, BMP'S
MIXED USE;
IwU...TI-LNT
RESIDfNTIAl
DENSITY", 8lN1TS/AC
ROADS, STREETS a. _S
HlGHI"VAYS
«1ACRENE'W
Nf'ERVIOUS Sl.RF ACe)
ROADS, STREETS 8. FUJOFF RATE RUNOfF QUALITY
HlGtfoNA YS CONTRa..., BMP'S AND R.A IE CONTROl.
(~1AŒENE\I'I¡' BMP'S
fo1PERVIOUS SLP.f .&.CE)
1121 21 31 'I 5 81 '01 151 2°1 >20
SITE ACREAGE
HOTE: Density calculation is based on lotal site area including dedicaled areas
(b) Single-Family, Developed or Redeveloped Subdivisions. A penn it is not
required from the MCWD for construction on less than two (2) acres with a
density of two (2) units or less per acre. A permit is required for residential
development or redevelopment of subdivisions with a density of two (2) units or
less per acre on sites of two (2) acres or more, as follows:
(I) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of two (2) acres or
more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required;
(2) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of eight (8) acres or
more but less than twenty (20) acres, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions
set forth in section 4 of this rule are required;
32
(3) For development or redevelopment of subdivisions of twenty (20)
acres or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in
section 3, the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and
the water quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required.
(c) Medium Density Residential Land Development. A permit is not required
for the development or redevelopment on a site ofless than two (2) acres of
residential subdivisions with single-family units at a density of more than two (2)
units per acre or multi-unit residential development or redevel()pment, at a density
ofless than eight (8) units per acre. A permit is required for development or
redevelopment on a site of two (2) acres or more ofresidential subdivisions with a
density of more than two (2) units per acre or multi-unit residential development
or redevelopment at a density of less than eight (8) units per acre, as follows:
(I) For development or redevelopment of two (2) acres or more but less
than five (5) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in
section 3 of this rule are required;
(2) For development or redevelopment of five (5) acres or more but less
than eight (8) acres, the best management practices provisions set forth in
section 3 and the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 of
this rule are required;
(3) For development or redevelopment of eight (8) acres or more, the best
management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water quantity
control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality provisions
set forth in section 5 of this rule are required.
,
(d) Commercial, Industrial;'or Institutional Development or Redevelopment;
Mixed Use; High Density Residential Development or Redevelopment. A permit
is required for commercial, industrial, institutional or mixed use development or
redevelopment, or for multi-unit residential development or redevelopment at a
density greater than or equal to eight (8) units per acre, as follows:
(I) For all development orredevelopment, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3 of this rule are required;
(2) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of one-half (1/2)
acre or more but less than eight (8) acres, the best management practices
provisions set forth in section 3 and the water quantity control provisions
set forth in section 4 of this rule are required;
(3) For development or redevelopment activities on sites of eight (8) acres
or more, the best management practices provisions set forth in section 3,
the water quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water
quality provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are required.
(e) Roads, Streets, Highways, Sidewalks, and Trails. A permit is not required
for the maintenance or improvement of a public or private road, street, highway,
33
sidewalk, trail or other linear way not otherwise regulated under paragraphs (a)
through (d), ifthe project does not result in a net increase in impervious surface.
A permit is required for a public or private road, street, highway, sidewalk, trail or
other linear way that results in a net increase in impervious surface area, as
follows:
(I) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface ofless
than one (I) acre, the best management practices in section 3 of this rule
will be required;
(2) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one
(1) acre or more, but the total project area is less than five (5) acres, the
best management practices provisions set forth in section 3 and the water
quantity control provisions set forth in section 4 are required to treat the
increase;
(3) For projects that result in a net increase in impervious surface of one
(I) acre ore more and the total project area is five (5) acres or more, the
best management practices provisions set forth in section 3, the water
quantity control provisions set forth in section 4, and the water quality
provisions set forth in section 5 of this rule are req uired to treat the
increase;
(4) Sidewalks and trails that do not exceed ten (10) feet in width and are
bordered by a pervious buffer of at least five feet on each side do.not
require a permit and are not included in any calculation of net increase in
impervious surface when part of a road or street project. The interruption
of pervious buffer by streets, driveways or other impervious surfaces
crossing a sidewalk or trail does not invalidate this exception provided that
these impervious surfaces do not exceed 25 percent of the area of the
required pervious buffer.
(f) Surety. A performance bond or other surety in a fornl satisfactory to the
District is required for all activity, including clearing, grading, and excavation,
that results in the disturbance of five (5) or more acres ofland. The District will
not require a performance bond or other type of surety from cities, townships,
municipal corporations, counties, the state or federal government, or agencies of
any of the aforementioned.
(g) Common Scheme of Development. In determining stormwater management
requirements under this section, development or redevelopment on adjacent sites
under common or related ownership shall be considered in the aggregate. The
requirements applicable to a development or redevelopment under this section
shall be determined with respect to all development that has occurred on the site,
or on adjacent sites under common or related ownership, since the date this rule
took effect.
34
.'.'
(h) Additional Development or Redevelopment on Developed Sites. When the
impervious area on a site is increased by 50 percent or more, the requirements
imposed by this rule will be determined with respect to the site in a pre-
development condition. When the impervious area on a site is increased by less
than 50 percent, the requirements imposed by this rule will be determined with
respect to only the additional impervious surface and site alteration proposed.
35
3. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES REQUIREMENTS.
BMPs consist of site design. structural and non-structural practices. BMPs must be
incorporated in all projects requiring a permit under this rule to limit creation of
impervious surface. increase on-site infiltration and peak flow control and limit pollutant
generation on and discharge ITom the site. BMP's-anà must be consistent with
specifications of the MPCA manual "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (revised
July 1991) and its future revisions. The Board in its discretion may allow GtIref BMPs
not addressed in the MPCA manual may Be alleweà on a demonstration of their
effectiveness or en an e¡c¡¡erÎmenlal Basis if their use will generate new and useful data or
information regarding fulli effectiveness eflile ¡¡raetiee. All applications for which
compliance only with BMP's is required shall delineate buildings and structures showing
that door and window openings are a minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water
elevation. The following table is a summary of the MPCA BMPs and their effectiveness
for removal of metals, phosphorus, nitrates, and suspended solids from storm water, and
for controlling rates and volumes of runoff.
BMP Type Effectiveness of Selected BMPs
Total Dissolved Total Runoff Runoff
Suspende
d
Metal Phos. Phos. Nitrates Solids Floatables Rate Volume
s Control Control
Structural
Infiltration (no high high high high High high yes yes
overflow)
Dry Detention mod. low low low Mod. outlet yes low
(24 hr) specific
Oil/grit separators mod. low no no Low yes no no
Skimmers no no no no No yes no no
Grass strip/swale mod. low low low Mod. low low low
Diversions no no no no Design no partial partial
specific
Non-structural
Wetlands yes yes* yes* yes* Yes yes yes partial
organic litter low yes yes yes Yes yes no no
management
Street sweeping yes yes yes ** Yes yes no no
fertilizer ** mod- mod-high ** No no no no
management high
catch basin low no no no Low*** no no no
cleaning
sub-grade
preparation
36
non-phos.
fertilizers
Temporary
Temporary silt yes yes no no Yes*** no no no
fence
Straw bales yes yes no no Yes*** no no no
Temporary yes yes design ** Yes outlet design low
sediment basin . specific specific specific
Rock entrance no no no no Yes no no no
pad
* Natural wetlands can also contribute nutrients ** No data to evaluate effectiveness
*** Small volumes only
4. CONTROL REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Development on a site shall not increase the peak rate of stonl1water runoff at
the downgradient site boundary from the rate that e¡eisteEl existing before the
proposed-development. The criterion shall be analyzed and met for runoff-
producing events of critical duration with return frequencies of I, 10 and 100
years in the subwatershed in which the site is located.
(b) Natural existing low areas will be used, where feasible, for detentión of runoff
to comply with rate control criteria. Reservoir routing procedures and critical
duration runoff events shall be used for design of detention areas and outlets.
(c) The proposed project shall not adversely affect water levels off the site during
or after construction. .
(d) Runoff tributary to the project must be accommodated in the analyses and
design of new stormwatermanagement facilities.
(e) The volume of runoff may not increase due to the project when the receiving
area of said runoff is landlocked and not capable of handling the increased
volume of runoff. In addition, the applicant shall either own or have proper rights
over the landlocked property to handle water from the development. Back-to-back
100-year runoff events will be used to analyze holding capacity and freeboard for
landlocked areas.
(I) All stormwater rate control facilities shall be located above the projected 100-
year flood elevation for the site and within drainage, utility andlor flowage
easements to provide access and to prevent future alteration or encroachment.
(g) Water quantity control methods and facilities used or constructed pursuant to
this rule shall be in conformance with approved Municipal Storm water
Management Plans. Outfall structures shall incorporate designs to minimize
erosion and scouring.
37
(h) New buildings and structures shall have door and window openings a
minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water elevation.
5. WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Facilities shaH be established on site to meet the water quality standards of this
section. Facilities, including wet detention ponds and other systems using BMP's
in addition to or in place ofponding, shall be designed for at least 50%,
pkes 3Rorus removal effieieftey. The i!f! 3lieant shaH \lse the PondNet model, or a
modol a¡J 3T13ved by the Board as ee¡HaHy a¡J 3lieaBle, to determiße removal
effieieney, using a 2.5" reinfall. to reduce phosphorus loading at the down gradient
site boundary by at least 50 percent on an annual average removal basis. The
applicant shall demonstrate that this requirement is met using a model and
methodology that is acce.ptable to the District. Total tributary drainage area shall
be used to calculate permanent pool volume. Pond outlets shall remove floatables
from runoff before discharge for a I year event. AH ponds must provide a ten (10)
foot safety bench at a slope no steeper than I OH: I V and two (2) feet of freeboard
above the 100 year pond level.
(b) Quality control facility outfaH structures shaH incorporate designs to minimize
erosion and scouring.
(c) New buildings and structures shall have door and window openings a
minimum of two feet above the 100 year high water elevation.
6. REQUIRED EXHIBITS (SUBMIT IN DUPLICATE).
(a) If the water quantity or water quality provisions set forth in sections 4 and 5 of
this rule apply to a proposed development, plans certified by a professional
engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and reflecting the following items
shall accompany the permit application (one set of plans must be full size; one set
must be reduced to a maximum size of I I" x 17"):
(I) Property lines and delineation ofIands under ownership of the
applicant.
(2) Delineation of the subwatershed contributing runoff from off-site and
proposed and existing subwatersheds on-site.
(3) Proposed and existing stormwater facilities location, alignment, and
elevation.
(4) Delineation of existing on-site wetland, marshes, shoreland, and/or
floodplain areas.
(5) Identification, description, permeability and approximate delineation
of site soils in both existing and proposed as-developed condition, for
applications proposing infiltration as a stormwater management practice.
38
(6) Existing and proposed normal, and 100 year water elevations on-site.
(7) Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two foot intervals,
related to NGVD, 1929 datum.
(8) Construction plans and specifications ofall proposed stormwater
management facilities.
(9) Stormwater runoff volume and rate analyses for the 1, 10 and 100 year
critical events, existing and proposed conditions.
(10) All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed
to design the proposed stomlwater management facilities.
(11) Documentation indicating conformance with an existing municipal
stormwater management plan. When a municipal plan does not exist,
documentation that the municipality has reviewed the project.
(1"2) Delineation of any flowage easements or other property interests
dedicated to stormwater management purposes, including, but not limited
to, county or judicial ditches.
(13) Documentation that the project has received a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit from the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) if required by the MPCA,
once available.
(b) A maintenance agreement shall be submitted for: stormwater treatment ponds,
outlet structures for such p¡;¡nds, culverts, outfall structures, and all other·
stormwater facilities. The rrÌ'aintenance agreement shall specify the methods,
schedule and responsible parties for maintenance and must include at a minimum,
the elements contained in the District's Maintenance Agreement Fom1. A
Maintenance Agreement Form will be provided to the applicant for use by the
applicant as a maintenance agreement or as guidance if the applicant desires to
draft a separate maintenance agreement. The maintenance agreement must be
filed ofrecord in the county recorder's office before any land-altering activity
occurs at the site.
(c) Geotechnical soil boring results if available.
7. EXCEPTIONS.
(a) ¡fthe District has approved a municipal stormwater management plan for a
municipality, or for a subwatershed within a municipality, the requirements of this
rule may be deemed satisfied upon showing of compliance by an individual
developer with the municipal plan.
(b) The peak flow requirement of this rule will be waived on a detem1Înation by
the Board of Managers that a downstream facility(ies) is in place or has been
39
·
ordered and the facility(ies) is designed with adequate capacity to limit the peak
runoff rate ITom the subwatershed under fully developed conditions. The peak
flow requirement of this rule may also be waived on a determination by the Board
of Managers that the time of concentration of the downstream receiving water
body is sufficiently long such that limiting the peak rate of runoff from the project
has either no practical effect or an adverse effect.
