7. Storm water utility district II _
7
II _
vil CITY OF
1 ir CHANHASSEN
I 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739
I MEMORANDUM ti'°k'�`°�� 'V�i7
Aiud.tie: _
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager ;
I I FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer/Director of Public Wore "' '"`"
Paul Krauss , Planning Director
1 DATE: September 19, 1990 '7- 2 - f 0
SUBJ: Adoption of Surface Water Utility District Ordinance
1 File No. PW207
1 On August 27 , 1990 , the City Council received public input at a
public hearing to consider the surface water utility ordinance.
Nine individuals as noted in the attached August 27 , 1990 minutes
1 presented public testimony on this matter. After close of the
public hearing and Council discussion the item was tabled for
staff to research a number of items. We would like to address
here the specific responses to the issues raised at the public
1 hearing testimony and also some closing thoughts concerning the
necessity and appropriateness of the utility district concept.
I "Double-Dipping"
At the last City Council meeting several developers indicated a
I concern that the surface water management fund represented a
"double-dip" on the part of the City . By this they inferred that
since, as developers, they were required to pay for the
installation of on-site storm water improvements that this should
I free them of a responsibility to pay into the fund. We believe
that this position is erroneous on several points . A direct
comparison can be made with sanitary sewer improvements .
1 Developers pay to install sanitary sewer lines on their site but
are also required to pay SAC charges to access the in-place City
and Metro systems . In addition , quarterly sewer and water bills
include an amount to cover maintenance of the systems.
IStorm water management is no different. The City must install
and maintain an overall network of pipes and ponds for the
1 developments to flow into. The City must also maintain the
improvements that are installed by the developer. The City also
has or will have the responsibility to maintain water quality and
1 protect wetlands. Once the development is completed, the
developer is generally out of the picture while the City is
- saddled with long-term maintenance expenses .
I
1 , .
7
i
CITY OF
I CHANHASSEN
I ,, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317
(612) 937-1900 • FAX (612) 937-5739 A
IMEMORANDUM 'r'`v-�-`�J Pc
TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager °- -2-- --_
.99
FROM: Gary Warren, City Engineer/Director of Public Wor ,
Paul Krauss , Planning Director
IDATE: September 19, 1990 2 — o
SUBJ: Adoption of Surface Water Utility District Ordinance
IFile No. PW207
I On August 27 , 1990 , the City Council received public input at a
public hearing to consider the surface water utility ordinance.
Nine individuals as noted in the attached August 27, 1990 minutes
I presented public testimony on this matter. After close of the
public hearing and Council discussion the item was tabled for
staff to research a number of items . We would like to address
here the specific responses to the issues raised at the public
I hearing testimony and also some closing thoughts concerning the
necessity and appropriateness of the utility district concept.
I "Double-Dipping"
At the last City Council meeting several developers indicated a
I concern that the surface water management fund represented a
"double-dip" on the part of the City. By this they inferred that
since, as developers , they were required to pay for the
installation of on-site storm water improvements that this should
I free them of a responsibility to pay into the fund. We believe
that this position is erroneous on several points. A direct
comparison can be made with sanitary sewer improvements .
I Developers pay to install sanitary sewer lines on their site but
are also required to pay SAC charges to access the in-place City
and Metro systems . In addition, quarterly sewer and water bills
include an amount to cover maintenance of the systems.
IStorm water management is no different. The City must install
and maintain an overall network of pipes and ponds for the
I developments to flow- into. The City must also maintain the
improvements that are installed by the developer. The City also
has or will have the responsibility to maintain water quality and
I protect wetlands . Once the development is completed, the
developer is generally out of the picture while the City is
• saddled with long-term maintenance expenses .
11
Don Ashworth I
September 19 , 1990
Page 2
We note that the City currently operates with a comparatively
small street department (four men) that is ill-equipped to
undertake significant maintenance of the storm sewer system. The
Council should be aware that the City will be unable to defer
needed and necessary storm system maintenance much longer and
that financial commitments may well be required for manpower and
new equipment to undertake these required tasks. Without having
the surface water management fund, these costs would need to come
ou£ of the general fund revenues which, as we are aware, is
currently in deficit or other existing programs cut back.
Lastly, the "double-dipping" argument does not confront the fact
that there are many benefits that accrue to all residents and
businesses in the City by the work that will be undertaken under
the surface water management program. What value can be placed
on having clean water for recreational use or wetlands that
provide valuable wildlife habitat? We believe that the City of
Chanhassen has an excellent track record in implementing
innovative and well-developed programs to protect our environment
and believe that this program represents a continuation of these
efforts . Without a meaningful commitment to maintain these
facilities the initial effort is for naught. As such, these
programs merit consideration and support by all residents of the
community and should not be looked at as a "double-dip".
User Fee Versus Tax '
The financial aspect of the surface water management fund needs
to be explored briefly. We believe that it falls under the
heading of user fees that will be utilized more and more in the
future to limit property tax increases and to make sure the costs
are accurately placed where they belong in a fair manner. At the
meeting , several speakers indicated a belief that this is just
another tax and implied that subtrafuge was being used to conceal
this. There is no question that this is an added albeit
generally nominal cost for a property owner. Funding could be
raised for the projects that would be undertaken with this
program using general tax revenues; however, this would of course
require either an increase in taxes or a significant decrease in
some other City service to provide the funds.
Farmland Issues
At the City Council meeting, a number of speakers were concerned
with the fact that they believed that requiring agricultural land
to pay into the utility fee was unfair. This belief appears to
stem from two factors. The first is that they are not hooked
into other City utility systems , the second being a belief that
agricultural land was "part of the solution" rather than part of
the problem.
.i
Don Ashworth
September 19, 1990
Page 3
As to the first question, the plan calls for all properties in
' the City to be charged to promote equity since water drains off
of all properties in the City and must be managed by the City.
As to the second question, there is evidence provided by the
' Metropolitan Council hydrologist (Attachment #10 ) which indicates
that agricultural land is sometimes in fact part of the problem.
Highly cultivated row crops often produce more erosion and
chemical and fertilizer runoff than singlefamily neighborhoods
developed at the densities Chanhassen experiences .
However, we do believe that there is a question of fairness
' involved in this and did contact a number of other communities to
find out how they managed the inclusion of farm and undeveloped
properties . Based upon this information, we have concluded that
' it would be more fair to drop the per acre standard that had been
originally proposed. We are currently proposing that
agricultural, rural residential and undeveloped properties be
charged one unit for each parcel which is $5 .18 per quarter.
I This represents a fairly nominal sum that is consistent with the
single-family standard. We believe that it will not have the
effect of placing any of our remaining resident farmers at a
financial disadvantage in terms of cost of production over any
neighboring community. When and if they develop, the property
would be re-evaluated to pay at the rate appropriate to its new
use.
' Coordination With Other Agencies
' Staff understood that several members of the Council were
concerned that there is a multitude of agencies that are
involved with water management, water quality and environmental
' protection. There is a fear voiced that the City in undertaking
these programs would be undertaking work that has either already
been completed by another agency or is under their administrative
responsibility . Staff took the opportunity to send copies of the
' Surface Water Management Utility Report to local watershed
districts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Service, Minnesota DNR,
Pollution Control Agency and the Metropolitan Council . We have
received written responses from several of them that are provided
as attachments to this report. The general tenor of these
responses is that the work effort is not redundant to their
' programs or responsibilities but rather is complimentary to it.
There was a general desire to see the City undertake these
efforts and a feeling that the City is ultimately the responsible
agency.
' In a related matter, City staff has been active in asking the
Metropolitan Council to create a multi-agency and multi-community
' task force to confront water quality issues . We took this
position to insure that as regulations and standards are
developed, Chanhassen 's interests can be represented in a fair
1,
Don Ashworth ,
September 19 , 1990
Page 4
manner. As a result, the Planning Director has been asked to sit
on a Technical Advisory Committee to represent local government
issues.
Involving the City Council in Expenditures Anticipated Under the
Surface Water Management Utility '
Members of the Council have expressed a concern that the utility
program as proposed represents a significant increase in the
City ' s work effort and that there is a desire to ensure that the
program not develop a "life of its own" that is outside the
control of the City Council . Staff understands this concern and
has responded by structuring the program so that each year 's
proposed expenditures are reviewed in detail and approved by the
City Council as part of the budgetary process . In this manner,
the City Council would be in a position to change the direction
of the program, scale the program back or even eliminate it
entirely if this is considered to be appropriate in the future.
In so doing, there will be no permanent creation of new
departments or responsibilities at City Hall . The work effort
being anticipated would be undertaken under the auspices of
existing City departments with the Public Works Director serving
as Director of the utility. '
By linking the annual expenditures into the budgetary process ,
the public will also have an opportunity to stay informed and
have input into the program. Staff is entirely comfortable with
the City Council being in the driver ' s seat on this program and
believes the annual scrutinizing of its goals, activities and
budget is appropriate and necessary to see that the program
addresses the purpose for which it is intended.
Goals of the District '
As a part of the mandated surface water management plan that the
City is required to accomplish under the Metropolitan Surface
Water Management Act (MS 473. 875 to 473. 883 ) , City goals will be
in detail hammered out. We have extracted the following
statement which we think accurately summarizes the overall goals
of the utility as follows:
° . . . to protect, preserve and use natural surface and ground
water storage and retention systems in order to (a) reduce to
the greatest practical extent the public capital expenditures
necessary to control excessive volumes and rates of runoff,
(b) protect and improve surface and ground water quality, (c)
prevent flooding and erosion from surface water flows, (d)
promote ground water recharge, (e) protect and enhance fish
and wildlife habitat (wetlands ) and water recreational
facilities, and (f) secure the other benefits associated with
the proper management of surface and ground water in the
.1
Don Ashworth
September 19 , 1990
' Page 5
City. Within this overall statement, the following
' individual goals are suggested:
1. Water, Quantity - Preserve and utilize natural storm
' water storage and detention systems to control excessive
volumes and rates of runoff , and flooding, and to
reduce, to the greatest practical, necessary public
capital expenditures.
' 2 . Water Quality - Improve and protect water quality and
those water bodies of the City designated for
' recreational activities.