(c) The water quality requirement of this rule will be waived on a determination
by the Board of Managers that a downstream facility(ies) is in place or has been
ordered and the facility(ies) is designed to remove at least 50% of the total
phosphorus ITom runoff entering the facility from the subwatershed under fully
developed conditions.
(d) The requirement of paragraph 4(a) or paragraph 5(a) that peak flow or
storm water quality be managed on site will be waived 011 a determination by the
Board of Managers that meeting the requirement on site is infeasible; that an off-
site facility treating the runoff from the applicant's development or its equivalent
will allow the applicant to meet the requirement or provide equivalent
management; and that the applicant, before commencing any land-altering
activity, will hold the legal rights necessary for design, construction and long-
tenn operation and maintenance of the facility.
40
cc '. Co<.M c. \ \
----
May 5, 2000
RECEIVED.
MAY 1 '1 ZOOO
ciTY Of CHANHASSEN
Dear Members:
Thank you for your overwhelming support of our monthly programming. This year's Millennium
Series has contributed to a 10% increase in attendance. That exceeds all of our expectations. It also
requires us to make some procedural changes to better serve our members.
Pre-registration is a very important function for the orderly operation of our monthly programs. The
facilities used to host the programs require that we give them an accurate number of attendees in
advance of the program. When attendees arrive unannounced it creates a host of problems and causes a
last minute scramble to provide registration, additional hand-outs, nametags, seating, food, etc. This
often results in a delay for the program start and an inconvenience to all of you and the speakers.
There will now be a separate line for those who do not pre-register. People who do not pre-register
may be asked to wait to assure that there is adequate seating for those who are registered. We
-anticipate that this will allow for a more orderly flow of patrons as they arrive.
Due to our recent growth in program attendance it is important for us to remind everyone of our
Program Policies. These policies appear below and appear on the back of each monthly program.
They are for your benefit and without them we would not be able to present quality programs for
the current low price.
1. Any employee of a corporate member, or a public sector member, may attend at
the member rate.
2. Payment must be received by the start of each program.
3. Attendance at a program without a reservation will incur a $10 surcharge.
4. ·Pay at the Door" reservations made and not honored will incur a $10 surcharge
5. People attending without registrations may be asked to wait to assure adequate
seating for registered guests.
6. Luncheon cannot be guaranteed to latecomers once the speaker has
commenced.
7. Cancellations must be received 36 hours before the start of a program to receive credit.
8. While audience participation is an integral part of SLUe programs, we request
that questions be limited to the subject. Self-promotional speeches will not be
permitted.
On behalf of the Board of Directors and our staff we thank you for all your support. If you have any
questions or suggestions please contact Pat Arnst, the Executive Director, at 612-474-3302.
Terry M. Forbord
President
~f~
......
An Integl'lltlld,
FuU-Service Company
· Civilft SIrUCIUnII EngIneering
· Traffic Engineering
.. Transportation Planning
- .. Environmental Impact Anatysis
.. Lendscepe Architecture
· Site Planning
~ U,b8n De.ign It Planning
.. ConstruCtion Services
612.332.0421 phone
612.332.6180 fax
www.............
111 Thin! /we. So.. _350. MpIs. MN55401
- -- - -iiJe-w -Memhers - -
·
Borg1und, Doug
City 01 Howard Lake
PO Box 736
Howard Lake. MN 55349
1·320·543·3670 Fax: 1·320-543-3306
dtrl(."lUnl~/stalc ~crlt:)·
·
Conhaim. Roger
ConI/aim Associates ¡flC.
2566 West Lake of the ts1es Boulevard
Minneapolis, MN 55405
612·374·9454 Fax: 612·374·9407
rconhaim(1f conhaim.com
markclre!;C¡l.n:b
·
Cornejo, Daniel
Shoo Elliott Hendrickson Inc.
35:i5 Vadnais Center Drive #200
SI. Paul, MN 5511 0
651490-2182 Fax: 651·490-2150
land u...c consultanVpll.lnneT
·
Derus, B~b
City of St. Michad
3 t 50 Lander A,'cnue NE
51. Michael, MN 55376
763497·2041 Fax: 763-497-5306
city/county/state agellC)'
·
Gertgen, Larry
17/(! Ac:kerbel8 Group
3100 W Lake Street #100
Minneapolis, MN 55416
612-924-6480 Fax: 612-924-6499
1getTgen@ockerbet'1Jgroup.('Offl
realtor
·
Isaacs, .John
American Iron
2800 Pacific Street N
Minneapolis, MN 55411
612-529·9221 Fax: 612-529-2548
jdi(lIsaapp}:com
interested bus.ines.o;
.A....
·
Kessler, Wayne
CiI)' of SI. Micllael
3150 Lander Avenue NE
SI. Michael, MN 55376
763-497~2041 Fax: 763-497·5306
city/cÒL1nly/state agent')'
·
Laurent, Gery
Laurmt Builders Inc.
100 Fuller Street S #200
Shakopee, MN 55379
612·445-6745
612·445-9727
builder/de'\"eloper/contraclor
·
Odegard,Mlndy
American Iron
2800 Pacific Street N
Minneapolis. MN 55411
612·529·9221 Fax: 612-529·2S48
modegardW;scrupp)'.com
interested business
·
Parks,Daryl
American Iron
2800 Pacific Street N
MilUJeapolis, MN 55411
612-529·9221 Fax: 612·529-2548
dparks(iiscrapp)'.com
primte company
·
Patton, Don
D.R. Horton
3459 Washington Dñve #204
Eagan. MN 55122
651-256·7140 Fax: 651·454·0460
builder/developer/contractor
·
Poquette. Mary Louise
Poquclle Assodalf!S
10936 AbboU Lane
Mimeapolis, MN 55343,
612·938-0647 Fax: 612·938-0661
InlpoqueltC(!ìcompI1Senl{'.cOIn
bud u.~l" consultant'plaJuK'r
.
~.~\~
~lì .~r ~
Economic Development
Location Site Assistance
Energy Management
Programs and Services
Energy Rale Comparisons
Ken Stabler, Manager
Economic Development
NorthernSœresPow~Company
414 Nieollel Mall (RS-4)
Minneapolis, MN 55401
(612)330-5834
1-800·367-7414
·
Storm. Stuart 'Bud'
£vergN!efl LOlld Services Company
6110 Blue Circle Drive #140
Minnelonka, MN 55343
612·93()'3Ioo Fax: 612·935-0862_
euergreenlandservices@worldrlel,all,nel
land/right or way acquisition and relocation services
·
Welling, Chip
2157 Roblyn Avenue
Sl Paul.MN 55104
651-644-6856
interested part)'
Address Changes
::0
to
'C
¡¡¡
In
to
:>
-
.,
-
:C'
to
;;::
to
:3
IT
to
iiI
·
Dresel, Julie
City of t\'orth Brunell
6408 Elm Street
PO Box 910
North Branch, MN 55096
651·674·8113 Fax: 651·674·8262
cily/(.'OUntY/¡lalc agcilq.
·
Lockwood, Dennis
Cit}' of North Branch
6408 Elm Street
PO Box 910
North Branch,MN 55096
651-674-8113 Fax: 651-674·8262
city/countyISL:"\te agency
;;::
to
3
IT
to
iiI
IT
'<
1/1
'C
to
n
oj
;:;
'<
·
Monroe, Lisa
Cit)' of North 8IUflch
6408 Elm Street
PO Box 910
North Branch, MN 55096
651-674·8113 Fax: 651-674-8262
cìty/(.'ounl)'fstatcilscncy
·
Moasey, John
Cin' of ¡\iorth Branch
6408 Elm Street
PO Box 910
Nonh Branch, MN 5=>11.:16
651-674·8113 Fax: 651·674·8262
dty/coulIty!slale agellf.-')'
·
Rapp, CraIg
COl/mlctor Propert)' Developers Company
7100 Northland Circle # 1 08
Minneapolis, MN 55428
612-971-0477 x205 Fax: 612-971·0576
qJdc(fl,$cllCrertJ/'O.'$, corn
huilder/devt'loper/contmclor
·
Trudgeon, Patrick,
City of North Branch
6408 FJm Street
PO Box 910
North Branch, MN 55096
651·674·8113 Fax: 651·674·8262
diy/county/stale agcm.)'
ClTYOF
CHANHASSEN
690CnyCmttrDrivt, PO Bar 147
ChanbassL.. Min."ot. 55317
Phon,G12.937.1900
Gmeral Fax 612.937.5739
Enginming F/IX 612.937.9152
Publir Saftty F/IX 612.9342524
U'fb J/JUllV.cÎ,chflllhllSSffl.mn.us
.,.... ro' ,....... .
C.C1~\
~
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Scott Botcher, City Manager
FROM:
Sharmin AI-Jaff, Senior Planner
DATE:
May 16,2000
SUBJ:
Study of Area Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adults
On May 15, 2000, during a joint work session between the City Council and the
Senior Commission, the City Council requested a copy of the survey that was sent
to Chanhassen residents in 1990. Attached is a copy of the survey.
The City Council also asked about the availability of the Census 2000 data.
Attached is a timeline obtained from their web site at http://viww.census.gov.
Attachments
1. Survey of Area Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adults.
2. Census 2000 timeline.
April 30, 1990
Dear Chanhassen Area Resident:
The City of Chanhassen has experienced very rapid growth during the past
decade. This growth is expected well into the 21 st century. One of the effects of
these changes has been the growth in the number of people who are expected
to retire in this area. By the year 2000, we expect that more than 1500 people in
the area will be over the age of 65.
The City would like your help in planning for the future of our residents who will
retire or have already retired in the area. J.M. Research Associates, Inc. is
acting as a consultant to the City and has designed the enclosed survey. The
survey has been sent to the residents of Chanhassen who are pre-retirement or
retirement age. For the survey to be hetoful. it is important that everyone who
receives one respond.
The survey has several questions about the need for services for pre-retirement
and retirement age adults so that the City can be aware of what you think and
what you want. It will take you less than 10 minutes to complete. The time you
spend today in completing this survey will give us the the information we need
to plan for you and your neighbors. Services which are planned during 1990
will serve our community for many years to come.
Each of the questions on the survey is important and needs your answer. If any
one of the questions is too personal however, please omit your response. We
only want information you feel comfortable in sharing. All answers go directly to
the research firm and are confidential. The surveys are anonymous.
In addition to the survey, there is also a colored form which should be
completed. Please return the survey by May 21 in the enclosed postage paid
envelope. If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Sharmin
Al-Jaff in the City Planning Department.
We appreciate your help and advice. Thanks in advance for sharing your
perspective. The results of this study will be available from the Planning
Department at the City of Chanhassen.
Sincerely,
Mayor of Chanhassen's Name and Signature
PLEASE CHECK ALL THE BOXES BELOW WHICH APPLY TO YOU:
I ]
1 would be willing to participate in a group discussion of the needs of
retirement age adults for City sponsored services.
1 am interested in any new service options which might become available
in Chanhassen and the surrounding area which focus on pre-retirement
and retirement age adults. Please send me the information as it
becomes available. .
I ]
NAME:
STREET ADDRESS:
The City of Chanhassen
Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adult Study
April 3D, 1990
S_ What kinds ofhclp havc you givcn during thc past 12 months to community
organizations? Describe the type of help and the organization which you helped
briefly on the lincs below:
a.
TYPE OF HELP
NAME OF ORGANIZATION
b.
TYPE OF HELP
NAME OF ORGANIZATION
6. People also hclp others by doing such things as driving them to appointments,
bringing them groceries and so on. Please read through the list of helper tasks
below and CHECK ANY WHICH YOU HAVE PROVIDED
ANYWHERE IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS.
IN TIIEPAST 12 MONTIiS, HA VB YOU:
(1)_ Driven someone to an appointment
(2)_ Driven someone to church
(3)_ Driven/taken someone shopping
(4)_ Driven/taken someone to the doctor
(5) Brought someone a meal
(11)_ Havc donc NONE of the above
7. Thinking of the help you give both to other people and to community organizations,
on the average, about how many hours do you spend doing these activities in your
cornmunity each month?,
(6)_ Brought someone groceries
(7)_ Helped someone with housework
(8)_ Helped someone with yardwork
(9)_ Visited someone unable to get out
(10)_ Other (Please explain
)
Write in the number of hours per month on the average
TRANSPORTATION
8_ During the past 12 months, which of the following methods of transportation have
you used? CHECK ALL TIIAT APPLY.
(1 \ ~......_ ... ........ 1-.... ..................11'
The C1ty of Chanhassen
Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adult Study
April 30, 1990
10. DO YOU KNOW which of the following transportation agencies offers
services to Chanhassen and the surrounding area? CHECK ALL THAT YOU
KNOW OFFER SERVICES TO CHANHASSEN.
(1)_ Southwest Metro Transit
(2)_ Carver Area Rural Transportation (c. ART.)