3 . Erosion and Sediment Control - Prevent sediment and
erosion from surface water flows.
4 . Ground Water Protect the City ' s ground water resources
and promote ground water recharge .
5 . Wetland Protection - Improve the City ' s ability to
protect and preserve sensitive and environmentally
' important wetland areas.
6 . Recreation, Fish and Wildlife - Protect and enhance fish
and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities.
' 7 . Regulatory Responsibility - Coordinate the input from
the various regulatory agencies to provide a unified
' surface water management program with the City serving
as a primary responsibility for managing its water
resources .
' Water Quality Management Plan
The current proposal includes $72,000 for preparation of a water
' quality management plan and an additional $50,000 for water
quality monitoring and actual water quality improvements. In
order to be useful, this plan needs to be quite comprehensive in
' nature. Attachment #4 to this report is a copy of the index and
executive summary of the recently adopted water quality
management plan for the City of Eagan. The plan includes a
l layout of the drainage and ponding systems of the entire city
with respective classifications of each water body for water
quality purposes. It further goes into the management policies ,
a ranking system for the water bodies, an education program for
' the various sectors of the city such as residential , development
community and city staff as it relates to reducing phosphorus and
discusses alternatives and mitigative measures for developments
' not able to treat the increase of phosphorus generated by their
developments. The three-year program for the City of Eagan
addressing only the water quality aspects is estimated to cost
1.
Don Ashworth ,
September 19 , 1990
Page 6 ,
$1 . 2 million. The City of Eagan is approximately 1 .4 times the
size of the City of Chanhassen in surface area. '
A further desire was expressed to have a detailed work program
outlined prior to entering into the utility program.
Unfortunately, we are unable to do this for the simple reason
that the plan and studies being proposed must be completed before
we have an adequate understanding of what the problems are and
what needs to be done to resolve them.
If the City Council so desired, staff would be willing to
undertake these plans and studies in advance of proposing the
utility program; however, this would represent a significant
expenditure of funds which would be taken from the general fund.
Our work to date has identified approximately $310 ,000 in
expenditures for these efforts. It is our recommendation that
these programs be funded out of the storm water utility since we
are all familiar with the City' s current budgetary shortfalls .
The City Council should be aware that if the storm water utility
program fails to be approved, staff would propose funding of
these studies in upcoming departmental budgets.
The City Council should also be aware that the program outlined
in this report is partially discretionary but partially
mandatory. The $135 ,000 effort for the surface water management
plan ( 509 plan ) is a requirement of state law. Maintenance of
City storm water facilities and ponds is a requirement if the
system is to function properly. Water quality improvement
efforts which, at this point are not mandatory, are warranted
because they are environmentally sensitive and respond to growing
concerns for environmental protection.
Summary
In summary, we apologize for the length of this report. The
conclusion that staff is faced with is that the utility district
is the most direct and equitable concept for funding the surface
water management and water quality needs of the City now and into
the future. It is not intended nor will it pre-empt any of the
assessment policies of the City which exist to date as far as
storm sewer improvements and the allegations of the "double dip"
are totally erroneous in this regard. It is rather a tool to
fund the backlog and a mounting concern that necessary
maintenance of the system is being jeoparized. Further there are
pressing demands which continue to be placed on staff and the
Council for answers and solutions to water quality issues which
will require a significant amount of funds to address .
If the surface water utility is not established, the City will
still be faced with the need to fund its local surface water
management plan ( $135 ,000 ) and the water quality management plan
,
Don Ashworth
September 19 , 1990
Page 7
and monitoring program ($122 ,000 ) and wetland mapping ( $55 ,000 )
P g
which could mean either the need to sacrifice other programs or
' increase the general revenues of the City accordingly.
It is therefore our recommendation that the City Council adopt
' the attached ordinance amending Chapter 19 of the Chanhassen City
Code by adding an article establishing a surface water management
utility and further, adopt the attached City Policy for managing
' the Chanhassen surface water utility.
ktm
' Attachments: 1. Letter from Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek
Watershed District dated September 14 , 1990 .
2 . Letter from the U. S. Department of the Interior
' Fish and Wildlife Service dated September 11 ,
1990 .
3 . Letter from the Metropolitan Council dated
11 September 14, 1990 .
4 . Excerpt from the City of Eagan Water Quality
Management Plan.
5 . Estimated Five-Year Expenditures for the
Chanhassen Surface Water Management Utility.
6 . City Policy for Surface Water Utility.
7 . Ordinance Establishing Surface Water Management
' Utility.
8 . Minutes from the August 27 , 1990 public hearing.
9 . Letter from Metropolitan Council dated
September 18, 1990 .
10 . Generalized Impacts of Land Development on
Runoff Water Quality.
11 . Water Quality Awareness Week Proclamation .
c: Mark Lobermeier, SEH
1
E•�ff 0".•
Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District,.
a o
11. Engineering Advisor: Barr Engineering Co.
7803 Glenroy Road
Minneapolis,MN 55435
f d 830-0555
„f`'14 Legal Advisor: Popham,Haik, Schnobrich&Kaufman '`E{rE/V
3300 Piper Jaffrey Tower
Minneapolis,MN 55402 S 9
1 /990
90
CIT• OF 0..1 SS
September 14, 1990 E/y
Mr. Paul Krause
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Re: Storm Water Utility Fund ,
Dear Mr Krause:
In response to your correspondence of August 30, 1990, we have reviewed ' I
the information provided for the proposed City of Chanhassen Storm Water
Utility Fund. The City and the Watershed District share the same philosophy
and concerns dealing with storm water management, from both a quantity and
quality basis. However, the design criteria used for storm water management
systems are established by the municipalities.
Currently, the District reviews development plans in relationship to '
erosion control utilized during construction, setting of the minimum floor
elevations of structures in relationship to flood elevations and overall
impacts of urbanization on the water quality of the public waters of the
District. However, the City has established criteria for the design of the
interior drainage (storm sewer) systems and reviews the impacts of
urbanization on wetlands from the standpoint of water quality, wildlife
habitat and aesthetic values.
The District understands that the Utility Fund to be established by the
City would enable existing storm water systems to be upgraded, where
necessary, and be maintained to meet the current and proposed management
criteria of the City. The District's programs do provide for planning by the
establishment of flood elevations along the various reaches of the creek
system but do not include the setting of management elevations nor the
location or sizing of storm water systems in the upland areas. We do not
foresee an overlapping or a redundancy in the current programs of the
Watershed District in relationship to the proposed programs of the Utility
District.
1/417-4'44-
1
I
Mr. Paul Krause September 14, 1990 Page 2
' If you have any questions or request additional information, please give
us a call.
.cerely,
•
ale)
Ro,ert C. Obermeyer
; -rr Engineering Compan
Engineers for the District
RCO/pls
c: Board of Managers
Mr. Ray Haik
•
I
I
I
1
I
I
//NT Of =MOM= OE
United States Department of the Interior
PRIMPimmommil
AMERICA maimmi
mommomommoom
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ms
°"3 `e�� FEDERAL BUILDING, FORT SNELLING
TWIN CITIES,MINNESOTA 55111
IN REPLY REFER TO:
FWS/SPFO
SEP 111990
RECEIVED
Mr. Paul Krauss SEP 1 4
Director of Planning 1990 i
City of Chanhassen Li
690 Coulter Drive yr ` I1MNNHASSEN
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Dear Mr. Krauss:
This responds to your August 30, 1990, letter regarding the City of I
Chanhassen's proposed Storm Water Utility Fund. We have reviewed the final
report (City Project # PW207) and provide the following comments for your
consideration. I
In general, we found the proposed plan to be comprehensive, and we could
identify no overlap or redundancy with programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) or any other programs that we are familiar with within our
day-to-day operations. Indeed, we would expect that such a storm water
utility would provide the much-needed municipal participation with existing
federal, state, and regional programs.
For example, the Service's National Wetlands Inventory program has already
mapped and classified the surface water and wetland types in the City of
Chanhassen. However, the level of precision of this program needs to be
enhanced before it can be used to directly support a municipal wetlands (or
storm water) management ordnance. Further, the aerial photographs upon which
these maps are based were taken in 1981 and, thus, are somewhat out-of-date (a
new photo series is scheduled for 1991) . By conducting a wetlands
identification program, the City of Chanhassen can build upon this information
base, providing elevation contour and delineation by vegetation class. Once
completed, this information database will prove to be a valuable tool for both
storm water management purposes and urban planning.
We appreciate this opportunity to provide our comments on this project. If we
can be of further assistance, please contact us at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, St. Paul Field Office, 400 Sibley Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101,
or by telephone at (612) 290-3131.
Sincerely, •
•
- .� •
.401111. v-
Robert F. Welford
Field Supervisor
AAA 0 ° . Z
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359
September 14, 1990
' Paul Kraus
Director of Planning
' City of Chanhassen
690 Coultier Drive
P.O. Box 147
' Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Paul:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed storm water management program
for the city of Chanhassen. The city is to be commended for considering such a comprehensive
program. All elements mentioned will be important for providing long term protection and
management of city and regional water resources.
We offer the following information to assist Chanhassen in implementing this program and
' coordinating this effort with on-going activities involving the Metropolitan Council and other
agencies.
One of the program elements identified by the city involves the identification of wetlands. As you
probably know, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed a metropolitan-wide inventory of
all wetlands. The Minnesota Legislative Commission on Minnesota's Resources has
' recommended funding the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to digitize this information.
Some basic information may already be available. However, the city may require more detailed
information.
A second clement identified in the city's program involves water quality monitoring. The Council
has monitored lakes since 1980, including several in the city of Chanhassen. Coordinating our
' efforts may reduce the costs to the city, or allow for additional work without cost. Cooperative
monitoring efforts with the affected watershed management organizations could also reduce the
costs to the city.
' Chanhassen's program includes two of the most important elements of regional water resource
concerns: the development of surface water management and water quality plans. As you know,
the Council is particularly concerned with reducing nonpoint pollution in the Minnesota River by
' 40 percent by mid-1996, and protecting regional priority lakes, issues which directly affect
Chanhassen. We offer our cooperation in developing specific strategies for addressing these
issues. In the near future, the Council will be organizing a technical advisory group to work with
' our staff in addressing the Minnesota River nonpoint issue. We will be working with Chanhassen
via this organization.
' RECEIVED
SEP 17 1990
Arrmk. CM OF CHANHASSEN
- 3
'11- 4'-'77";:-r.g;' : '"1''..:,''.-2.-r,'.•".,'''---!.',-,-,,:J-._,':-;,..-,;-:'--,:;„--,-:.:1--._f-,---`1.k..:_*4.&f-i-r„:,;o ,-=1-:,A::"._'-.,.r.''7'_7,.•;-4..-'-.0',;' .--;,:t-=
- - --4, ' .
, „ _.4-:„'-.=.:.4.•**7.,,':,-_'_-_,;._1-:',.-,,;,-f.-,-.7-.:,-----,-,..-*--zV/s..6,-.4.:=-i-!i,.-...,.-4”-L7---.,----*-.,L'--"..1-".-;,E,--,-,,-,-•-:,-f---ki-;e 3r=.w',=_-;,-EAvt,:-,'.t-7?-s.•"-;,A-;-.;-.t.-.-;,:--"n._.-.,--,,.k,'-."%---_5.'t,-.'_.,:.,..-,.--"f-,',.%--.:-1 0--,;?*-,,,4:,.,,-.„--:",_..-:_--.1.-7.4.i7."...,--N-1-_--t-4-,.z,,-,=--.',,,-";:=:-.7.A':K--."-,,,:i,g 1+!:,„,-7Y,
.' .
-1...:_sc-4-.:- ..,-,.:-...-.--'-'M--.-'44;4.-,7,-.1.Wi;i:-:,;,16.40,%-;_'-14:4*-..-:,-41:4;!-II.;:n'i"-KI.r.,..f."0"...,7, -,-•7,`--::•.----.:,--,,Z,..,-,,,z, .,`,..-.!-'.-:"---', ..-- ,-.':-,,-.--. ''"'. •A. '.
_.7- ,L..,.,,-;_,.-..- . ... ..-,t, 4,".. ,v'...._- -'''f,..,_4,..-- ... ... ,,,,,,,-;-7-,.7.:,';,..V.,,*,i.-,:'':7".. .r7....-.." - " ...'n■ -•,,,. ..- ,,,..-.. ...'".••-.- ,.7., ",-‘1314c4s;‘.S.e...*".I.,1••:1; .4„.•,..-,
IT•t'.7!1.44:"'.;---"A-.,----' .2,1: -::::-- ,,_•-•----•i-',..:," --44,14,".-.•..T.-,...-,.4 .--?''''..".7..r.,i.---f ..--- .7.-'-:-:;; .-------4:--T:',.,."1.,-,7."",-.:14,,J:'*•..A",;-‘4.4":4-..i4z" - L-•,-.te,..:--,),-,-,Ko-rnterlt--4•,-.14.:!',.--2.:-A-•--_,::::,V.,-';-:,,,4‘;': ',''''''--'''-
;:,‘,.*Al'''-7':'n7. 7-,11'``7,--i-Ii_4"g_c -::- 4,1.4-i,,;.-4.T2*..,,A-ar.-,..,,-.-.,,V,F-!-- -'-',.:4--i--'4-.,z___.--,---.-Z,.-,-,,:-„•ze---',,:i-.;_,IA.,-."` ,k,--,!-rn.,:' ,"....e."..1:-.'-',---FAT.C.,-;..„.,.= -st;-' Tt-4.-4- F".45.--;'-f.i7,"^:1- s'-;
414K4_,
----- :.r..,„,--...---'t-.'7,7-.7= -:'..-.'-. -',.,...:-.:'•7,.....:4i,-'41.--,Z:&r:.7-....---,- -•:-..,-1`--' .'-'.24441s6a,,,,--'-...7,,V2:4.. ....t- ',1,:i&r.U7i>s=7-,.'=,-.-A'ti."- l'-'--,I.-• '".-'It:••■ '-7- - 'X"'''''''''•V'--•-•'-'<-.-;;'-' - '' •'
',;"` v-, ..•-."---`:-,",-.--,-;R.:2;•-‘--..1 .--F.Jar --,1r- •---',' ---1."'..- .-=''...,:-,':---,,,----11,•'•';'Jl''',,,,....--.Vi. .t? --.... ,,....;! ...,.......4.cT.i.. ..4,4-, ,:.i . ,..--?,4-;:`,„4...;I':=.`•'. .-:-1."''''-', . ----',...: '• - .. .-,. ___*.:‘-.. ,- 7 '..;,-. .;L::'6• : .Z.: , -.- .-1.-, ••."--!, --- ,',..;:1-:-. ..---=',,..;--4 `•2-....-g-e '"`:-.---r',\-•`•--• ,.'.-7
,..-H77,,,,,,,,,_:-_-,7, _ ' .';T-.$`4'.,'€-',--,'''''.r":,!-.._1', .•.:4?.c5'r ".._-,,.-,--,■_•-'47,`---..-i'.'"'t'''-2. '.:4-'''''..g..t_.'' ---....'-e--.7q4'''--'-X-',-E.--.'-''''1.4'..---'14-."-,,--„v.."';--:4•'-.--,:L.-''...,-."...A--;:= '-'...75K. 4-'-.1'.',":(' ''' ,-
'-'''' "4-''''-'''''. ' ' - --'''''''' -'4*. ''.-- ;_4:_- '----4•A 'AVz..L-.--'.--*---'40--r---%:<,-,—,-.-_,.---: - -t-. .k,--.-/.-.-_-..-z- ---:;f,-. -, --
.----,,,-....- ,-,,,r.-. .._,,,,,,,,..._.
''...,A.__'-'4r- .,-,',,,-.-‘-- -. -----,',---- -, ,'-'• --- -:-.4=i-- -1,--:-.;,i1-1;',,,!,-,;:l...-_,---_,,. .. , ...-..4--,_,-,...-,:-T,.. ..-.74::•-,-,7-•:,40,,,,",_.—- -- t. - --,-,.::,-- -
- .44',-*-----, '
- - •,•---_----
... r,.....:..
...__. ."!-...?-•!!..- C.'",...r.,X,,,t41.,r0"..... .'-- __,,,.,.., - .r:.....-.:..i.---r1,, -7,,,,,_ „_,__
-_"= ,."."4-,_-1 ,-,.7.---".-._... -z-1.;' _.-.i. - z -,-..- ‘„:$:,.-_,.,-,..,--4,-;.„
-;,-.. ---,--:- -,.--, -----,---,- -,--:t.it-7-_--„_-..-,., ,."•,.-;,--,d-,..4,-,,,,,,,- ---. -- -,;- =NI s 4, -- . - ------------;`,='-'%.,
, : .r,1,....-e' '..: . ... -- -..,..,-.4-..-- ...-, ,-;......._ . .:-.., ......
I
-. 5-:--
-,,,- .1.--,-,--1---- -,--- -.----40..--- :'._.f-.--Az-..4-'.4.--.•--:-:c....-J.:4--.;,..--.-------=-,;------'-akj...:-.-,--- , f
7;1 4 '7 ''':',- 4-.'.---:-..--• ---r-!-"--',.--;7.:'-='.'-_,1 ----..7,- -0.1`."-.:: -....-.4,7,,7-„,„„--,..-.1.,-,4-4,,,,A...a..,1 ,,,.. -„.,,,,.., _., I --- - ;-,.--..,A ' . '.).
l t•
Eici‘ 4--411,..H_-_Vt.,: ,...0.1,. .:,--f.:--,- -
,,lie--,1-1:..vi......:__- ---- --,s-r,----,----n.z7.--- -'17C-4,-.- -,---4,-..0.t-j,- - -, - -,-_.-,-. 7..„--.:7-:=..:- ...., . . .
.- .. . . _ ..
...-
- . , .. .
---= -Aik,:-. -.-..,..-...--_, .., ------ -:- - -.-,---'.:.,.,-.::,t:5--...,-.- ,„...--,,,.• -1,--.',.-.e...-.f:::_Aii-s.....-=.=,:f4--t.--:‘,-.;,.,„:7...„,-, ..,t_......-_,........i.,_.-_:.•-.....„..* ,,. ,--;-„7-."..-:,;._..
.".w.-.-47.t.v..,,,,,_.f."..4 :: -"'":".1.::::,-:A Ay*.-t-,--4.-,-1?,.-,...-_-- ""A:::.-.4-" --:---4',A• , .-_:'.__wove, - ,..-1.-e-le",...,,,,: ,....,":k.:.:-, 7.4....J. kt 16.„6,',.:'. ..-' -3-,_.' '-''' '-''-'-' -• I
' - -- -,,:-,"..-#4:-",-"Ift-:":•-•!,:".p...--.1-...*-{-....-.7.t. , .,...".'.::--7.5",",.::-.1,-',-.•,,-------
„"t-'11- -.4"..,,,i,it!..-
.-"'---.. .-,',Alt•:,,,,,,-.---'--- "' .▪ " .-: :`,E.--',, .. _. ..„ , .
, _.....„.......,._ ... . . ._ , _
'.-.:----,-„ztrvt... 4..„-------,--•;;:,k--*,-.
.,_,_ _ -,-..-;,,,- ,i,,,,,-..-0,„,--.-----,,,,,,,t-,,,v,,...-;,- -_-tv-- , .:„--v.-.-,-- _:-!.--,--,-,--...- ----.--
---.,_:;_4.1.';4i..-.1:.,:','_-'',.-;;;,,
-- -.5-24r ---4::-`,'---:-.:-.,--/-
----- ;.,.---,- - - .--,.----,.:_.--:,:.-----. _ -!--ff.-_,---:-_:,---;t:...7..-"..-,,-.41,":". "4i-±''.'-'''..:-.P-131:,"-•L;7",-, -.'''''''''-!--i ----7".---.*:-.A-:-.4.:'",-,A--;.",.:.A-1-'-'r--"--i.4""-*-'-.'-":".''-:'''fT'''''.'-'"":F ''.):'*•"7 '': ef.-';: , - !