(3) Southshores Senior Center Van
(6) I don't know which agencies operate in Chanhassen.
(4)_ MetroMobility
(5)_ Dial-A-Ride
THE KINDS OF HELP YOU NEED FOR YOURSELF
11. The following questions ask you about the kind of help you might need and get
around the house on a REGULAR BASIS. For each one of the activities on the
list, explain whether you DO IT YOURSELF without help ALL OF THE TIME or
if you get help SOME OF THE TIME. If you do get help, state whether the helper
is a friend or family member, or someone who is hired to help you. INDICATE
YOUR ANSWER BY CIRCLING THE NUMBER IN THE APPROPRIATE
COL~.
ARE YOU ABLE TO DO THESE TASKS WITHOUT HELP?
YES NO NO
DO IT MYSELF FRIENDS/F AMIL Y HIRE HELP .
ALL THE TIME HELP
a. Shop for groceries 1 2 3
b. Light housework such as doing
dishes or straightening up I 2 3
c. Heavy housework such as
washing floors or windows I 2 3
d. Drive yourself to appointments
and shopping 1 2 3
e. Handle your own money and
legal affairs 1 2 3
f. Prepare your own meals I 2 3
g. 010res such as home repair and
yardwork 1 2 3
SENIOR CENTER/COMMUNITY CENTER
12. To the best of your knowledge, does the City of Chanhassen currently have its own
senior center or a club especially for retirement age adults?
(I)
(2)
(3)
Yes, both a center and a club
Yes, only a center
Yes, only a club
(4)_ No, neither a center
nor a club
(5)_ I don't know
3
The City of Chanhassen
Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adult Study
April 3D, 1990
13. During the next year, the City Council is likely to be discussing the need for a City
Community Center in Chanhassen. Community Centers can provide space and
staff to support many community activities. In general, do you think community
centers are a useful addition to a City?
(1)
Yes
(2)_ No
14. If the City of Chanhassen should decide to build a CommulÛty Center which
offered a wide range of activities and services to the citizens of the area, HOW
LIKELY ARE YOU to visit the Community Center at least once to see what
services and activities it had to offer?
(1)_ Very likely
(2) Somewhat likely
(3)_ Somewhat unlikely
(4)_ Very unlikely
15. Some Community Centers also include a Senior Center, providing space and staff
for special programs dedicated to retirement age adults. If the City were to
construct the Community Center, would you support including a Senior
Center?
(1)
Yes
(2)_ No
16. Many cornmunity centers include a dilÛng room space which can also- be used to
serve a hot meal to senior adults on a regular basis. If good quality meals were
made available toselÛor adults at a reasonable cost in a center or another centrally
located space, how likely would you be to come ONE TIME to test out the dilÛng
. ? -
Serv1CC.
(1)
(2)
Very likely
Somewhat likely
(3)_ Somewhat unlikely
(4)_ Very unlikely
17. If a Community Center were constructed, what would be two services or activities
which YOU PERSONALLY would like to see offered to retirement age adults at the
Center? PLEASE WRITE LEGffiL Y BELOW.
a.
b.
18. If a Cornmunity Center were built which included a Center for Retirement Age
Adults, what type of Center operation would you personally support? SELECT
ONLY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS.
A Center which bad planned activities, coordinated by full-time
staff who were specially trained, governed by a Center Council.
A Center which consisted of a dedicated space where seniors
could come to do various activities as they chose.
A combination of numbers 2 and 3
(1)
(2)
(3)
4
The City of Chanhassen
Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adult Study
April 30, 1990
LOCATING SERVICE INFORMATION
19. Hyou wanted to locate information on services offered to retirement age adults in
Chanhassen or the sUlTOunding area, either for yourself or for a friend or family
member, where would you call to get this information?
PLEASE WRITE YOUR ANSWER LEGffiLY.
HOUSING
20. Currently, there are no special retirement housing or apartment developments in
Chanhassen. Do you think that the City should look into the needs and interests of
retirement age adults in this type of housing for Chanhassen?
(I) Yes
(2) No
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
2L What year were you born?
WRITE IN YEAR
22. Including yourself, how many people are in your household?
Write in number of persons living in household
23. What is your gender?
(I) Female
(2) Male
24. What is your present marital status?
(1) Married
(2) Widowed
(3) Single (never married)
(4) Divorced
(5) Separated
25. Do you have any living children?
(1)
Yes
(2)
No (SKIP OVER TO QUESTION 26)
a. How many of your children live within 30 minutes by car?
b. About how often do you see one or more of your children?
I see my child(ren) about
5
The CIty of Chanhassen
Pre-Retirement and Retirement Age Adult Study
April 30. 1990
c. About how often do you talk on the phone with one or more of your
children?
I talk on the phone with my child(ren) about
26. What is your employment status?
(1) Ernployed full time
(2) Employed part time
(3) Retired
(4) Homemaker
(5) Temporarily not employed
27. What was the approximate income for your entire household before taxes in 1989?
(1) . Less than $5000 per year
(2) Between $5-9,999 per year
(3) Between $10-14,999 per year
(4) Between $15-19,999 per year
(5) Between $20-24,999 per year
(6) Between $25-29,999 per year .
(7) Between $30-39,999 per year
(8) Between $40-49,999 per year
(5) More titan $50,000 per year
28. Would you agree or disagree with the following statement:
My present income is ad¿quate to pay for my basic needs as well as my leisure and
recreational activities?
(1) Strongly agree
(2) Agree
(3) Disagree
(4) Strongly disagree
29. In which Olanhassen recycling zone do you live?
(1)
(2)
(3)
Zonc# 1 (West side of Lotus Lake. North of Highway 5 and
East of Powers Boulevard (County Road 17.)
Zone #2 (North side of Highway 5, West of Powers Boulevard)
Zone #3 (East side of Lotus Lake, North of Highway 5.
Includes area North of Lake Lucy Road and East of Powers
Blvd.)
Zone #4 (South of Highway 5.)
(4)
30. What is your zip code: _____
6
Census 2000, Frequently Asked Questions
Page I of I
P. What are some of the important milestone dates for conducting the census?
I IMPORTANT MILESTONES 1
START FINISH I EVENT II DESCRIPTION I
DATE
DATE
r- rmro' Mail Delivery The mail delivery strategy includes an advance letter,
questionnaire mailout, and a reminder card for nonrespondents
(the reminder card is sent to all on the mailing out list .. as a thank
you card to those that have responded and to those who have not
yet responded).
l3ßroo rroo I Update/Leave This is conducted in areas with predominately non·city-style
addresses. Census workers will deliver the questionnaires to
housing units and at the same time update their list of addresses of
the units in their assignment area.
1 ß1~ 11~ roo I List/Enumeration Enumerators will visit each household in very remote or very
(Including Alaska) sparsely populated areas (e.g. remote Alaska). Census maps will
be updated, interviews conducted, and each address/location will
be listed.
r rroo I Telephone A toll-free telephone service will be provided by a commercial
Questionnaire phone center to provide respondents assistance completing their
Assistance (TQA) Census 2000 questionnaires. Assistance will be available in
several languages.
14127/00 117/7/00 I Nonresponse Enumerators begin follow-up on addresses for which we have not
Followup (NRFU) received a completed questionnaire.
17mroo rsroo I Coverage The purpose of this operation is to improve coverage of persons in
Improvement housing units potentially classified in error during NRFU. Census
Followup staff will re-visit these addresses, detennine the status of the
address as of Census Day.
13/7/00 118/24/00 IIData Capture I The operation to convert the responses on the census
questionnaires into computer processed data.
112/31/00 1112/31/001 Delivery of By legal mandate, apportionment data will be delivered to the
Apportionment Data President of the United States.
12112/01 113/31/01 IIRedistricting Data 1 Complete the release of redistricting data to the states.
http://~.census.gov/dmd/www/genfaq.htm
5/16/2000
Census 2000, Frequently Asked Questions
Page I of 1
IV. Census 2000 Data
A. When will data from the census be available?
For data products required by law [Title 13, United States Code], we will deliver the products on or
before the specified dates. These data products include delivery of the state population counts to the
President within nine months of Census Day (on or before December 31, 2000). These counts are
used to reapportion the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Under the Voting Rights Act, the Census B.ureau is required to provide the states with race and ethnic
data for small geographic areas to be used for the redistricting process specified in P.L. 94-171 by
April 1,2001. After discussing and consulting with stakeholders and advisors, including the
Department of Justice, the Census Bureau has decided to meet the needs of redistricting by providing
the sixty-three categories of race in combination with Hispanic/Latino categories tabulated for both
total population and people of eigteen years of age or over.
Other products will be released on a flow basis from June, 2001, through September, 2003.
http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/genfaq.htm
5/1612000
Office of the Superintendent
Beverly A. Stofferahn
11 Peavey Road
Chaska. Minnesota 55318
(952) 556·6110 Phone
(952) 556-6119 Fax
StofferahnB@chaska.k12.mn.us
.,- -
" r
<~ C.
, ,
,
.-
.~
0)··
------
School
District
m
May 15,2000
Dear District 112 Community Member,
1 hope this letter finds you enjoying this wonderful spring weather and planning new possibilities
for the summer! My purpose in writing is two-fold: I) to give you a brief progress report on
:lctivitio::: since Dist..~ct ! 12's Phnning Ccn:erenc~ on Saturd::.y. J:l.'1u2r}' 29; ar..d 2) to ~!;k for
your help in completmg the next phase of the planrJng process.
Since I wrote in February, we have been busy preparing the next steps in building an educational
plan to serve our communities for the next 15 - 20 years:
. Five key planning issues were aàopted by the School Board on May II. The key issues are
those that must be addressed for District 112 to be successful in achieving its vision and
mission. Participants in the January 29 Conference prioritized 48 issues from which the five
key issues were ultimately determined. These five issues (more information enclosed) will be
the focus of summer planning activities.
. Broader i:lput to clarify District!] 2's vision mId mission has been requested and received
frem more than 25 sta..'f and community gmups. In June, the School Board will approve
\'i3;0<1 and C1ission statements to guide devdopmcm of key issue action plans this summer.
Now, my request for your help. In July and August, District 112 will host a series of two -day
planning forums. Each forum will focus 011 one of the five key issues and involve staff and
community members in creating action plans for the next 15 -- 20 years. The forums will be
highly focused, fast-paced, and efficiently facilitated in order to accomplish this task. There are
several options for involvement. A portion of each forum will be open to any interested staff or
community member. Based on your expressed interest in staying involved after the January 29
conference, I invite you to add your perspective and voice to this summer's essential work. As in
January, our goal is to have balanced staff and community representation. Please help our
pr~par;;.tion by returning the enclosed interest ionn by Werinesday, May 14. Please rèel Îree to
contact Betsy Chase, Director of Planning & Organizational Improvement, who is responsible for
the planning process with your questions. Betsy can be reached by phone (556-6241) or e-mail
(chaseb@ chaska.kI2.nm.us)
Thank you again for your interest in making Distnct 112 the best it can be. I look forward to
seeing you this summer!
Sincerely,
~:£~
Superintendent of Schools
;~'1',.... ~
\·'::;~·r:F:';\'"r-;",
1 D 2000
",j¡ :,,'
Ie:,',
,:-:,·.)(;ti-·,:
Serving the communities of eastern Carver County through equal opportunity in employment and education.
PLANNING INTEREST FORM .
Get involved in shaping the future! . párents, teachers, students, administrators, suppò"t
_ staff & community memœrs oM;' needed to draft 15 - 20 year plàns in each of the Key Issue
Areas. Several oDtions for iny( l~m~nt.see schedule below to check interest· area & dates.
Name
Phone
_ I want to participate & have checked my interest area & availability below.
Key Issue: Managing Rapid Change & Growth
Tuesday, July 18: 1 - 8 p.m. and Wednesday, July 19: 8 a.m. - 5 p.m.
District Education Center, 11 Peawy Road, Chaska
_ Planning Tearn Member (Role: Actively listen, consider data/information, work
collaboratively to draft 15 - 20 year plan. Time commitment: 2 days)
_ Open Forum Participant (Role: Address planners regarding perceived needs, priorities,
solutions. Time commitment: 2 hours, late afternoon on first day)
_ Expert (Role: Share technical knowledge in this area by presenting data/information for
consideration of Planners. Time commitment: preparation & 2 hours on first day)
. Key Issue: Attract, Develop, Retain Quality Staff & Visionary Leaders
V{~dnësday, July 26: 1 - 8 p.m. and Thursday, July 27: 8 a.rn. - 5 p.m.
Disti'ict Education Center, 11 Peávey Road, Chaska
_Planning-Team Member-CRole: Actively listen, consider data/information, work
col1cìboratively to draft 15 - ¡W year plan. Time commitment: 2 days)
_ Open Forum Participant (Role: Address planners regarding perceived needs, priorities,
solutions. Time commitment: 2 hours, late afternoon on first day)
_ Expert (Role: Share technical knowledge in this area by presenting data/information for
consideration of Planners. Time commitment: preparation & 2 hours on first day)
Key issue~ Adequate Funding/Wise Use of Resources
Monclay, July 31: 1 - Sp.rn; and Tuesday; August 1: S a.m. - 5 p.rn.