;--7-2*-7 ;'-' ---I. ---, :7:-..= '----:.-_-_-;-. -:::---:: - -3 - .'-a--1-L .•'-';,,.-47 - t1 '`--- -.,.1,-.-..' --,V.,„..... -:.,-,ft7-:,:i._,_;:, .*is:7;13_-,,Lf-...,_ i-s..0",i-;?-.7f-4---',--'.w--',X--,'10,..‘':'': •. .
.-.....,r.t4,:..;, -:.,- . ___ ..„.,„,.,., ..--,..7 .:7-.,;.:-F,, .54,,- -- -.:-...,;:e_<-...014:f4k..---,-<-4:5- ...e•",';"47'.."/A
,ili-. : -; :-.._= : z'-- '''' CT"'-'-'-' ''''-.'-',-'_,.,,_.‘ .'"'''.7:7 ----',"147.,,,-7. .-"Z,-:: '.. "-..-., ''.-?'-7„....;,-2--,-.. '-'.A. -:_.-?...;,=. -,.=...4-C'ft.i&e'V.4.1-We.;4:+it.,,k-.. );(..:X;:-,4,‘„--, •.:' , '•, ,,,
-7--440;:-;. - . - "- "" -----.---, ':":::t--?;4"."'!"21. 1:S.7 ."1.--'",.•""".,..--. --- ::::.,.-7:.-L.,'-''''''''''''• i.-".4"-*-j-0•'- "-:-'--•,,. .-" ---": "."C- .-..,.,. . ,1-••••• •',;""
-4-;;-..---4,-..-",-..7.-1-:-.!,, .• ..,- -. .--- ... ,,.. •....,.....-..• - . ,•.,-, . - . •,,,...,,,,...,,....•,.....2.__
, _
7----7 -:.. liiitai-,.. iiNi"." ,'!-._---
it -- a . a an .-.--,:_,-,,,,,_,., . ,
,.........._ . ‘,..., .. _ , .._
_., - _--.T. ..,. ,;„„...., .,-,..„7„...:.....„..,,„... „--_-,--„..:,..__..... . .....:_,5-,'",-‘'/ ‘ ,-,.',
_
•,-.... ___.; . .,--,...--,,,,---;1.i.-i!iti,,,,,,,,..,_1.,kr .. _--A-'''sr•TS•4:,..-;----...-'-'- ,--;-:-..-.,..s..- .,,"..,._--"" •-,,-- ..- „ ,. . -.--,-1,,,, .., ,,'e- ,-...- :...'y''< . '-± ■
-41‘.• . .,,,..- n.,.. f.,„
.; .-,,;_. -?•-.--. .i;,1.".=:,•-rif, ,-,T.‘;,,_.- .'.--.-'':.52,.fr,... •,- - ..V,,Aq-^-,.:-.^ ''. ' ''''
It ' ana • emenl. . an ---,4,-,: z-?...;,•'::..,---,- -.-.'-, , -
. er c •
,...... .
4..-p., -
,,..-‘.t.,-.. .„„ ,_ , _ .
...- 1
...x,,,,,„_.-,-1.....„..,..›....,„_,,,..,,,.. ..... , _.....: ., _ .
_
_. _;
1
... ----,; _..;,..,.._. „..,,,,.2....:1„..:.A.,...;-.4,. ..,,,i:31z$4, 0-17.4:,.,._:,..,,,.,__, •-,""-."4-.-%;Cf''-t"-..‘:'•Y.-'--.'s'Iv.-=';'-'''''- `
,----;--A3:j>.v...---. _ „ . .
,,_-_-., -.-z,-;,...4,...;4•._:,,-------,-- -N,,,,-.,:i-- --,-- ,...,_,.. ,4--,-7-,--.:.*--,17--,i. . 4-, „z=,_-,i,-..-_-,,-;.9 „,,c, I
--;,-±-,----,-=-:,, ,-14:.-1-1-4--V.- -14,c..v.-4F-.--=&1.--, ,_,_. , -- --,.,.. ....,,_-,_,k, „_:--,:-„.-.-.‘i.;•;.,- . ,•-..i,4,,.-,:::-.:,;-Zi, ,3:-,
_:•_-2.----- _. - -- - . 7-_ -..t---::=-;`, --1:7.-i---:,,,--,k.:---_--rArt4iif-*---_.., At4.4..rt.6.„_.1,=,..,- -, -- ,..-4,._---- -_-,. -0,..,5i---„,i-..cit-f,i-;,...7 .-,...-f5.--.., -(-
1' ''''.-; - - --. - : - - '--- -- %%-.-----::-:-. 71-=-717--t-L4fil-i-t-'1"M1: 41.4 .---- ----f -...fte., _- -i--...-":;,:r-f,r-•=,?-/;-5,-'---.'s:',.;-_:,,-':, 1
---.:.........:,--,-,,,,,,,,..,„....,,-,.... .0-„ -1,x,,-0„ ,,..,-,-,. . _,...41.4._,w,„--.. -...- __.,-.-- ...„,:„. _
_. .„,.,.......--__,_ -___-:,,,,--,?,-..,--,*--.,--,,,r..--,,,y-t- -_.. --., uo
,b
_ • . _•=,„.,,,,, -_.„...,: „,•:::,....„_.....„............,-• . 3,..x , .,..-. ....•,....„ . „....„ -
.
- ...,...„-:. -=,..„..,-„,..„...„„.._,,......„-._?..-..„,„. „....„._. ..- „..„,..„ _ _ Iv.-.;--.,..:-‘7;,..;-;
--",?- :: 1 .4,.;_ .. ,..
-.: r,_,-=._-:.,41 -.-_,.,-.450?-eqc.,..-- --11-. ,,‘,...,.;.-.-- ..;-;_..--4-'-*--, . - -:.i-- ,.;,. ''',-,•:-.!-,'''''":" ;',74-..
est4.-fk •- _-; - -
- -— --• '---- ----'"---'---**:"---"'''-4,.-F .,-,-,------...-4.g-A-,4'=- -,----;--: ' _*;-;•--..,-.7V.,-,.. .1)1-4.--x_.-,„_,,,,.;-%.14--_,s,;,,,‘,NN:„...:1.
--: --4.. ...----!--.--z--- -,
---,i;•-,:---....i!--- ‘--;?..-- 7 " -.:s..*--*-'--'*-I----- -.4,-. -f-:-.;„: .7-,-- --:.. -,-, --, --7--:--_,-12:ark.c.7::;--„---:,..‘:.-,1-,-.,/,'.-.‘
=.--„:y.,-_- _,--.- .-1, . - . ;. ,..,'",,...."-.3-7:...:k....44."k"-...;1'.-',. ..1:,:rdOtAls. „--!•:.;,f.,r,...,-= _ - _ ' ,.14,0,-.- :NW,-;-41,-';,:'.:. -3--;
- -_-. -!,...:,-,-;:".,,..-----...1,:_-,......1..,`,4„,--„f,----: ..--1-r,-;4---,-._--,,,,:-.--,-_ --------- - ---..i„...,:;.-N -- 1.04.i?.,-,,,....:7.,:?,,,tf i.-5,-.,. ...,-;„-,,•:,.. .h--
'444- :--,.--..-:";-,-,e7,;-..-.,-..••
-:3-,,,, ,.-r,-:„,-.,,,,7,---, __,- - ------__:-7-7- ".,-..:""•_::: .• .. .-Wg-4-rrt.44 .f?'.....--if- .,. ,- .i:•::-.,-,- ,-f.,2,....." ..-;,..1.-„:::!
-
_.7`.. .
-- .-,,A7",,&••.::-.-",:',' .,..,-.--., : -,--,,?"-4,--,--„,is.,-1-;.".„f‘2,7,17,1k,,.. -•/,,.„.••- ,.,;...e; ••
"-".. .t.. -'.:_"--..•-, .: .:-;:---.-- '-= ,'.--''','-•‘-:=-S--7.7'.-:--',7$--7,'.-4-,:4,42f.''$r!.. .-.-ig-it.cir44-L-7,-''-'411-`,1--,iZ.---.4,.,-- -A,-,-i.„•v:,.;,,,-- .>
--_-:.
4!:,==.87;=,•.%.-+.--. - --_,. _- -i:-?:::- --P-4:---;',.',:,---,'z':'i.:-:-. 1,--17,'0.. :;.-Z;-'1'''-- 7-1 ,;=' 4.--,ii' W7
_„,,,, ._..,-,.:- 'tk,.,.. .:.. rif.X,.4%.....:-.,- ,..,..-y. :,..
- . -- • _,.7,...- „ ... -....--fq-....... .,-i,,-1-:,„--,c, . ---',..-.,'-....- ''''' 'IT': ir- ---!---47.:-.1 ''''- -,,.7„.e-:,,,,-f.,:-.,: c.-,.',:."-c,:-,.-,
1. - -- ,.-',
-. ..,-- 1,:- ..,,,,,..._.;.„:•;-..-,:.:,,,,,-,,,...--‘,„,4i-,,P,i,--7-*"4--7,-„- •••-. .--,!--,- ,-,,,,iy.', - ..,e,.,. - v
friuca.atse , ,, .t....-,,,,,.-.4.-;..,,,,,,,,• ,,,,,,.. I
.,..,„,.. ,- - _
„.„ , r,„ , . .„.„.„.„..„......,...,„7.....,........„,,,,.....„,„..:,.,„__,,
5f...„-sr,,,o.:„.,,, f , _,..,.„„.... _ . _.,.,,,„,„,, .,.........,.. .„... _ ,,,,..„_.,...,..,_ u . . _...,,i,,,.,7„.„,,,,,,,,,,„,...„..p.,. ,....
.....-_. ,....„„- --,,-... ..„ ---..,.!_,_;--,-*- -..:74.i.,--. .`„'-.---::-.7. 4,------.'"k, ,,.,.-.::,A.-:- .Tc,t1 ,...:,."...:'4,,..,-,7,;>,,k...-wi..-ilfkii.../=.;,.i.e;.%,...;:f ,,,,,,,
,...-..” ."..;-..4-J_,. ..-"'";-.'..--.0.' .;,. - hAP-...-_,.,:,_:-.,- ''' ----,-7-- ' '--i'' ' .-." ----''''',"9‘ '-'
, „ . .
ii."..w..;.:?,,-..-;"?::--- ' .'' '''' - '' ''.-'' --m.--.;f-_.---- t, "faring ' anizatton-•-z%c‹----k„,)/c,'' ..,
.g,-.-._-_,2_,:t--,_---- -_ -
.gN--.--;-- _, _ ::_,..--;._._,,_ . . _ . ... _I...-
'-4 s:', :7-. I-'—±''''''''''''''..'iftt.41:1::,.'-j• !':>.-::_,:-1-147-..-7-,t-. --woz---1-3,---,,,,„-,,mt-y--,:-,..F.,.,_,„„4,%.,,,,,- .--,.-, -0- -F, 4 - - '..Ivr'1'C, 5'..-., , s42.:-c.,„'N' .
=-_,-- -,.:--,,--97--r-,--4---;,t--,,--,-,.,:-i-,.---,,-.. ...-3,„..:7A-,_,-:,-...--- -_-_-, ....,3._ ,-,- -- r--
.:-.., ".' „, .,,-,- ...„.._:,. zje4. .---.z...,44.4....,,r_ ,ais.,--?.,...--N-k.....:-.,,?-. . :.,__, ......>„.-„•;-„V‘-4.-..,,.'4,, .,-,..„.,<,
, „.....,....-.,-,.4.,.,; _, __., „.. ,... ,_,.._,_;„ ..i.ii.....•..„.,-..".,,,..T.-f:T.,-,---..i;,-.:- .W.t...5,4-1'',.. ..k.'-,-:4„.'4. __ .-t.',.'3/4'N.Vf'- .,...,',:.,'' '1r-cr..,-7,,..?.5-T,-,....,-"..,%_,,fr.',„,,,,..-:+7,F,A .t„'),Ek.,,,k7,.?•_::, :".,-;,V...-S.,?..,;,:„.-'4`,..' ..,,
.?4--•-:---.".;.'4';':'..'.--"-;'...-- -!..,--,'.:,--.- - .,/,-- . .-,... . ” . ' ..,• ""--V Z"'"':.. "..`."--- -11."-:-...V"--.7",':: :.„.„7. ,.,"t-,.--,;A..", " ,....r.Argi.,,,..;4?.;•,,,,,„4....,,,f,...,\;. -,',.;.". ,,. ,"-
_".X..".1.11.1.. .-x..".:.•
"---- 1"‘'S''''z: -' ' - ,w'a-"40-'*--- -"A'-',*--A-‘: e.$11.'.- -".:-2.:;"""----,_---,U., *-/.4.,‘„,-.-.../: s-,-.".-----Vr...s., •...."." _ A nn _... 990
,„:„..„--,..-. --__,..._, _, ....-5,....,-,;:.i •;.•-,.--•.; :••;..n.fZEV- ..4§ - .-' •":VfrAti'-'-41g,.".'•....-T.''.:,•; - '''%,c,..-f-'`7" '", .'...f'•.f- ''''''..."_/-'''':.,,'7.,- ''',''' .
^;- '-7--'i.,'-*.i4i. -•'''.77.:'..-'-':::.":;;Z-1,■:;;;;',.41Z-.."-ti, "..p..--",":-7•‘4-7...t:Vrerapit.±._ -- .-.V,3, 4,..s.t-ei:•'4".&74,`: 'r.,.i,V..;,:7•?-..,A'-;.'
t,' -,. '-i--- _."--- :.-----:-."-,' ".---'----------,--:.---- ------,,,,-.z--',.2--,.-1-z-----x.1.:..----fi`-----,---,-7-.--,4----'''.,-, ;r7,.-;--tc:-- !•---..-:4-1" ---,.,:---4;. --.-Tse_i-ti-‘!"' --;=e-.:,... -‘,.,„:„,,,c4i,_,'. ..,...-fs.f.:-.6,Y,? ,0:::-S''''.':,-;,-:`,',.."'-';'"
-,,,.-,-,4, 4,-„,?..,-.„ -;• ,;. ,- -,,,-. ,:,,,,, -,:....,:i-,,,r,,,,.-r--. 1'e--- kt,'-..,7,,t41.,-,i0.-W,,b.-."4'7- :.4ri. ,,' ,...WV1",..W-,,..--,,';;N-141.;; 54-14-;;•---'- ',-,7--'a...a.;',,`•'3,N1 -"''*''''''',(Vt.,411'7''"''''''
;..•,.:,:i4 ,-..*,,,;.4i.,-,t-s.,- --. .f_ .-_,--':- --_--2-----7.-z:-.:_-- -..?.-*; ,.--..,-id-$..._: 416:..4-,_:-1----:. "4-----'1---;,-;':--,-..i :*4'--,--=.-- -'-'-,-..,,,,,,t4.1ks.,0''--'-- - k.4;,Ce----'.' :47%,-'-'-/-4.,-' .-7-4,':d-:',-'".`\.V.AVV---`,`--,‘
-„!--......ossAgkk„,,--.,...-__., _ _ :,- ..-_,-- -...-;.,,..4.::-._-=„--,--:5-;.--,,,":',,,,,, A,,:-..--.."-- -*-.7..4-isw.;,1%, :;&.57X--.._.„..„...,_-" ;4,-. """---4,:-=.',54-;., ....,t-,',h,,,-,-,--4147,'?„,,,-41,-..7.,,,,..-p,--1,:,-c,,,e...'"e•-:",_- _;;;:.4:.e" --,-.,..-*.•1',.,.:•.*V97, sr.4.-X--/'''-- ",
....2.,","•;'... -t,,".1-- --"t;..r: ,,,•'-.-.''","---,-:',::.--,-","-.•,•."._ ..r." '-,..-,,,i",4,.."r5.:-..r:..t.„W":„:„t"--"-g-4"--.4-1--;i:,-'.-'4.'`';,-"-•41-,,-4W-..1.-ik,-. .",:-'.'-'7",r7.71:k-„V".Y0-...-',--;:-."----"-4'4".,..•‘,":- .•.;,-e---'="'-4,.-.14„--- :4-_ .-'
4 L -:-.,,3.,::1...'...-'4.:-,•.:-:,- , .:'.,,,.7-.,•4,':.;-..-,'--.-.:1 A--_'„,',,-.,,-.-,,,t',..--.i--,*"-1_-..:-:=-4,"1...4,,4--:--:,,.'.!:,,-="Ii;='i7--,-."7:•-'4.7.;..-...:.:,.'--i:";.%=',i:.t i,r-.:::--„A-,:4 4'*-=,--_,0-i_=-r-4 i A.0",-..4.*.1-*%"4-,.."-;4.:...---g 1.:.A:,--1 1 W e 1.`.f,,i:,r k-...W 4.;._,.-'-.j k;.,,-:,W.-:'r.'..-'2.,',..-.,'S",,..n T..”-t--c--.!,f%,'.',-,7".,•,-.,?V-!-.-..:!,1=•:,:=-:c:A-rZ,-;,:4-,-4,.=-;,-;.A1-T5-O4c;.4.--A--.-,-,-9:..-'0-4*t;r:;.:-g e-.',r--,----4;r--,-_A'-'4,:,;•:--.:--.i,.A'-.r:,4.:..4--._--:1!:--,1-,:-4-.-_;,..-t:;f,y-.S:--_-4.‘a...---.1'---',.-.,-'‘'`..4.:"'„s-,.%,.1..-.".6....'1'1."r,.';','",:,--':='-'.4 7,-',--,-.-.,V*--4,1 4 1-,4,1-1-,-'t;.7-iw.&.,----,44'''-t.-:i0t",,..'...'„,•,--':f,%:'1.=.7---',-7i...'.,t:"t,-".--V-Z.,.j.pi.e: VAW>)_.;,„ W
-46-.!.....1.,.. „7...,,,,T,_:..-,::,,,.:,„.:,-:,.:,.,,_._,- - ,:::_-.,,A-,:=-;,-s::_f.-.-.,:i?G_-.*,,--*,7_ 4,-3-:t4wrst:-%- v?,,,e.--_,:i4-1.- .4--i- :-.--;.:w rs-if-_.1,-.;*-,..i_._,,,-.K., -v., -,-,,,z 7,”-,:c.--'-;; 1,.:-&°.*;•-x.'40.,..5',:,:,,,-.:._;:-
-•:',•'-'4;;:f.,,.-.%.:44;e__- -s_-= -_...,-,:? -::::-,-7”:;,-.7.-:T-4----A4,-_-v-'2Q-:k1--• ',.4.-4-4,-..ih -,4„,--,:44-e.,-;.4,01.-V--.C-Lq.-=,-;',..--z,!.-.,-.'..,-.:',- -AV,--f;:.. ,-.--;::_ ,-.,--;--%-Z.,•,-;.-; ._---0;_-_,• -•,, ,, -•,,.:7-mq.-f,,,z-!.,--,.-.4.-i,,f,,,/,- ,.
* :-";?:--47---'&---,-0--i,-")- - ----::: ,-.--:=,•-%--'-,,, "'-,•:-,:.,-:•:=--'-_---',-t;',-:•g-A-- '--.4,-,----txV411,-_--•is,..----,•---Pt-..At-pie--*,;_,- -,.-i,: •::_---.:,,,..;•,-,-e;,z;... .z,...,,v,y_4,._,.-.A,,4ie,,x14. -:•42._. , , _,,-,-,,,,,t__rf,-.,..t:,,,,y,.4,,,....