District Education Center, 11 Peavey Road, Chaska
_ Planning Team Mernbe,: (Role: Actively listen, consider data/information, work
col1aboratively to draft 15 - 20 year plan. Time commitment: 2 days)
_ Open Forum Participant (Role: Address planners regarding perceived needs, priorities,
solutions. Time commitment: 2 hours, late afternoon on first day)
_ Expert (Role: Share technical knowledge in this area by presenting data/information for
consideration of Planners. Time commitment: preparation & 2 hours on first day)
(OVER)
2000 City Council Work Session Schedule
May 1, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.rn. · Debt Study presentation
Courtyard Conferenœ Room · Financial policy review
· Board of Review
· Telephone System Discussion
· Planning Commission (5) and Env. Com. (1)
Interviews & Discuss Appts.
· Be,'¡n review of municinal housing strategy
May 15, 2000 · 4:30 p.m. - Board of Review (continued)
5:30 p.rn. · Joint Meetings with Commissions:
Courtyard Conferena Room - 5:30: Senior Commission
- 6:15: Environmental Commission
- 7:00: Planning Commission
- 8:00: Park & Recreation Commission .
May 29, 2000 Memorial Day
5:30 p.rn.
Courh'ard Conferena Room
June 5, 2000 · Discussion Re: Proposal for Second Cable TV
5:30 p.rn. Company, Brian Grogan, Moss & Barnett (5:30 p.m.)
Courtyard COIifere¡lce Room · Lyman Road Amendment to Master Agreement
· Vehicle List
· Award of Bid, Lake Lucy Water Reservoir
Cleaning (special meeting)
· Miscellaneous Items
Monday, June 19, 2(J(J(} · Set budget targets for FY 20ot-Possibly 5: IS?
5:30 p.rn. · Audit Conference---5:30 p.m.
Courtyard COIiference Room · Review of PUDs/Zoning issues
· Review of Housing strategy
· Miscellaneous Items
July 3,2000, No work Session
5:30 p.rn.
Courtvard Conference Room
July 17, 2000 · Debt Study
5:30 p.rn. · Christmas Light Ordinance
Courtyard COIiferena Room · Highway 212, Disc. With MnDOT (1/2 hr)
· Miscellaneous Items
July 31,2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.rn.
Courtvard Conference Room
2000 City Council Work Session Schedule
August 7, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m.
Courtyard Conference Room
August 21,2000 · Highway 212, Disc. With MnDOT (I hr)
5:30 p.m. · Miscellaneous Items
Courtvard Conference Room
August 30, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m.
Courtvard Conference Room
September 4, 2000 Labor Day
5:30 p.m.
Courtyard Conference Room
September 18, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m.
Courtvard Conference Room
October 2, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
6:30 p.m. · Budget
Courli'ard COllferellce Room
October 16,2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m. · Budget
Courtvard Conferellce Room
October 30, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m. · Budget
Courtvard Conference Room
November 6, 2000 · . Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m. · Budget
Courtvard Conference Room
Monday, November 20, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m.. · Budget
Courtvard Conference Room
December 4, 2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m. · Probable budget hearing
Courtvard Conference Room
December 18,2000 · Miscellaneous Items
5:30 p.m.
Courtvard Conference Room
g:\user\bren\2000wo....essionsAoc
Items to schedule:
.
,~
j~
Office of County SherilT
Carver County Government Center
Justice Center
600 East Fourth Street
Chaska, Minnesota 55318-2190
CC', Cou""-(A.' \
"-
Bud Olson, SherilT
Emergency: 9 I I
Sheriff Admin: (612) 361-1212
Admin. Fax: (612) 361-1229
Dispatch: (612) 361-1231
(Non·Emcrgcncy)
ARVER
)UNTY
May 9, 2000
RECEIVED
MAY 1 5 2000
CITY OF CH.l.NH.l.SSEN
City of Chanhassen
Scott Botcher
690 City Center Dñve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: Liquor License Seminar
1 want to thank all of you that attended the first liquor license seminar presented by the Carver County
Sheriff's Office on May 4, 2000. I apologize to those that did not receive the invitation. We have planned
another liquor license seminar for Thursday, September 21" ftom 2:00 PM to 4:00 PM at the Victoria City
Hall, 795 I Rose Street.
During the discussion part of the meeting, a question was raised regarding the sale of non-alcoholic beer
and the legal requirements for this. I have spoken to County Attorney Mike Fahey, who has received
infonnation tTom the Minnesota Liquor Control Board, that anyone can sell or buy a non.alcoholic
beverage such as Q'Douls or Sharps ifless than Yz of 1% alcohol by volume is clearly printed on the
beverage container. I hope this will help you in conducting your business in your community.
I appreciate the comments and concerns you raised during this seminar. As I said at the meeting, it is my
intent to focus my efforts in the Jaw enforcement area on the young people that make attempts to come into
your businesses and use false or fictitious ID to purchase or consume alcoholic beverages. I will be
organizing the liquor license compliance checks in the next months and will have my staff out in the
communities by summer time. After completing our liquor compliance check, if in fact a sale occurred, I
will have the deputy return to the liquor establishment and identify the server at that time. A report will be
written and a fonnal complaint will be requested. Unless the occurrence is flagrant or requires an
immediate custody issue, I will be instructing our deputies to write a report and forward it to the County
Attorney for action. I will also be sending a notice to those liquor establishments that have passed their
compliance check.
I look forward to working with you in making our community a safe and strong place where everyone
enjoys the opportunity to fteely enjoy their beverage of choice.
lfyou have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate calling me at the Sheriff's Office.
_s~
~Ison
Sheriff
cc: Cityrrownship Admn.
Mayors
County Commissioners
Liquor License Holders
AfjìmwlÍI"{' A ClÙ)II.lE{jlw! OI/flOrltmit)' Employer
Pri1l1l't! (>11 10% Pn.'l:l-COJl\"JJl1l1'r RI'iT,~},'/1 PfJ1}Pr
tlay 15 Z8III 13:51:15 Via Fax
->
612 931 573'J lIcbtinistrator
Page IIlIl Of IIlIl
LMC
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103-2044
phone: (651) 281.1200 (800) 925-1122
Fax: (651) 281-1299 TDD (651) 281.1290
Web Site: http://www.1mnc.org
I."..;/_6o . œ.
0fW"--" .........
cc GVVlC' , I
...----
Special Monday FAX
IMPORTANT: Legislative Review Session Changes
Due to the delayed conclusion of the 2000 legislative session, we have cancelled the regional
legislative review sessions in Crookston and Chisholm that were scheduled for this Tuesday,
May 16 and Wednesday, May 17. If you pre-registered for either of these sessions, we will
send a refund in the near Mure. If you know of someone who is planning on attending, but has
not pre-registered, please let them know of the cancellation.
The regional sessions scheduled next week in Benson, Owatonna and S1.Paul are unaffected
by this change. They will be held as scheduled. If you would like to register for any of these
sessions, please see the registration form in the Cities Bulletin.
For those who planned on attended the Crookston and Chisholm sessions and for those who
were unable to attend any of the regional sessions, we will be conducting an identicallegisla-
tive review track at our Annual Conference in S1. Cloud in June. The S1. Cloud review is
scheduled for Wednesday, June 14 at 3: 15 p.m.
In addition to the 81. Cloud annual conference legislative review session, we will be preparing a
full review on new laws affecting cities for the May 31 Cities Bulletin.
Bills await governor's signature
The governor has until today to act on the vast array of bills passed by the House and Senate
during the marathon session held last Tuesday and Wednesday.
The legislature is scheduled to reconvene this Wednesday for what will undoubtedly be one of
the last days of the 2000 legislative session. After last Tuesday's session, the House and
Senate recessed until this Wednesday to potentially override vetoes and act on other unfin-
ished business.
Although the legislature will not likely adjourn on Wednesday, they cannot meet beyond next
Monday, which is the constitutional deadline for legislative adjournment.
We will provide an update on the outcome of today's bill signings or vetoes in this week's
edition of the Cities Bulletin.
C Office of County Sheriff
..". Carver County Government Center
. :,. Justice Center
, 600 East Fourth Street
. I Chaska. Minnesota 55318-2190
A.RVER
)UNTY
(C. 60"-'-"- \
----
.-
Bud Olson, Sheriff
Emergency: 911
Sheriff Admin: (612) 361-1212
Admin. Fax: (612) 361·1229
Dispatch: (612) 361-1231
(Non-Emcrgency)
May 10, 2000
RECEIVED
MAY 1 5 2000
CITY Of CHANHASSEN
Scott Botcher
690 City Center Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Scott:
With the number of retirements the Office of Sheriff has been experiencing lately, we
have had to "reshuffle the deck" and make a few promotions. We are very excited about
these promotional opportunities, yet know it will take time for people to "settle in" to
their new assigned responsibilities. If the first 15 months of my administration is any
indication of the future, I will have to ask for your patience and understanding while we
make these adjustments. I am blessed with a tremendous amount of talent in the Office. I
will be tapping it to find the new leaders for the next 10-15 years.
Your police contract is very important to my Office. I wish to carry on the great tradition
of Sheriff's Melchert, Schalow, Hendrickson and Wallin. To do that, I have started a
review process to help prepare all of us for the growth we are experiencing. Attached is a
chart I recently received from county planning. It is a representation of the explosive
growth Carver County has experienced in the past 10 years. What is significant is the
trend for continued high rates of new residents in our communities. This has had a
dramatic impact on our dispatch center and the deputies that serve your community. In
dispatched calls alone we have experienced a 255 % increase in calls since 1989. Does
this trend look like it will continue? It sure does.
My intention is to visit with all the county contract communities by the end of May. I am
preparing a report for our County Commission on our contracting. I want to make every
effort to keep our contracting affordable to you. Our challenge will be to define the
levels of service your cornmunity desires based upon the changing demands of your
community.
I know several of you have had times that you wanted to have a question answered. In
order to assist you, I have assigned Lt. Ralph Widmer the duties of responding to your
requests. Lt. Widmer can be reached at the Sheriff's Office Monday - Friday from 8:00
AM to 4:30 PM. After hours we have a duty supervisor, normally a sergeant, who can
answer your questions. I have asked Lt. Widmer to assign sergeants to each of our
contract communities. If you have not met your assigned sergeant, please give Lt.
Widmer a call and we will arrange a time for the sergeant to meet with you.
AjJìrmurin: Acrion/Etjiiuf Opportunity Empluyer
Ð..:..._.I ___ Iflr>! ,.~_.. /"_ _ n _. -' n
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to provide your community with police services. I
applaud your efforts at keeping the cost of your government services in mind while
considering your law enforcement needs. I have included a copy of a 1995 study
conducted by the City of Monticello addressing the issue of contract vs. local policing.
I look forward to the months ahead as we focus on the future in your community.
1]IY,
~on, Sheriff
BO:hn
ce: Mayors
Commissioners
rOLIC.E C:~/""
- I!/.:
, ·;"·P"'·
'.. ,",'11' "t;.J./ ;~:I :~:,
S+..,t"~ .'
~
.
A.1\¡'AL'YZING THE PROS A.1IID CONS OF A POLICE FORCE
THE MONTICELLO POLICE COMMISSION'S
COMPARISON STUDY OF COUNTY CONTRACTING
VS.
ESTABLISHING A LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENT
MARCH 1995
Members of the :\Ionticello Police Commission:
Warren Smith, Chairperson
James F1eming, Vice Chairperson
David Gerads, Secretary
Liz Desmarais, Assistant Secretary
Brian Stumpf, City Council Representative
The number one question asked of the Police Commission and the City Council
Tegarding public safety is "Why doesn't the City of Monticello have a local police
department?" The question is really comprised of two specific allegations:
Wouldn't we be better off with our own force from both a public safetv position
and an economic standooint? The factors of consideration in trying to answer
these implications are compleL In a major effort to fulfill our assignment to be an
advisory committee to the City Council, the Police Commission has undertaken a
comprehensive study of these issues to arrive at a determination.
CONTENTS
1. Brief historical background of the police contract.
2. Data from other cities and counties in Minnesota with comparable
demograpbics to Monticello.
3- Some practical, political, and philosophical considerations of police
protection.
4. Estimate of start-up and continuing costs in establishing a city police
department.
5. Conclusions.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
'þ~a :l ?
1. Brief historical backeTound of the police contract.
In early 1971, the Monticello Village Council began debating the possibility
of switching to a contract with the Wright County Sherifi's Department for
police coverage. Debate focused on four main considerations--cost,
equipment, coverage, and traffic control. The village had concerns about
controlling all four of these factors. Final approval for the county contract
came later in the year, and on October 1 the new system became operative.