-t-it.,.•-?-=-----1---,:v•-• --_-_-f-;----_-,- -..7,---,.-:.-:-_-__..! --.12,__-•-:=-.,-.,--;:-::::-,:, --,,,,0:__..-, v-,,c,,,,i4v,... ....-- --,:--; .7, ,...,.,-..-4.---',f.,:-..,.,...--„,,,,:.-.T.. ,:i1,,..,...„,.1.....M.,-, 7.!--_- _.„,,....-.-.... . .....,2,..,,) .., ; ._. • .,-.„./ _..-•
-:(' -."..;-F--.'‘." .■.•;;:r.':--:'--'.'i:--;-....-,,-,to',-..1:'-'•---",=- -:..,:'!?.;',.*';';IP,*''''.._'211:-Stf.'"=V.5"'eArk.).-,.V.•'. -.:-''''.:1.--.4..--'7.i.----,-,*--4' -:. ‹:' — .-,-.,- -..,_ „."--=.,.-. 4ts-..,:-. --.3.-,g,..-'-----, -...' - ' "_:-.
if''--: -'•- .'-=--7:` -:=• 7'_':_-... --- --=---_-= ,.`:- '-'--,W.',----- '.. -'- -''.--".`4- VitiWill. -- -4,:, .4,-,'; elsi' .&t4; /./" .,
-.0-' -,.,..-_-!,-,-,-----,;-v,:,-----,,-.-,..4-.-.-=,--.'k-='-*.x.-4,-;-,---":.--.--?:.--.-.-'-'-•-,,,,--.::-.' -\'- '
. ...,-. --. : -▪ '''''''''.-'---:. -----; : ----.,---7;_,•.-;..-.N;x:::-'-?;..4.-‘5,-_-7-'3,-- 'F..t`.-:-'.-7,-'...:- ---,:---•:-..-- -1." 1._'''' - ' N="';:e.,..;‘--,:,'
ones t coo:*
-1--;:....retz,.4.-.-7,--,-.- '-- - --- ----_.=T::-= - -,,,-,,,,-.4:-A-_,-i.,,,,,,,,,24, -,b-N,Atkw,-_:------- -,r•-.*.,:..„--_ i.-...•i#,,,--7-w.-„,.--,-,,---. - - ,..-_,=,-.----:* -7.-.:.-c,„ ,,„.--z.'.,:f:/;,:;-:;..,:q-4‘,/'-:-.
-*....,..„...„A.--.=!. :--',.,-,.--_--;.-,: ,. :.,_•-..--,..it'..,:-,-f-r,t',', ▪ . .-,,,'705--C. . ,,,;:„-..• ,--:''':' -" - ti?osene '-_•-, L-exI2--'4"-'.'',--;_: , ,.-_,, s,V., - '
• ,-- --,-74- • , -...- - .,,,---, -•'----- ,---.-r. '.' '''' .'''. ;:.. ,-...t IE -..- -•_.:.i:---,.---i,;,,.,'-!.::,...: -,---„,,,*.e,Kii.".:'''.; . .
-.Y-Al-N- :;*'''n'' '-'....-;'-1.,'.":::::::::,i3.F':::.Z.L'''I-i-'-'1:-'. .N;''1.-;it'''' ,.;f:,'''.•-,'"',,..,,,, :.'-.:-'7`,'L-t744;,4.714-,...C.,47: -.4,W;„t_.. ..1-'.."7...,,L''';.-,..-r., A k illanaerilk 4011it.-1-V,;';;,1$,,,,6,.. NN.k., , ,„-•
-,,,e''''Wt-, _.„,,,,:- ---iti - ,,,er,+rt'4',.g^V-'',.'-'-..t''A:jerrAt.S. 7:; t.:lk'- t -i -44—•c•`-'--c'-''r,'-',..-"-i=,--1,%--:c-'--- V4Mmo4:‘,,',;‘,f, -;.,s.
,,,,,,i-5--,,-,-,-.-A-,,,-:- ...,- ...1";('':..,,..1.-:-.-_-.1.--:,c,,-."„ --...'.4,.".2fi.--,.".•itz.,-,-,',";-- -,4,-.S6t.--- ',..':"'- ,A+4',--.4.,-A-..,4...L.As,.:.,. ,,,,-".:-e!,--,A ,..jkv...-.., - A
w.rahamr....a.. .........',..*,-;?,:4').,reek..„•:,,,z":-.<7.... -...
14;-,%-,- .....-'„,,,44.,f',-...'„ .•,::.:.:•.,-4-"..- 1".7.. '-'="'4;= 141-A0,4"- ,"--Y-Z-‘,'. ""-....‘ ':-...V.-.. .e,fte'A.t.jr:ii..." -,4,,,,,,..t......-, -._-1,;,--,-.- .'. ._•,.. -.--..-: ,,,,,.. ,..-,,..,.•' , . ‘,...,-..,.-e\s,. .",,,,„\k",<,..:,,
<T1-,,5'..-1/4:-.......-z,;.;-,k,.,-:•.N.....,;,.4ir.-k._,,,-,..Z...-...,-,.;:j).,,%,---,...];:.!.&,,,,,:,..t4.__:-,7-:•;%,,, -'" •-Z-vi.,=;iie.•,,,,..-,!-_-:e- .,A-4--_. -t---..,,v.k.-7--.A'.54.-,',"I.-•444.." -.!, „":1„..-":1 „...ri,....."!. „w."4„;,".i."",..;AVg...•74T.Try-.0WP.p.".v.?%., .• ‘,V--.5,;Zi"Ao1A,"•'',•••;''
.. .,. .44.. ., .,,,,r."2-: ,.,,•.r.--tf.. .-:-.... .....-
'''. "4"-.tf.-"f'-:---,-,.-•".':,=:±1.4.-..'Z'r../..f.s:=1,.....,..,. .,-:.••,,..- -.......7..xt-1_,"."...,,.T.Yer..,;,•01
;. .'-.•:,1-5-. .7:AX. T.A.W.,.,-,-,.,..-"„.4.'”,-•.f,',e4.`7-: •.fr.-..4-kii,"*".„.-7A--•" %4,•-.".,-!-...1/4":Z.Z.:-',./___:•,-,,...-• •. ' nt!er. - -,-..-t, ...- -.-."-1.,IW.-5)"`K,..• ‘-‘<-,Zr$K‹.'
-"7"--f:•-"..'ei--'"-1----1: --' ,-r....---';--i-W-,","-----e'-'- '''-'-'-';--"---:: 2-:"#7:1-‘-*10i'-k' -- --',. '..;:-.1'. ''4'.,;;-: ;t"---i-.&-. ------4".---.:'-'-' -'25'.4-'=--4." .-4" .,-ill:30U!Vinirinetota'-:;_,-,1,,, ,L,*.. .,.iy--;,-74::-F-'>,,„„..*-„e- -.;•''-
g'.;;;-:'''-'-?‘:-.''''74C700:7, .$,-- -:'' I' '-''•.-;.--''''''--.V-7' ''...4,1
.4-1..1'1; . .-... ---.,t..f.'".:: ,:f. ,-.--- ; „.•.--l'-t•VI:':'-tkt,- .7Z.-,ti.k-zi4"-Ilt4ii-r...,,,-f*-•".."----,-,,'"!..„:.:-,„,"-',...„,_;.- ..,6.2,--.,-,,, - ,4",, i-,..4"-"414--061;4,1%'-",z.,"'.1'4_, .:W4!,1N"."-, x-
'-'"•---.: .--- -,'-'--A...4A- . ''. ';=.-- -'-OrL...44."-4..„4 -.:06-0". -4-;;;;...-„T"6"*.4...,",..--:.;'',.:„..-;;Z-' -.,,*-irr?"-.-e:e1.•C,4"4"14i---,-:..-1,-,„±„.1,4..:i.:.„.,'--, ,,,,,A ., _ .y..---......*,
:::,:,-..-----'." ."41-- ,,,TRA,.::.3,4.-„*"-:_-:',....--.. ..-:-.--,-.---2--;=.-:,'' -.7;1,,', .,7..'- ..-"-',"'---e.'"-..,4--":''',4:;4-'" `4,-44,-;,-.4,.:-..,..,V2r!..rr:-.-1Z...c.,,,t,---.,,,I,$!.---,„-,--.-,- -.4.•=2. 54_,..-m,,,,,,,,z--.... - --------,-
•
1 .
•
•
I .
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter of Transmittal
I - Water Quality Task Force Members 1
Table of Contents 2
IExecutive Summary 5
Definition of Terms 8
1 I. Introduction 11
IA.Background 11
B. Water Quality Plan 12
Water Quality Task Force 13
IC.
D.Planning Process 13
III. Inventory and Classification of Waterbodies 16
A.Wetland Inventory 16
IB. Classification System 16
C.Water Quality 19
1 III. Computer Modeling 25
P 9
IA.Description 25
B. Calibration 26
IC. Calibrated Results 29
D. Future Improvements 29
IN. Policies and Recommendations 31
A.Policies 31
1 B.Recommendations 33
IV. Requirements of New Development 36
A.General 36
IB.Erosion and Sediment Control 37
C.Phosphorous Control 38
ID.Dedication Requirements 42
I
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD)
I
VI. Education 46
A. City Staff 46 I
B. City Residents 48
C. Development Community 49
I
VII. Prioritization System 51
I
A. Procedure 51
B. Results 52
I
VIII. Monitoring 55
A. Secchi Disc Monitoring 55 I
B. Short-term Monitoring 57
C.Diagnostic and Feasibility Studies 59 I
IX. Watershed Specific Recommendations 61
I
A.Watershed A 62
B.Watershed B 66 I
C.Watershed C 71
D.Watershed D 72
I
E.Watershed E 76
F.Watershed F 77
G.Watershed G 78
H.Watershed H 80
L Watershed J 81 I
J.Watershed L 88
X. Financial Alternatives 93
1
Funding Sources 93
I
Capital Improvement Program 94
I
I
1
Appendixes
' A.Pond Classification
B.Strategic Planning Matrix
' C.General Erosion and Sediment Control Criteria
D. Ordinance
IE.Walker Documentation
F.References
G.Classification of Waterbodies
1
I
• 1.
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents a comprehensive water quality management plan for the City of
Eagan.The plan includes a layout of the drainage and ponding system of Eagan with ,
the respective classification of each waterbody for water quality purposes.
This plan is intended to assist the City to effectively manage the water resources in I
Eagan.The plan defines short and long term goals as well as general criteria to be ap-
plied in order to improve water quality in designated lakes and ponds. ,
A six step process was used to develop this water quality plan:
-Resource Inventory
-Waterbody Classification '
-Management Criteria
-Policies and recommendations
-Capital Improvements
-Public Involvement
•
The above mentioned six steps were the main framework for the contents of this plan.
This plan contains the following chapters:
I. Introduction '
II. Inventory and classification of waterbodies
III, Computer Modeling
N. Water Quality Policies and Recommendations
V. Requirements of New Developments
VI. Education
VII. Priorities for Action on Waterbodies
VIM Monitoring '
IX. Watershed Specific Recommendations
X. Financial Alternatives '
Appendices
1
I
5
1
•
1 ,
Chapter I Contains information regarding the location of the City and the
' goals of the Water Quality Task Force that motivated this plan.