The cost of operating the city police department was $28,000 (in 1970). The
new 1972 county contract was set at $20,400.
At the time of the change, Monticello employed a police chief and one
officer. They were "in uniform 17 hours per day...including the time it takes
them to complete paperwork" (Monticello Times, August 12, 1971). The
new county coverage gave Monticello 16-18 hours of patrol time in two
shifts. For the first full year (1972), the contract was for 5,840 hours.
Monticello was the third city to sign on with the County for police services.
The cities of Waverly and Cokato had begun contracts with the County in
1970.
The original county contract was renewed again January 1, 1972, and has
been continually renewed since then by succeeding City Councils.
CHART ON CO~TRACT HISTORY
Year Amount Hours
1972 $ 3.65 5,840
1976 6.00 6,504
1977 7.25 6,504
1978 9.00 6,504
1979 10.50 6,504
1980 11.50 6,504
1981 12.50 6,504
1982 13.25 6,504
1983 15.52 6,504
1984 16.50 6,905.
1985 17.00 6,905
1986 18.00 6,905
1987 18.50 6,905
1988 19.50 6,905
1989 19.75 6,905
1990 20.50 6,905
1991 23.50 7,321
1992 26.00 7,321
1993 28.50 9,176
1994 30.50 9,176
1995 32.00 9,176
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95 P~aø. ~
2. Data from other cities and counties in Minnesota with comparable
demoln"aphics to Monticello.
In order to look at the cost of rumring a city police department, the Police
Commission chose to study our two nearest neighbors (Buffalo and Big
Lake) and at least one other city of similar size (Waite Park). In addition,
we wanted to see how other similar county sheriff departments compared
costwise to the services offered by Wright County. For that we received
data from Anoka and Carver Counties. (Information was also received from
Sherburne County; but because Sherburne County only provides a contract
with one small city, it doesn't appear to offer much for comparison sake.)
The following charts present the information that was gathered. In the
categories that list itemized expenses, it was difficult to determine whether
"apples were being compared to apples." While the Police Commission spent
a great deal of time discussing the validity of specific expenses, it was
generally agreed that the bottom line "total expenditures" represents
reasonably accurate figures with which to make comparisons.
One particular line item was analyzed in detail, and that was whether fine
money has a significant impact on lowering actual net operating costs of a
police department. Right now, under the county contract, the City of
~!onticello gets no money from fines, nor does the City pay any expenses for
prosecution. In reviewing the information from other surrounding
co=unities, it appears that, generally speaking, the fine monies generated
are offset by the legal cost of prosecuting the offenses. For example, the
City of Buffalo estimates it will generate $26,500 in fine revenue, but it
expects to spend $20,000 in courtlprosecutionllegal costs. The net result is
not a large revenue source for the City of Buffalo ($6,500) in comparison to
. their overall budget. Likewise, the City of Waite Park expects to collect
$56,000 in fines but will spend $42,000 in legal fees.
Generally speaking, it does not appear that fine money by itself can be used
as a substantial source of revenue to offset operating cost because legal fees
absorb most of the revenue generated.
In analyzing the fine money that is currently being generated in the city of
Monticello that is returned to the County, we are averaging approximately
$25,000 in revenue. If this is an accurate reflection of what we could expect
with our own police department, then it also could be assumed our legal
expenses to obtain this revenue would likewise be $20,000 or more.
It should be noted that the annual police budgets for those communities
with their own departments do not include any costs for general
anm;n;stratíon by city ball.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
'P"'''''I'O A
When comparing contracting versus a city department, some other
"nonvisual" behind-the-scenes activities should be kept in mind, including:
a) investigators for difficult crimes
b) backup for emergencies
c) additional patrols for special events
d) anminio:tration and secretarial services
e) UDion grievances
f) DARE. <Drug Awareness Resistance Education)
g) Liability concerns .
h) tr",ining
This study makes its comparisons based upon the 9,176 patrol hours the
City of Monticello has in its current contract. The Police Commission
assumed that the City would want to continue operating with 9,176 hours of
patrol coverage. The above list points out that there are significant factors
involved in police services above and beyond patrol time. The result would
be that additional employees would be needed in order for a city police
department to maintain the current levels of services offered by the county
contract.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
'P........ =:
CITY OPERATED
POLICE DEPARTMENT
COST COMPARISON SUMMARIES
1994 Budget
Buffalo Bic Lake I I (con.,act)j
Waite Park. Monticello ¡
DIRECT EXPENDITURES
Estimated annual "patrol" hours 13,440 9,080 9.600 9.1761
1) Personnel @ 3O·5OIh1
a) Police chief. patrolmen. etc. $403.736 I
$182.600 $273.875 i 5279,868 :
(see emolovee breakdown below) i
I I
2) Benefits
a) Benefrts $75,114 $44,000 586.404
b) Clothine allowance $4,000 I $2.400 53.316 ! i
"' Other ·trainine $5.400 51.200 I 56.850 I ,
~, ,
I~) ! I
Equipmem I
r , ,
, i
¡ I !
aì New vehicie(s) and/er annual deorec. cost 531.250 I S9.0CO : !
b\ Gas. oil. maintenance
c) Insurance (vehicle &. general liability)
d) Other eeuio . radios. guns. radar. mise)
e) Office eeuip - comcuters, typewriters, etc.
) Patrol succlies
$17.000 !
534,411 I
I
52.350 I
$1150 ¡
511,000 i
525.000 I
56.500 I
I
I
516.750 :
!
53.300 ;
$23.000 '
I
I . i
i4) i I
OffieelEuilding Costs i ,
I I
a) Rem or building costs $7,220 I
I
b) Utilities, heat, phone I $2.000 I 52.600 I 55,9081
c) Succlies . cffice expense $15.250 I $5,100 $1 .600 I
r1\ Miscellaneous $21 .450 I $2 900 $6.480 I
5i courVProsecu1ionJLeoal~ $20.000 I $24.000 542.000 I
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $633,111 $314,520 $478,4831 $279,868
(does not ind
rlab. ins. costs)
POLSTODY: 3/17/95
(CQn~)
Buffalo Bla Lake Waite Park Monticello
REVENUES
1) Stale aid $36.000 $20.000 532.700 524.000
2) a) CouT1 fines 525,000 I 550.000 I 550.450
b) Parkino fines I $1.500 I 5500 I 56.360 I
3) Other - miscellaneous
a) Training costs reimbursement $2.500 52.300 I
b) Police reooT1s (copies) 55001 1 I I
c) Special police services $2.000 I I I I
d) Other. Dare Program revenue. etc. $15.000 I 54.500 ! I I
el Sale of orooertv I $2.000 I I 1 I
TOTAL REVENUES I $84,500 $75.000 I $24 000 ,
591,810,
I I I I
I
ANNUAL NET OPERATING COSTS (1994) $548,611 , $239,520 ¡ 5386,6731 $255,868 ,
I I (9176 hr, @ !
I
I 3O.S0Ihr) !
Mise DATA - NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Chief I 1 i 1 ! 1 I
Sergeant(s) . I , ; ! 1 i
Investicalorls) I 1 ¡ I I
Patrolmen - FT I 73/41 3' 41
Patrolmen - PT I I 2: I
Secretary(s) I 1 1/41 1 i 1 I
Reserve officerls\ uneaid 1 I 6!
Total FT Eoulvalent Deel Emolovees , 216+ reserveJ 7
POr.sTUDY: 3/17/95
COST COMPARISON OF CONTRACTED SERVICES
FOR POLICE PROTECTION
'1994
(24-HOUR DAILY COVERAGE)
Anoka Sherburne Carver Wright
Countv Countv County CountY
Hourly Cost $34/hr $24 $35.86/hr $30.50
.
Cities Serviced Ham Lake Zimmerman 11 Ccmmunities Monticello
E. Sethel only ... Township Albertville
Andover Examples: Clearwater
(1) Other Chanhassen Cokato
Chaska Deiano
Norwood Frankton
Young America Hanover I
Victoria Maple Lake
Watenown I Montrose I
Calogne I Ot5ego I
I
Hamburg I Rcckford
,
Mayer St. Michael I
Waconia I South Haven
I Lake TWD Waverlv I
NOTE: Aneka and Carver Counties may allew some of their c::;ntrac:
cities to keep seme of the fine dollar revenue. but prosecution ccs:s are also
the responsibility of the community.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
Page 5c
3. Some practical. political. and philosophical considerations of startinl!' a local
police department.
Citv--Practical considerations included start-up costs in organizing a new
department and budgeting; fOrming a committee to determine procedures in
establishing a new police department, as well as a departmental operating
manual; m,.¡"ing decisions on how large the local force would be; siting an
office; drafting an operating budget; purchasing equipment, cars, radios,
supplies, uniforms, etc.; setting police coverage, conducting background
checks, liability questions, and arranging for the prosecution process.
Countv-- These things are in place.
There are two significant political considerations to be addressed. The first
is, does having a local force improve public safety? Secondly, is having a
police chief directly answerable to the City Council more or less
advantageous to the community's benefit?
One primary political problem the Police Commission discussed at length
was whether or not public safety is improved because hometown officers are
f,.mi¡;,.r faces to local residents and business owners. Strange faces make
us wary; unfamiliar faces wearing police uniforms can make us
uncomfor..able. It goes without saying that familiarity adds a degree of
comfort. How imPOrtant is this to public safety? It seems to be a matter of
degrees. Cold and distant officers--no matter who they represent--put
people off. Overly-friendly deputies run the risk of becoming non-objective.
The major point in favor of having local police is that citizens feel that the
force is a part of the community, not an outsider entity that comes in to
enforce the laws. However, it should be noted that it is the ta.~ayers that
"0~"D." either of the two systems being discussed here--city or county.
On the subject of familiarity, Wright County Sheriff Donald Hozempa,
several years ago, responded directly to Monticello's concern by initializing a
policy that officers patrolling the streets of Monticello consider it a longer.
term position. Currently, the plan is to rotate deputies in and out of
Monticello on a regular, longer-term basis to have a sizable group of officers
familiar with the needs and geographies of the community.
If Monticello were to hire a new police chief and deputies, chances are good
that these people would come from outside of Monticello; hence, the point of
familiarity would be negated. Also, in any department, city or county, there
will always be turnover, as deputies (and officers) come and go. It's also
possible a city police department could become a "training ground" for
deputies that stay for a short while and then move on to bigger
departments. Another factor is growth. As a city's population base
increases, individual identities become less familiar. Rather than being
concerned that officers of the law are recognizable to local citizens, it is
more important that deputies on patrol are familiar with the city.
POLSTljDY: 3/17/95
P""p 6
One potential advantage that a local police force may generate is the ability
of the longer-term patrol officers to establish contacts and informants
within a community. Discussions with area police chiefs that the
commission surveyed indicated that they did find this to be beneficial in
their communities by allowing their patrolmen to obtain information for
helping and solving some crimes from informants. This is not to say this
isn't being accomplished through our current contracting arrangement;
however, it is perhaps more likely that a long-term informant type
relationship would be established with a local police department.
From a logistic standpoint, a local police department would provide our
citizens with easier access to files and records such as crime reports and
accident reports that are now obtainable only through the sheriffs office in
Buffalo. While the commission members have not received any complaints
regarding the current access to this information, it only stands to reason
that a local police station in Monticello would probably be more accessible
by our citizens than m..king a trip to the county courthouse.
Is it better to have a police chief directly answerable to the Council
Council...or an independent county sheriff in charge of enforcing the laws?
This is a subjective political question that cannot be answered with
statistics. It is possible that a police chief will try to keep a city council
happy with his or her performance by telling them things they want to
hear; hence, the risk of politics influencing justice. The county system
places police work beyond those particular politics; yet, there is no system
that elimin..tes politics completely. Under the present county system, the
City is not without a voice because the City is .paying the bill and, therefore,
has direct input into public safety matters. Indeed, the establishment of
this Police Commission was to create improved communication and broader
understanding between the County and the City. The track record of 24
years has been exemplary. There have been no major disagreements
between the City Council and the Sheriffs Department, and the County has
always responded to the City's needs, working together to forge solutions to
public safety problems.
4. Estimate of start-up and contincinl!' costs in establismnl!' a new citv police
department.
Beyond comparing operating costs of different systems, a significant factor
in analyzing whether it would be feasible to revert back to a city police
department is the start-up costs involved. Obvious items would include
purchasing automobiles, radios, radar equipment, guns, telephones,
computers, furniture, office eqcipment, and other normal supplies for the
department personnel. While much of this cost would be a one-time
expense, the amount would be substantial. It is estimated that the cost of
pur..h.."iT1g and eqcipping five patrol cars (which would be the bare
minimum of cars needed) would be well over $100,000.
POLSTUDY: 3/17/95
Page 7
Dispatching costs were not considered to be a start-up factor because under
current conditions, all dispatching is handled by the County for both City
departments and County contracts.
Another significant concern is space. The establishment of a local police
department would likely result in the City building or acquiring additional
space for the police department. Current government facilities would not
appear to have sufficient space for a police department. Either city hall
would need to be expanded, or a separate facility would have to be rented or
purchased. Although the cost is unknown, it would probably add hundreds
of thousands of dollars to the iDitial start-up cost if a facility was built for a
police department.
In adàition to start-up cost, it can be anticipated that annual operating
expenses will be comparable to a city the size of Waite Park, which would
add more than $100,000 to the present contract.
5. Conclusions.
No system employed by the City Council is gOÍ!:lg to eliminate crime, stop
speeding, and guarantee complete public safety. That's a fact of life. The
question before us is about degrees--when weighing the factors of cost and
effectiveness, what is the best system for the best price to fight c:dme,
monitor traffic, and ensure public safety in :'Ionticello? Upon ex"mining
and considering the information available to u.s, the ;yIonticello Police
Comznission makes the follo~ing statements:
1. The present system of contracting for police services 'With the Wright
County Sherifi's Department is clearly the most cost-effective means
available to the City of Monticello for pr-Q,iding public safety.
2. The hopes of the 19ï1 Village Council--t.hat s~itching from a local
police force to the county system would improve effectiveness and
lower overall costs--have been generally confirmed by the track record
of over two decades.
3. Not only is the county system a more cost-effective system for law
enforcement than a local police department, but Wright County's
rates are competitive when compared to similar neighboring county
systems.
4. At the present time, all things consider-ed, there are no compelling
reasons for the City of Monticello to consider establishing a local
police department.
POLSTù-rJY: 3/: 7.95
P"",.8
Population
~ ~
t-) ~ en CO 0 I\)
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
.....
CD
0>
0
.....
CD
-...¡
o·
.....
CD
CD
0
.....
CD
co
0
.....
co
0 (")
0 »
..... ::0
co
..... <
0 m
..... ::0
co
I\) (")
0 0
..... .....
co CO c:
w Ø) Z
0 0 -f
-< ..... N -<
Q) co 0
'" ~ I\) "tI
~ 0 0 0
..... "tI
co
(}1 c:
0 ï
..... »
co ::j
0>
0 0
..... Z
co
-...¡
0
.....
co
CD
0
.....
co
co
0
I\)
0
0
0
I\) "
0 .2.
..... <1>
0
0 ..
I\) D-
o
I\)
0
II m
;x¡ c
c: ~
ª- cr
'"
'"
Forecasting future growth in Carver County cannot be seen as predictions of wh;tt will happen; they are tools to use which
indicate what may happen based on assumptions of past trends, land availability, the regional economy, and regionalllocal
land use policies. The Metropolitan Council releases forecasts for future populations and households on an annual basis:
These forecasts, shown in Table 2-3, are the most reliable "official" forecasts available to the County. Based on current
County policy, most of the population growth will occur in the cities. with an estimated 43,000 additional persons by 2020.
Past projections for Carver County growth have shown that actual numbers can va¡y greatly, and the rate at which the County
grows wiU be largely dependent on the rate of development allowed by each the II cities.
TABLE 2-3 - POPULATION FORECASTS 1998-2020
CITIES 1998 2010 2020
CARVER 1,070 2,000 2,950
CHANHASSEN 17,38t 24,900 34,400
CHASKA 15,361 19,700 23,200
COLOGNE 809 1,100 1,350
HAMBURG 529 640 750
MAYER 530 710 860
NEW GERMANY 379 500 570
NORWOOD - YA 3,002 4,000 4,900
VICTORIA 3,792 5,450 7,750
WACONIA 5,309 8,150 12,401
WATERTOWN 2,704 3,550 4,500
CITIES TOTAL 50,866 70,700 93,631
TOWNSHIPS
BENTON 955 926 930
CAMDEN 1,020 990 970
CHASKA 190 220 250
DAHLGREN t,481 1,500 .< 1.550
HANCOCK 382 370 360
HOllYWOOD 1.160 1,200 1.200
LAKErOWN 2.453 2,394 2,397
SAN FRANCISCO 973 1,100 1,279
WACONIA 1,429 1,400 1,450
WATERTOWN 1,512 1,400 1,400
YOUNG AMERICA 937 941 965
TWP TOTAL 12,492 12,441 12,752
COUNTY 63,358 83,141 106,221
TOTAL
..-'..
"1euopMan Couru::11 July 1999; ûnIer County PlanninJ 1999
Mon
Mon
Mon
Mon
Weds
Weds
Thurs
Thurs
Fri
Fri
Sun
Sun
Sun
Sun
May8 1:44AM
May8 7:18AM
May 8 7:48 AM
May 8 3:17 PM
May 102:15 PM
May 106:31 PM
May 11 3:07 PM
May 11 10:55 PM
May 123:30 AM
May 129:02 AM
May 144:03 AM
May 147:40 AM
May 146:05 PM
May ]49:16 PM
CHANHASSEN FIRE DEPARTMENT
FIRE/RESCUE
WEEK OF MAY 8,-MAY 14,2000
Chan Fire Station
Excelsior Fire Dept.
Erie Avenue
Pleasant View Road
West 78th Street
Chan Fire Station
Highway 101
Mohawk Drive
Minnewashta Pkwy
Highway 5 & Dakota Avenue
West 78th Street
Bluff Creek & Pioneer Trail
Murray Hill Road
South Cedar Drive
Weather - stand by
Mutual Aid - house fire, cancelled
Smoke in the area
Medical- person fell
Medical- trouble breathing
Weather - stand by
Car accident - no injuries
Medical- trouble breathing
Medical- possible heart
Car accident with injuries
Fire in parking lot, cancelled enroute
Car accident - cancelled enroute
Fire alann - false alann, no fire
Medical- possible stroke
u~
(øu /^-f.A/ \
MONTHLY ACTIVITY
UPDATE
CARVER COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
April, 2000
GENERAL
Public Works Building Project - Highway Maintenance completed the removal
of tree stumps form the new Public Works building site near Cologne. A tub grinder
was brought to the site to chip the stumps. The chips will then be removed from
the site. The well on the site is also in the process of being sealed.
On April 5, the project building committee toured two public works facilities. Those
were the Hennepin County Medina facility and the City of Minneapolis facility.
Workers' Memoñal Day Ceremony - The Minnesota Department of
Transportation conducted a Workers' Memorial Day Ceremony on Friday,
April 28. The ceremony began at 1:30 p.m. and culminated with a moment
of silence at 2:00 pm. and the unveiling of a monument honoring Mn/DOT
employees whose lives were lost in work related accidents. The ceremony
was in front of the Mn/DOT building, 395 John Ireland Boulevard, St. Paul.
Carver County Public Works Department employees were encouraged to
participate in this ceremony by joining with other highway workers from
across the state in this moment of silence.
~
.
HIGHWAYS
Year 2000
CARVER COUNTY
ROAD RESTRICTIONS
Ended
April 21
2000 Bituminous Overlay Program - The road segments and work included in the program are:
» CP 00-18 MR - CR 18 (TH 41 to TH 101) - Major sheet-patching and gravel shoulder placement.
» CP 00-33 MR - CR 33 (TH 5 to South Umlts of New Germany) - Bituminous overlay. Eight-foot bituminous
shoulders to be constructed from 11i 5 to 400 feet north of Baylor Park entrance. Gravel shoulder placement.
» CP DO-33A MR - CR. 33 (South Umits to North Umits of New Germany) - Milling of existing surface with curb
to curb bituminous overlay.
» CP 00-117 MR - CR 117 (TH 5 to North County Une) - Thin bituminous overlay of most of the road segment.
Sheet patching north of Lake Lucy Road. Gravel shoulder placement.
» CP 00-135 MR - CR 135 (CR 33 to CR 32) - Bituminous overlay. Gravel shoulder placement.
The major items of work include the following:
» MiR Bituminous Surface
» Aggregate Shoulder, CI. 2
» Type 31 Wear Course Mixture
» Type 31 Level Course Mixture
13,441 Sq. Yds.
25,750 Ton
24,395 Ton
20,245 Ton
KËr:t~,!\!r:n
MAi' 1 22000
c¡¡ y ¡ ......
.., t ..r'i'ÍI'(r¡,-' '''::'\t:"~1
··\"hJt.:I\
I
-
The bid opening for the program was Apnl10. The bids received for the project work were:
· Wm. Mueller and Sons, Ine. Hamburg, MN.
· Valley Paving, Inc. Shakopee, MN.
· Hardrives, Ine. RogeJS. MN.
$1,180,245.50
$1,385,987.40
$1,700,818.65
The engineer's é.ti IIdÍI:: for the work was $1,226,416.50. The County Board on April 25 awarded a contract for the work
to Will. Mueller and Sons. Ine.
CR 10/Engler Boulevard west (CR 11 to Bavaria Road) - During the week of March 27, the contractor worked
on the subgrade excavation, backfilling, and embanlanent construction on the west end of the project east of existing
CR 10 as weather aDowed. Tree dearing was completed on a majority rJ the construction where dearing was necessary.
The rontractor intends to do nighttime hauling rJ the granular material needed for backfilling rJ muck excavation areas.
Approval rJ nlghttiTle work is subject to the City rJ Chaska's approval. During the week rJ April 3, the contractor installed
the box willert on the west end of the project. worked on the subgrade excavation, and repaired and reronnected some
of the b1e lines ålSturbed by the construction. During the week rJ April 10, the contractor continued with· the muck
excavation and granular backfill required east of the newly installed west culvert. During the week rJ April 17, the
contractor continued with the muck excavation and granular backfill required east of the newly installed west culvert.
Work during the week of April 24 induded completion rJ this muck excavation and the start of the muck excavation
required on the east end of the project.
Due to the increased construction activity of the County Road 11 project, Carver County is now using the services of
Bonestroo Consulting Engineers to complete the daily construction inspection on this project. Overall coordination of the
construction activities and contractor payments are still being handled by the County Engineering Office.
The land rommissioners appointed by the court for the right-of-way condemnations viewed the properties along this
project on March 10. County Engineering staff is staking the easement limits to provide infonnation for the land
conmissloners. The City of Chaska is the lead agency in the condemnation action. The City Attorney is coordinating the
scheduling of the land commissioners' hearings.
CR 10 (WatertDwn Luee Une Trail Bridge) - A meeting was held on March 15 with the consulting firm of SEH-RCM,
Inc., the City of Watertown, and County staff to diswss the replacement of the Luce Une Trail bridge and possible
alternatives to consider. A final agreement for design services will be developed with SEH-RCM. The agreement will
indude a project scope and alternatives that will be considered, along with a proposed schedule for project completion.
CR 10 (CR 11 to Waconla) - Approval of a professional service agreement with Horizons, Inc. to complete aerial
photography and topographic mapping rJ this project area was given on Apn1 3 by the County Board. This work is being
compíeteCì in anticipation of approval rJ the federai funding application that was submitted last winter.
CR 11 Phase Two (lake Bavaria to TH 5) -The contractor started work on the Church Pond and worked on the
pond as weather allowed. The project schedule induded storm sewer construction on 81" Street:, beginning the week
of April 10. A notice was sent to numerous property owners in Victoria updating them on the construction schedule as
it is presently proposed in Victoria.
On Apñll0, County Road 11 was closed to through traffic. A detour was put in place to direct traffic around Victoria via
11i 41 and 11i 5. Œ. 11 will be closed in Victoria from 82nd Street to 11i 5. 811t Street is also closed In Victoria. Once work
between 82nd Street and TH 5 is near completion, CR 11 from 86th Street to 82nd will be dosed. Through traffic on CR
_ 11 wiD be detoured until September 2000.
During the wee1<s of Apnl10, 17, and 24 the rontractor worked on pavement removal, subgrade correction, storm sewer
instaßation, and gravel base replacement on 81" Street. The gravel base on the project consists of salvaged bituminous
pavement. There is salvaged material stock-piled in the park area that came from a different project. The existing
bituminous pavement on the project is also being reclaimed for use.
2
CR 45 Minnesota River Bridge - A resolution approving payment d the final negotiated settlements was approved
at the March 28 County Board meeting. Once payments are issued, a right-of-way certificate no. 1 will be sent to
Mn/OOT. This certificate is a certification that land rights have been secured. Scott County has been working with
landowners d the Scott County properties impacted by this project and has secured most of the right-of-way. The
project schedule,. as identified in the Environmental Assessment. indudes a planned bid opening in August 2000.
Honywood Township (Tacoma Avenue Bridge) - A meeting was held on the project site with the Township and
landowners on April 19. The township has scheduled the right-of-way acquisition on their May 8 Township Board meeting
agenda. The final plans have been approved. Once right-d-way is acquired, the project can proceed with a bid letting.
A mid-August to September construction time is anticipated.