Chapter II Describes the criteria utilized to classify water bodies by desired use
' considering existing physical characteristics. The main source of
information for preparation of the inventory was the Wetland
Inventory prepared and published by the Gun Club Watershed
Management Organization.
' Chapter III Discusses the parameters involved in the selection,
implementation,and calibration of the Walker computer model.This
' model was used to represent the behavior of phosphorus loading and
removal in the system. -
' Chapter IV Contains a series of Water Quality management policies and
recommendations intended to help the city to achieve the goals
stated in this plan.
Chapter V Contains information and recommendations to address phosphorus
control in future developments.This chapter also provides
alternatives and mitigative measures for developments not able to
' treat the increase of phosphorus generated by their own
development.
' Chapter VI Gives general recommendations and guidelines to educate the
' various sectors of the City to control and reduce phosphorus
loadings.The sectors of the City targeted are:Residents,
Development community,and City Staff.
'
Chapter VII Describes the r system utilized in order to define and
P ranking�
' determine which waterbodies are most important and play a key role
in the City's water quality system.
' Chapter VIII Presents a Secchi disk monitoring program and a short term
intensive sampling program in order to know the current quality of
' the waterbodies in the city.
r
1 6
1
Chapter IX Discusses and describes the results of the modeling of all
waterbodies within the system.This chapter also contains particular '
recommendations in order to effectively achieve improvements in the
system ,
Chapter X Contains an economic analysis of the plan,a list showing sources
of revenue,and a capital improvement program based on the short ,
term monitoring program.
This plan also contains a section of appendixes intended to provide more detailed infor- ,
mation of aspects related to water quality modeling,and the general criteria for an
erosion and sediment control plan.
i
1
1
1
r
' Some of the short term water quality improvements which are identified in the context
of this report include:
* Increase wet pond volumes in various waterbodies identified in the Stormwater
Management Plan wher the evaluated benefit is determined to economically
feasible.
' * Monitor 9 wetlands identified in this plan to define the efficiency of nutrient
removal and impact of stormwater runoff.
' $ Construct 18 nutrient detention basins.
' * Implement diagnostic/feasibility studies for Schwanz Lake,Thomas Lake,LeMay
Lake,and ponds affected by water levels in JP-11.
* Install aeration systems in Thomas Lake,Heine Pond,Blackhawk Lake.
• Implement fish management programs in'Thomas Lake,Heine Pond,Blackhawk
Lake,LeMay Lake.
' * Implement an education program that initially will target the reduction of nutrient
loading from lawn fertilizers,leaves and grass clipping which ultimately enter the -
stormwater system.
Is Support the monitoring programs described in chapter VII.
Therefore this capital improvement program is intended to help define the short term
' tasks and should be updated when the results of the monitoring programs are obtained
and the sources of funding allow the City to establish a more define strategy.
From all the above mentioned tasks the following costs are estimated:
' Monitoring and Sampling $ 88,350.00
Studies ; 195,350.00
' Education 120,000.00
Equipment(aeration,sampling..) 90,000.00
•
Nutrient basin(Construction andimplementation) 750,000.00
' Three year program Total 1,243,700.00
( S 414,566.67 per year)
r
' 95
\ ` Y�r• r'�f•:e. Fi 11I1iiIEII71:�. �. wNN �f/i L' °' 11111 p-' ..t. e. . rrt�.♦%R !w.i141 l 6 / Lam=- V .11/ ♦ m: JP-10 i r �1 1111.•r:/'• . 1s -:'� Jpnq h \�•� 1 ,: �yy` 1 c %�{'.. p I 111:'nll„ •i cL v1 ;�, y,.a•';• wn c .I I TTiIt�')41f r am :,� +'4S♦,J `/ . /Il � Tl� •I•�t1• ,�t �a I I'/■i 'I`I`I E ^, ,e 1 y II 111 ``p.„� Ci.VO.I �, J. . ,it gmC1V11'/ J1.;r:.3,y / CIC It� y� 1 / g P-xs.l 1 Y 61 SP �r�,�J �� �/• \10,0� � .'��,Y.�° ��� N�� '� �n � 4•i� A� ' i l �����,) �7 t�Il)�till�I��i4r8Yrltifhl'' ���A�'�Yu< l`<`' N.va / 5,%� ►• r, w �1), 1• f rI n-6 :F'2: VA 1 ' -49 1 rl�i4 7 „ n,! s��1 _. 4 c��1� ,PI-.-i to1+'>,�li�+�`17�i„, 1 �° �r BP; Il �,Ilk,:L. • 1.4. • I �' Ptt. 'II r� Ilr IIfIIIIIIIIIIII11Ill:; r ,v. ��t`a _ �i�3� Z,'s�/ II 1 7 n- _ ai .�.•. -'3. •'v�" CL.n ♦G „1111 � JP_2 L .
11
~/�- �V ;;II 11„'Ilt�l �I� • ►1� /1 Il -F 1111 - _ L o1w JP.41R , s R I �+/!f'. --9.1 T � .� •y 1�
�' I • d 1 F•I. I 1 \\i .I . / 6P-3,..,8,;.4. "!��'!r 'I'�•1 TnI • 1 v./.:.1Jf VI N N '• 1 CLV y'
I �I���/�'Mgt 6 r• II7,'r. CI_V �6EE • III ,G,M'P4 ,. 1■II JP-r 1100 �N 1 ' rz" JP-25.1 c.• // AM/1,1•1- P-33-_ _ u ! '.� 1 3 JP- 2- CL.V
�p//�[�� /4.1.i N111ML -� - --� ��"II, / JP-: RICK CL.V E•
p . I __72.1 '+,Jl. C V I" �]M'. J- f:�
1 t� /w1/ �l • 11 }M L S j CL. E11GnN {�� /
��I 1,/�`t /// 11 AAA. II Pro•• A . �L �J `1t !' "HILLS o, 4 `A' S
di iii, �I+'�' MRK I \,\::.[„„
. r
r �y FN cL.ly �ilT iL.v1s cL.vn. • RI� � �.I �91� �� \` + .1! tl '..i
:d.$11 C AP 3! I / ° O B► \ f .F v L.v , it? 1/.,..
119 1111111 "�cL.'_ rt i bid t .tt „^ ci-. '�" 'y I .A 5 t i' 6s 6. //I1� Hllf{✓ '°
�! Ir 1. fi'•'a"- :^0.mn (ruuu - v; z I rT�, q',' 1 F���y��;• ' P-31 E11C11N f.'w'°n .I �I'S �� � \aN��,� I • rP4TF0��' A ����� � �Ti S' � 'L'vn la ♦•., � �� .�I � ^ �.ua7aR�.� Ro.F JE•�:6'11 1 :! �i s '.1' �l I tc °P S1 ...III n.,Oa ` LP-43 FKS �/■ 'j♦It� .+ 1 Yp 'M CL II /!% ,. r CL.11 •ry,j`0, IENIN P I Ll •` JP-68 JP-�'�._1 1 Kaa II 4..' I 1ti F 14-4- ,+ ��q)y 't{1 ■F `y • , V- Y y` V 1� 1 CL.N CL.V�•„+ � 'til 11�■.-.�rj�1 J f' �i.r{ • .2 �' fll.l M1_111 •` .Iv 1■r ,I` THR g[ I" `A'M1Tf '/♦.fin I�Y /
111"mm� .1•, Ibn//ry ., , ft:v.4 I•��9•v , r i Vl ,� ,. - llll I1 _ I��� iU 1111•- :.•Iq�prypy �(♦ •SY.Or 7)�_ , f/ �'T . J 4�. I{y rr. Q• .A, �. .4 .1..," a.. N \111 L t jJT,.`it° �4•' ,t -ot �. •t�rZ� ., 1,II I■F , I : ,oI 1 BP t!'•'°• ill. MI v M1 tl E1 •` r1I I_ ►� 1- 1. .i��,r�'1'�\ . Y�.}r1 FRRii•. R F fiiCF i� j! "y. C! I, ° aa 1�h. roIKrF . 11 i s4 . F Ir/G`, �.1�•�I I P. ` r. irid- . 111!1 �.:1.. 1+=1,75 rr.rd !' .�r .E i'°IS�r wl IIII cL_'1- . I ., i. �:
IISection 3...Fee Basis
1
1 ESTIMATED 5-YEAR EXPENDITURES
IItem Annual Total Cost
(5 Year)
, 1
Planning and Inventories
l 1 1. Identify wetlands,prepare City wetland
map and review wetland ordinance. $--- "$55,000 4......
1 ' 2. Storm Sewer Mapping -
• Initial Mapping -- 8,000
• Updates 1,000 5,000
1 ' 3. Local Surface Water Management Plan
(509 Plan) --- 135,000 -4-
1 I 4. Local Surface Water Management Plan 4
Amendments 5,000 25,000 3 1114
I I 5. Water Quality Plan --- 72,000 4---
1 I 6. Water Quality Monitoring and Improvements r
(Chemical Application,Weed Harvest,Etc.) 10,000 50,000 �--�'-'
$ I Subtotal $350,000 7 D7,
II
Surface Water Management Utility
1 1. Utility Implementation ...... 6,000
2. Billing and Collection System Modification 40” 6,000
I Subtotal 12,000 ,7 7
_ ,
11 .