Guernsey Avenue (CR 140 to æ 10) - On April 11, the County Board and members d the Dahlgren Township Board
of Supervisors discussed the condition and the increasing use of Guernsey Avenue between CR 140 and CR 10. The
township is asking the County to consider assisting in the maintenance of the road. Usage of the road is increasing since
the reconstruction d Guernsey Avenue north d CR 10 was completed by the County. The segment d Guernsey Avenue
between CR 140 and CR 10 is functionally classified as a minor arterial and has been identified as a priority one
candidate for jurisdictional transfer from Laketown Township and Dahlgren Township to the County.
Crack Sealing by Contractor - Six bids were opened on April 13 for the sealing of cracks on various County roads.
The bids as opened were:
}> Astech Asphalt Surface St. Cloud $ 19,620.00
}> Daffinson, Inc. Green Bay $ 20,928.00
> M.J. Neisen Asphalt Arlington $ 25,288.00
}> Bargen Incorporated Mountain Lake $ 26,552.40
}> Bergman Companies Eau Oaire $ 27,468.00
}> Allied Blacktop Maple Grove $ 36,624.00
The County Board awarded the contract for the work to Astech Asphalt Surface on April 25.
Metroporltan Council Surface Transportation Program (STP) Funding - On April 12, the Metropolitan Council
approved funding for STP projects through 2004. The approved projects include:
}> Relocation ofTH 5 In the area 0' the Lake Waconla Regional Park
> Reconstruction 0' CR ZO between CR ZZ (Guernsey Avenue) and. the City 0' Waconla
'il'~I.jllill
...~rx..
rllll!1
:::~i
!~i¡¡
. projectS for funding
with Mn/DOT being a
co-applicant on the TH
5 project. The federal
funding amounts for
these two projects are
$4.0 million for TH 5
and $4.16 million for CR
10. These dollars will
be used to offset a
significant portion of
the actual construction
costs for the projects.
These dollars do not
offset engineering and
right-of-way costs.
~.,.:.:.".:
1999 Tl'llfflc AccIdent Information - Mn/OOT sent the 1999 traffic accident infonnation for county roads in Carver
County. This information is summarized below. AccIdent infonnatlon for the three previous years is listed for comparison.
Fatal Personal Injury Property Damage Total
Year Accidents Accidents Accidents Accidents
1999 5 90 161 256
1998 5 104 151 260
1997 6 98 175 279
1996 2 97 184 283
l.ac:al Purchasing Bill SIgned by Governor - On Apn14, the Governor signed AMCs local·government purchasing
bill. This bW was vetoed twice last year. The sealed-bid threshold for munidpalities of 2,500 or less population was
increased to $35,000 as stated; otheJWise (for larger munidpalities) the threshold is $50,000. The bill also clarifies County
authority to use credit cards and aDows for purchasing off the NACO contract without having to enter into a joint powers
agreement.
TH 5 (West Junction of CR 11) - In December of 1999, the County Engineer requested Mn/OOT to consider preparing
a signal justification report for the west intersection of CR 11 with TH 5. A letter has recently been received from
Mn/DOT stating that its review of the intersection indicates a signal is not justified at this time. Mn/DOrs review did
detennine that there are a number of potentially hazardous driveways near the intersection. Mn/DOT would be happy
to wort with the County and Oty and other interested parties in providing safer access to adjacent properties. Mn/DOT
will continue to monitor this intersection to determine if any action should be required in tl!e future.
Highway 101 (TH 5 North) Project - The Chanhassen CIty Council held a public hearing on April 10 to receive final
citizen input and to make a decision on a concept for the Highway 101 improvement project.
Two motions were passed by the City Council at the conclusion of the public hearing. City staff will put both IIIOtions
into resolution fonn to better convey the actions of the Council.
The first motion passed on a 3-to-2 vote. The general content of the motion was to have plans and specifications
prepared for the improvement of Highway 101. Some of the characteristics mentioned for Incorporation into the design
of the highway are understood to be: 1) a two-lane roadway, 2) a low impact trail along the west side of the roadway
north to Pleasant View Road, 3) correction of road subbase, 4) leveling of roadway peaks and valleys for better sight
distance, 5) addition of stonn sewer and ponding to address water quality concerns, 6) minimal impact on existing
vegetation and benns, and 7) a left turn lane for north bound traffic at Fox Hollow. The need for shoulders along the
highway was discussed at length, but provisions for shoulders were not incorporated into the motion as passed.
The second motion was about the trail. The motion passed unanimously. It directs staff to develop plans and
specifications for a temporary trail that could be constructed very soon. This construction may be done if an agreement
for the reconstruction of the highway does not seem imminent. Counal consensus was that the trail should be as dose
to the road surface as possible. A gravel-surfaced trail will be given consideration by the city.
PARKS
Seasonal Staffing (Gate Keepers, Park Maintenance) - Interviews for the seasonal positions began in April.
Positions are still available for gate keepers and park maintenance.
Metropolitan Regional Parks (legislation) - A constitutional amendment proposal to dedicate 3/16 of 1 percent
of the sales tax revenue for environmental purposes (including Metro. Regional Parks) was referred from the House Tax
4
Committee with no recommendation to the Ways and Means Committee. If passed, funding for Metro parks could be
$28.1 million. This compares to the $5.5 million currently being considered to fund Metropolitan Regional Parks.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park (Beach Parking Lot and Main Road) - Additional grading work was compleœd
around the par1dng lot and along the shoulder of the road. Riprap was also repositioned around culverts, and sections
of Qlrb that had cracks or gouges were removed. The smaU parking area next to the park activities building was added
to the pavement work. Also, Included In the work are the walkways leading from the building to both the small par1dng
lot to the north and the large par1dng lot to the south. Curb and gutter was installed in April.
Lake Mlnnewashta Regional Park (DNR fishing Pier) - The Parks Division has been notified that it has been
awarded a DNR Fishing Pier Grant. The fishing pier is planned to be located near the nature lot area east of Boat Ar:œss
#1 in Little Minnie. DNR staff worked with County Park staff in detennining the location for the fishing pier. The pier is
planned to be located at the nature lot area, out from the existing picnic grounds. Installation of the pier could take
place mid to late summer.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park (Park Activities Building) - The septic pump was installed for the building, and
electrical wiring from the pump to the building was also installed. Due to inconsistent colors, tile that had been installed
along the base of the men's and women's restroom walls was replaced. Park staff installed 16 pennanent and four
removable tables at the shelter. landscaping work is being done around the building.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park (Picnic Area #3) - Park staff installed pedestal style pialic tables under shelter
#3. The new style table is preferred because of the ease of cleaning around just one center pedestal base. Other
advantages to the permanently mounted tables include: reduction in moving tables back to the shelter areas after others
have moved them and staff know exactly the number of seats available.
Lake Minnewashta Regional Park (Dock Installation) - The first of two new docks has been received tor the park.
The dock that was received will be installed at Access #2. The dock that is to be installed at access #1 is on back order.
Lake Waœnla Regional Park (Request for Proposals) - Three proposals were received for design and engineering
services to create the development master plan for the park. The three proposals have been reviewed and a
recommendation forwarded to the County Board. An on-site meeting with regulatory agencies and the selected
consultant is planned for May 1. Officials from the County, DNR, SWCD, and City of Waconia will discuss issues as they
relate to the planned park. A kick-off infonnational meeting is also planned for the evening of May 11. This meeting will
¡ntonn those who have been involved and those who will be working on the design of the park, the planning process
to create the development master plan, and related roads and highway projects.
Baylor Regional Park (Park Maintenance) - Park staff have been working with contractors to repair walls, floor, and
replace fIXtures in the caretaker house bathroom. Staff have also installed new signposts and are wor1dng to finish
annual maintenance on mowers and other pieces of equipment.
Baylor Regional Park (Eagle Lake) - Park maintenance staff installed two docks that had been previously used at
lake Minnewashta Park. The docks are located on· the northeast side of the beach to help facilitate boating and fishing
activities. lake Minnewashta is scheduled for replacement docks that better serve the needs of that park.
SURVEYING and MAPPING
Personnel - We sought applicants for the Senior Survey Technician position. In addition to the newspaper
advertisement, notices were mailed to possible candidates throughout the upper mid-west and 10 universities with
surveying programs. The advertisement for the position was also posted on a national website listing services for
surveying and mapping personnel. Four candidates for the Senior Survey Technician position were interviewed on April
20. A second interview was conducted on April 25. Depending on the results of the second interview, a job offer may
be made in early May.
5
I.
.~.
...
~ ;
Plat Checking - Proposed plat submittals are steadily increasing as they always do in the Spring. Three additional plats
were received in ApriIJ .
> A 52-parcel residential plat along Highway 25 on the south side of Watertown.
> A 22-parcel residential plat in the Carver Bluffs area of the City of Carver. .
> A +parœl residential apartment plat along Powers Blvd. in Chanhassen.
To date, six plats have been submitted for checking In 2000. For the same time period in 1999, 11 plats had been
~~ .
Parœl Mapping - Young America Township parcel maps are currently being reviewed and transferred to the GIS. Very
little actua1 map development is taking place at this time due the lack of personnel.
Coordinate Control- Section comer coordinate values that were obtained last Fall are being reviewed for inclusion
in the published coordinate list. An updated list that covers the entire County should be available in May.
11;1-
.. .. .
: . . . .. . .
{ ..
-:::~:
_o:~ tt
ADMINISTRATION and ACCOUNTING
800 MHz Radio System - Carver County has held two recent meetings about the new 800 MHz radio system. The first
meeting was about the background and the training for the radio system. Public Works will have two or three employees
trained by Motorola. These employees will then train the rest of the department staff. The second meeting was about
fleet mapping. Public Works will have a separate fleet map from any other department. Fleet mapping is a layout (map)
of how Public Works will program its assigned channels. How Public Works assigns channel use affects the fleet map.
A more extensive fleet mapping meeting will be held from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on May 12.
Contributing: Jon Weller, Dave Randt, Bill Weckman, Francis Kerber, John Freemyer, Marty Walsh, Roger Gustafson
Roger Gustafson
6
CARVER COl.ffiY 1. S.
Fax:612-361-1582
May 11 '00 15:55
P.01/02
r
CC,
Press Ï{elease
Date: May It, 2000
Time: 1500 hours
Original
AGENCY:
SHERIFF:
CARVER COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
BUD OLSON
CLASSIFICATION:
Safe & Sober
TELEPHONE:
612-361-1212
Carver County Sheriff's Office, the Chaska Police Department and the Minnesota Safe &
Sober Program are currently concentrating their traffic enÍorcement efforts in several
areas, they are; Youth and Alcohol, Youth and Seatbelts and Aggressive Driving by all age
groups.
Each year, around prom and graduation time, several Minnesota youths are injured or
killed in traffic crashes directly related to these celebratioos. In 1998 nearly 26,000
Minnesota teenage drivers were involved in traffic crashes, 8,000 of those drivers were
injured or killed.
Nearly 1,500 teenage drivers were involved in traffic crashes after they had been drinking
Additionally 2,850 teenager drivers were arrested for having a blood alcohol concentration
over the legal limit of .1 0 BAC.
Teenagers use their seatbelts less than any other age group. Only 16 of the 89 teenagers
killed in 1998 were wearing their seatbelts; that's only 18%. If all teens wore their
seathelt, every time they drove or rode in a car, there would be 30 fewer teenagers killed in
Minnesota each year.
Teenagers are smart citizens. "Some of the teenagers think that it won't happen to them,
so they do not buckle up", says Sheriff Bud Olson. "Well there are hundreds of teenagers
who felt the same way - and now they are dead".
Aggressive driving is defined as speeding, illegal passing, tailgating and the improper use
ofJanguage and hand gestures. Sheriff Bud Olson knows that we all have the capabilities
of being an aggressive driver. All too often aggressive driving is the result of being in a
hurry. We can avoid becoming aggressive drivers by allowing ourselves pleoty of time to
reach our destinations.
o:R\ÆR CIJ.HTY L S.
Fax: 612-361-1582
May 11 '00 15:56
P.02/02
Sheriff Bud Olson, Chaska Police Chief, Scott Knight, anCI funding from the Minnesota
Safe & Sober Campaign will provide officers to work extra hours over the next several
weeks to identiiy aggressive drivers. Our enforcement effort will include all traffic law
violations with special emphasis on seatbclts and alcohol consumption by underage
drivers.
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
]IJCmttr Drivt, PO Box 147
".bass... JÆ..ðotll 55317
PhoIll612.937.1900
,noa] Fax 612.937.5739
-i.m;'¡g F/IX 612.937.9152
lie Saftty Fax 612934.2524
h wJJJUta.tlJ/111btwi'J1.mn.us
May 11, 2000
Mr. Rich Slagle
74 I I Fawn Hill Road
Chanhassen, MN 553 I 7
Dear Rich:
On Monday, May 8, the City Council acted to appoint incumbents Rod Franks and
David Moes to the Park and Recreation Commission. The City Council asked
that I express their sincere appreciation to you for your interest in serving the city.
They encourage you to apply again next spring. In many of these appointment
processes, it seems perseverance is the most rewarding quality.
Again, thank you for responding to our call for applications. I look forward to
hearing from you again!
Sincerely,
'~,,9
/H:-V
Todd Hoffman
Park and Recreation Director
--
TH:ns
c: Scòtt Botcher, City Manager
·/Mayor and City Council
Park and Recreation Commission
g:\parklth'olaglethku.doc
ClTYOF
CHANHASSEN
;WGryCmttr Drivt, PO Box 147
OUInlJt1JSllJ, Min1ltICJtll55317
Phon,6I2.937.1900
GeUlT41 Fn:c 612937.5739
EII~nttl;'lg Fn:c 612.937.9152
Public SaftIJ Fn:c612.934.2524
UH /J!11J1l!.ti.clullJbIJSSflLnlll.1ß
May 11,2000
Mr. Jim Perrone
7729 Coneflower Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Jim:
On Monday, May 8, the City Council acted to appoint incumbents Rod Franks and
David Moes to the Park and Recreation Commission. The City Council asked
that I express their sincere appreciation to you for your interest in serving the city.
They encourage you to apply again next spring. In many of these appointment
processes, it seems perseverance is the most rewarding quality.
Again, thank you for responding to our call for applications. ¡look forward to
hearing from you again!
Sincerely,
~
-"
Todd Hoffinan
Park and Recreation Director
TH:ns
c: Scott Botcher, City Manager
<Mayor and City Council
Park and Recreation Commission
g:\park\thIsJaglelhlcu.ckx:
Chanhassen Ubrary Quarterly Report
First Quarter 2000
TO: Melissa Brechon,
Chanhassen City Council,
Planning Commission
FROM: Kathy Perschmann
Branch Librarian
January 2000
Circulation- 8,739 items checked out
Library users- 4,715
February 2000
Circulation- 9,143 items checked out
Library users- 4,985
Year to date %:
Circulation 8%
Reference Questions 1 %
Ubrary users -1 %
March 2000
Circulation- 10,393 items checked out
Library users- 6,572
A. Public Services: Adult and Children
Internet use has averaged 5-6 per day. We continue to need a second Internet ter.
minal for the public, and a staff terminal for reference work.
Having the tax forms in the hall has affected OUT statistics, but we did not have
room for them any longer. The Oty graciously assisted us by providing a narrow ta.
ble and allowing us to use the small lobbyl hallway area.
COMMENTS: Customers have been asking for more videos, a bigger building,
more books, classics, bestsellers, books on CD. Patrons have expressed gratitude
for: helpful staff, good collection of books on tape, and valuellne.
NEW POLICIES: In January we began new policies- videotapes can now be
checked out for one week, and they have a $1.00 per day fine; and cards are now
frozen If the patron owes more than $10.00 in fines. The public have been happy
with the changes.
a.Public Contact:
We continue to proVide a great deal of help with school assignments, from
elementary level to High School: Holocaust, National MonumentS, countries,
holidays, historical fiction. These can be very time consuming. We continue to help
with medical researd1, consumer information, legal questions ( how much time are
employees guaranteed for breaks and lunch?), electronic commerce, starting a busi-
ness. and book dub research. It seems as if we spend more time on reference ques.
tlons the more resources we have: magazine databases, web databases, reference
books, the catalog.
nay 11 2ØØØ 18:4'3:89 Via Fax
-)
612 93? 5739 Scott Botcher
Page BBl Of BBl
'tr-}':'I c_; ,\\~'"
, r V . \' '!;
"- )L V j'
,. ,
cc:
(ø.JY\.e.A/
Association of
Metropolitan
Municipalities
THE DEADLINE TO MAKE RESERVATIONS FOR THE AMM
ANNUAL MEETING HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL MONDAY. MAY 151
DATE:
May 11,2000
TO:
AMM City Managers/Administrators
FROM:
AMM Staff
RE:
AMM Annual Meeting (May 18,2000)
This is just a reminder that Monday, May 15 is the lasrday to make reservations to attend
1he AMM's Annual Meeting on Thursday, May 18. If you plan to attend, please call Laurie
Jennings at (651)215-4000.
A social hour wiU begin the evening at 5:30 p.m., followed by dinner at 6:30 and the
business meeting at 7 :30. Rep, Ann Lenczewski wi1l be the keynote speaker. The annual
election of Board of DirectOrs will also be he]d.
All mayors, managers/administrators, councilmembers and staffare encouraged to attend
this important meeting. This is a great opportunity to mix and mingle with your metro peers!
\Í'"
145 University A venue West
Ssinl Paul, Minnesols 55103·2044
Telephone: (651) 215-4000
Fax: (651) 281·1299
E·mail: amm@amm145.org
CITY OF
CHANHASSEN
o City Cmttr Drivt, PO Box 147
],anhassm, Minnm!4 55317
Pho", 612.937.1900
Central Fax 612.937.5739
'ugi.ming F/IX 612.937.9152
.bli£ SafttJ F/IX612.934.2524
.líh www.å.ch4nhassm.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor
City Council
Scott A. Botcher, City Manager~
FROM:
DATE:
May 18, 2000
SUBJ:
Library Process
I have attempted to synthesize the varied process issues concerning the potential
library project into a single memo. As mentioned previously, I believe a staff
person should be appointed to coordinate the activities ofthe library project.
This staff person would serve as Chair of the Task Force charged with
supervising the library construction project. It is my thought that the Task Force
should be made up of a varied group of people, probably no more than 7- I 0
members. The membership of this Task Force shall be made up of a City staff
person; a member of the Park & Recreation Commission, Planning Commission,
and Senior Commission; a youth ITom perhaps both Districts 112 & 276; one
member of the Friends of the Library, with the balance of the membership being
made up of citizens not members of the aforementioned committees or
organizations. It is hoped that having representatives of these varied interests
ITom our community will give the Task Force the broad vision necessary to
successfully complete such a comprehensive project.
While the direction of the referendum for the library (a referendum is assumed
at this point) may ultimately be up to this Task Force, I assume that there will be
something along the lines of a "Vote Yes Committee" formed as a sub-
committee of this Task Force. This "Vote Yes Committee," in all probability,
will coalesce around fervent supporters of enhánced library services in
Chanhassen. Certainly, members of the Carver County Library Board, Friends
of the Library, and other library activists within the community will play a vital
role in the success of getting the word out and encouraging people to vote in
favor of the referendum. It should be clearly understood, however, that the
"V ote Yes Committee" is not a City Committee. There should be and will be, as
required by law, strict separation between municipal financial resources and
referendum resources. Mr. Knutson can give us additional information on this if
you desire.
This memo hopes to establish the structure I can envision for the direction of the
referendum endeavor. The task force may feel a need to create subcommittees
't City of Chanhassen. A mwin(T community with ckan /aka. oualitv schools. Il rhllrmin,t!numtfnlm. thrÙ';"f1 hUfinf'f_ftr. aM htttutiful bIl#rf. A ""tlt IJIAr, In /it", tIIf rJ. tlnd "//tV
Mayor & City Council
May 18, 2000
Page 2
focused on other areas such as publications, mail drops, flyers, signage, or other
topical areas as appropriate.
The next issue that I would like to discuss is the issue of the referendum and its
timing. Again, I am assuming that the Council will want to move ahead with thè
referendum. Practically, unless the City was to pursue a lease revenue option
for the construction of a library, a referendum is going to be required. I agree
with the idea that it is an appropriate question to place before the citizens, There
are really two ways that I see this referendum can be held. It can be held either
with the general election in November or as a special election at an independent
time. I would like to provide a brief analysis ofsome of the pros and cons of
both options.
First of all, let's consider the idea of having a special election strictly for the
referendum on the library. Generally, you'll find that school districts (primarily)
have referendums separate and independent ITom other elections. This is done
for several reasons. First, there is a belief amòng some that the referendum
message can get lost in the general election hubbub and campaign rhetoric prior
to a general election. There are others who believe that holding an election
separate and apart ITom a general election may increase the chances of a
referendum being successful as it tends to allow the core group of interested
people (generally supporters) to be voting exclusive ITom those in the
community who generally don't have a great deal of interest in the topic or
simply do not take the time to vote outside of generill elections. If one were to
assume that this election might be very close or if one has a referendum that
may be difficult to pass, institutions look more favorably upon holding a special
election in order to increase its chances of success.
-H:0lding the referendum as a special election instead of as part of a general
election costs additional money. It is estimated that the cost for a special
election would be in the neighborhood of $15,000-$20,000, while holding the
referendum as part of the general election will not beftee, its cost will be
extremely minimal. Additionally, citizens may question why a special election
is being held when there is a well publicized (given this is a presidential year)
general election coming up probably within the next month. If one held the
referendum during the general election in November it does give an additional
month for the "V ote Yes Committee" and the task force to perform their work.
This may become valuable given the timeITame we are attempting to work on.
If one considers the pros and cons of holding a referendum with the general
election, it certainly provides an opportunity for the question to be placed before
-..---- ------- ---------- ------
Mayor & City Council
May 18, 2000
Page 3
the largest and broadest segments of our electorate, which is a goal of any
referendum. When you have a well-attended general election, as will be this
year, you will place the question before a blended electorate; that is, the
individuals voting on the issue will not be solely those individuals motivated to
come out and vote on a special election day to show their support. A
referendum held during a general election may in fact give you a better indicator
as to the community's position on a specific question. Finally, as I mentioned
earlier, holding a referendum with the general election provides parties an
additional month to get the word out about the library.
I have included a rough timeline for you to review in your packet (I tried to do
this on PowerPoint, to no avail). Please understand that the items indicated are
simply my thoughts and the timeframes upon which I have laid these issues are
also simply subjective. I take no pride in authorship. I started the time line at
June 1. 1 am assuming that the task force will be able to be chosen and seated
by June I. Department heads can work with their respective commissions to
solicit interested individuals for participation on this task force. Additionally,
with help ITom the Chanhassen Villager, we will solicit the community at large
for persons interested in working on the task force. It is hoped that they can
meet at or about June I under the direction of a yet to be identified staff person.
They would then schedule public meetings through the month ofJune in
conjunction with the help of a consultant to facilitate discussion and gather good
information ITom our community as to what it feels the needs are for a new
public library. I have allowed approximately two weeks for the compilation of
the data and the report back to the Council in mid-July.
At that point the Council can consider the data and give some firmer direction
through a consultant to develop a conceptual design and/or conceptual site plan
for the library itself. This conceptual plan will be important, as it will actually
give citizens something to look at that they are voting for. It is hoped that this
design could be compiled in 30 days. This design presentation to the Council
would then be scheduled for mid-August. It needs to be understood that this
conceptual design is not meant to be a detailed building plan review. Certainly,
there are a number of important issues to be discussed and they should not be
glossed over prior to the referendum. Assuming there is a consensus on the
Council accepting a conceptual design, the task force may want to begin
publications of signs, brochures, and other pieces of literature for marketing
purposes. I have identified the months of September and October as prime
campaign time which will utilize a large number of open houses, neighborhood
meetings, mail drops, door-to-door canvassing, and the like. Obviously I have
identified this time line assuming a general election referendum. Should the
Mayor & City Council
May 18. 2000
Page 4
Council wish to move ahead with a special election referendum, I believe you
could still do so, but it would simply eliminate the month of October for
canvassing purposes.
I have spent time discussing with Mr. Hoffman the ins and outs of the park and
trail referendum and have incorporated some of his thoughts into this memo. I
believe the Council is at the point this evening to commit to a referendum and its
timing, and commit to the establishment of this task force. This is a major
project and certainly there will be issues and questions that come up between
now and the fall. I would caution everyone involved in the process that this is a
very large and complicated process and it will take much hard work and a lot of
patience to get this idea actually constructed. I have long been on record of
supporting the construction of a new library in the City of Chanhassen and I do
support the referendum. It is my belief that a majority of citizens in Chanhassen
will do the same. Ultimately, they will have the final say, which is as it should
be. In the interim though we all need to work together remembering that this is
a city project and the City Council ultimately is in the position to make decisions
regarding this project. Thank you.
g:\user\scottb\library process) .doc
4
~
~
~
~
\
~
<r
.~
J.~
-{'~ \. ~
~ cI:.
4,~ì~':.\
~~$
... of
g~~
(%)~
~~
,) ~
~ _ J
':) ~~
ð ð~
-t .~ ~
>f'\
~ Jj
J@ ~
~
·
·
..
~~
.¡ Q
~~,J V'
<J 1fI~ II'
~ j~
ù ~ J ~
<>( õ ~
v .-r ~ -4;
&. ~-? ~
~.<}-) s'~
\/'~ 11'-
.;:~ 8
~g
·
~
~
'/
<:>
ç
V\
-f
.¡r'Ô
.i, û
-F..l
<.-1. V'
[~~ J~ t
~ -....J -ð
d
'-.J ,J
~ ~ k. ~
~ a-o
.( I \ \
()--
)
-
D
o
)
r
J
<:t.
r
)
('7
~
)
(j