I
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 10
1 4,- 4 aJo. c
Section 3...Fee Basis . I
1 '
Capital Expenditures
I
Item Annual Total Cost
II (5 Year) I
1. Backlog of Construction Projects $30,000 $150,000
II Future Construction Projects 180,000 400,000
III
2. Engineering Discretionary Fund 10,000 50,000
(Small Projects) i
3. Property Acquisition 35,000 175,000
4. Automation I
• Software (GIS,Hydrology,etc.) --- 5,000
• Hardware --- 20,000
Subtotal 800,000
10% Contingency 80,000
wir
$880,000
15% Engineering and Admire. 132,000
Subtotal $1,012,000 u9
IN I
NPersonnel and Equipment I
1. City Administration,Development Reviews 6,000 30,000
NI 2. Maintenance:i.e.,Street Sweeping,Catch Basin I
Cleaning,Ditch and Pond Maintenance,Labor
(Street and Utility Superintendents) 30,000 150,000
3. Semiannual Lake,Pond,and Wetland 4,000 20,000
Inspections
N 4. Drainage/Utility Engineer 20,000 100,000 I
11 5. Ordinance Review 2,000 10,000 ,
6. Utility-Customer Service and General 5,000 25,000
N 7. Automation Personnel 5,000 25,000
I
Subtotal 360,000 ?v
•
III Total $1,734,000
Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 11
4 • ,
Section 3...Fee Basis
Typical Charges acres (Ref 9).This results in an
4 estimated total area, in acres, of
To determine typical charges for tax exempt property in the City.
different properties, the This area is compared to known
4 estimated expenditures for a tax exempt parcels and listed
given period of time are under the Institutions (INST)
4 apportioned according to the category with an appropriate CN
percentage of total runoff value to estimate the runoff
attributed to that property type. contribution.
4 The charge for agricultural and Planned Unit Develop (PUD)
undeveloped property has been zoning will be assessed at the rate
4 set at $0.50 per acre to keep the most appropriate for each
quarterly charges at an acceptable individual development.
level. The following Table shows
4 Tax exempt property example calculations for
contributions have been determining typical charges. The
ill estimated by relating the market Table is based on a $1,734,000
value of tax exempt parcels to the five-year improvement program,
ratio of market value for taxable or$86,700 per quarter.
4 properties to the taxable area on
Typical Charges
III
Runoff Total Quarterly Costs
Property Runoff Area Volume Runoff= Total Per Per
Zoning CN (Inches) (Acres) (Ac.in) % Contrib. Acre Lot
11 RR 60 0.06 1297 78.61 4.9
$4,223 $3.26 $8.14
RSF, 72 0.29 2065 603.54 37.4 32,424 15.70 5.18
0 R-4,R-8 82 0.65 0 0 0 0 35.19
R-12,R-16 88 0.97 45 43.44 2.7 2,333 51.86
BN,BH,CBD, 92 1.24 226 279.57 17.3 15,019 66.46
BG,BF
OI,IOP 88 0.97 394 380.30 23.5 20,431 51.86
A2 ** 0.01 3814 35.50 2.2 1,907 Z32u 1 0.50
U* ** 0.01 2708 25.20 1.6 1,354 S 0 0.50
- Developed 0.97 90 86.87 5.4 4,667 51.86
Undeveloped ** 0.01 1630 15.17 0.9 815 0.50
Parks* 0.14 486 65.65 4.1 3,527 7.26
J TOTAL 12,755 100.0 $86,700
* Not a zoning designation
**Runoff computed on basis of fixed fee equal to$0.50 acre
✓ (1)Tax exempt parcels(approximate)
-so Financing Storm Water Projects - Final Report Page 12
POLICY STATEMENT I
FOR
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
I
I. Policy Statement
All properties within the City of Chanhassen shall I
contribute to the Surface Water Management Utility in an
amount proportional to the runoff contributed by each
particular parcel. ,
II. Exemptions
(a) Agricultural Land - Agricultural ( tilled) land will be
charged a flat rate equivalent to the Single Family
Residential classification per quarter.
( b) Undeveloped Lands Undeveloped lands , or land in a
natural undisturbed condition will be charged the rate
of Single Family Residential classification per quarter. I
( c) Street and Highway Right-of-Way - Street and highway
right-of-way shall be exempt from all charges.
(d) Lakes - Lakes listed by the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources as Natural Environment Waters,
Recreational Development Waters or General Development
Waters shall be exempt from all charges .
III. Fee Basis I
( a) Land Use - Land use for determining surface water
management fees shall be the existing land use at the
date of enactment of the Surface Water Management
Ordinance. As land is developed, or redeveloped, the
fees will be recomputed based on the revised land use.
( b) Soils - Soil Conservation Service (SCS)-Type B soils
shall be assumed for determining the runoff index (CN)
in the revenue equation. I
( c) Rainfall (P) - A 2" rainfall will be used on the
revenue equation.
(d) Runoff Indices (CN) - The runoff indices for the
property classifications are as follows:
Classification Land Use Runoff Index (CN) I
1 Rural Residential
( 2-1/2 acre lot) 60
Arra. 001). (4.
1
Classification Land Use Runoff Index (CN)
2 Single-Family Residential
I ( 1/3 acre lot) 72
3 Low and Medium Denisty
Residential ( as defined in
Comprehensive Guide Plan) 82
4 High Density Residential,
Industrial, Office and
Institutions (Churches,
Schools, Government
Buildings, Hospitals ) 88
' 5 Business/Commerical 92
6 Agricultural
7 Undeveloped
8 Parks, Cemeteries, Golf
Courses, Arboretum 65
' 9 Parking Lots as a principal use 98
*Curve number not applicable because fee established same
' as Single Family Residential, i .e. Classification No. 2 .
(e) Revenue Equation - The revenue equation for computing
' the runoff volume (Q) shall be based on the runoff
equation in the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
National Engineering Handbook Section 4 Hydrology.
The equation is as follows :
Q = (P-0.2S)2 where S=(1000/CN)-l0
P+0.8S and P=2"
' IV. Credits
Surface water management fees may be adjusted under the
conditions stated below. It shall be the responsibility of
the property owner to provide justification for the fee
adjustment. Credits must be applied for by October 31st of
the year preceeding the year in which the credit is to be
considered.
' (a) Storm Water Retention - If it can be demonstrated that
an individual parcel retains all or a portion of the
rainfall that it receives in excess of the runoff
index, the surface water management fee will be reduced
by a percentage equal to that percent of the parcel
which produces no external runoff. A fee reduction of
20% or greater must be demonstrated in order to receive
this credit.
-2-
(b) Low Income - The surface water management fee will be I
waived for any parcel where the aggregate income of the
property owner(s) is below the "poverty line" for the
year prior to issuance of any charges. This credit 11.
must be applied for each year. "Poverty line" means
the official poverty line defined by the Office of
Management and Budget based on Bureau of Census data
[ 42 U.S.C. 9902( 2 ) ] .
V. Adjustment of Fees I
Surface water management fees will be adjusted under the
following conditions:
(a) Revision of Surface Water Management Fees - The
estimated fees for the management of surface water may
be periodically revised by the City Council as a part
of the adoption of the annual budget. The fees will be
adjusted accordingly to adequately fund the surface
water management budget.
( b) Change in Developed Condition of Parcel - As land is
developed or redeveloped, the fees shall be recomputed
based on the revised land use. ,
---- END OF POLICY ----
I
1
I
I
I
-3-
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 19 OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE BY ADDING AN ARTICLE
ESTABLISHING A SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT UTILITY
1
The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains :
' Section 1. Chapter 19 of the Chanhassen City Code is amended
by adding Article VII To read as follows :
ARTICLE VII.
SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT
Sec. 19-140. Surface Water Management Utility Established.
Surface water management shall be operated as a public
' utility pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 444 .075 .
Sec. 19-141. Definitions.
The following words , terms, and phrases, when used in this
Chapter, shall have the meaning ascribed to them in this section,
except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning.
Surface Water Management Budget is the annual budget approved
by the City Council for surface water management including
planning, engineering, monitoring, capital expenditures,
personnel, and equipment.
Surface Water Management Fee means the quarterly charge for
each parcel of non-exempt property in the City for the
management of surface water.
' Utility Factor means the ratio of runoff volume, in inches,
for a particular land use, to the runoff volume, in inches,
for a 1/3 acre residential lot, assuming a 2" rainfall and
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) "Type B" soil conditions.
Sec. 19-142. Surface Water Management Fees.
' A. The utility factors for various land uses are as follows:
Classification Land Use Utility Factor
1 Rural Residential
( 2-1/2 acre lots) 0.21
2 Single Family Residential
( 1/3 acre lots) 1. 00
1'c s
Classification Land Use , Utility Factor I
3 Low and Medium Density
Residential 2.24
4 High Density Residential,
Industrial , Office, Insti-
tutions (Churches , Schools,
Government Building, Hospitals ) 3. 34
5 Business/Commercial 4. 28 '
6 Agricultural N/A
7 Undeveloped N/A
8 Parks , Cemeteries , Golf
Courses , Arboretum 0. 45
9 Parking Lots as a Principal Use 6.14
The Surface Water Management Fee shall be calculated by first
determining the percentage of total runoff in the City which is
attributed to Single Family Residential property. The Fee per
acre for Single Family Residential is computed by equating the
runoff percentage to an equal percentage of one-quarter (1/4 ) of
the annual Surface Water Management Budget, divided by the
estimated total acres of Single Family Residential land use in
the City.
B. The per acre Fee for all individual parcels shall be 1
defined as the product of the Single Family Residential Fee, the
appropriate utility factor based on land use and the total
acreage of the parcel with the exception that 1/3 acre shall be
used for each Single Family Residential lot, agricultural and
undeveloped parcels and 2-1/2 acres shall be used for each Rural
Residential lot when calculating the fee for their land uses.
Sec. 19-143. Credits.
The City Council may adopt policies for adjustment of the
surface water management fees . Information to justify a fee
adjustment must be supplied by the property owner. Adjustment of
fees shall not be retroactive. I
Sec. 19-144. Exemptions.
The following land uses are exempt from the surface water '
management fee:
a ) Public Right-of-Way
b) Lakes
•
-2-
I
NI Amend Section 19-146 . Appeal of Fee .
1 Add the following sentence:
"No adjustments will be made for property classifications 1 , 2
1 and 3 . "
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
' Sec. 19-145. Payment of Fee. .
Surface water management fees shall be invoiced quarterly.
' The amount due as shown on the invoice shall be payable on or •
before the 20th day of the month in which the invoice is issued.
A penalty of ten percent ( 10%) per quarter shall be added to all
' accounts that are not paid in full by the due date. The penalty
shall be computed on the unpaid balance not paid by the due date
at the time each quarterly statement is prepared. Any prepayment
' or overpayment of charges shall be retained by the City and
applied against subsequent fees.
Sec. 19-146. Appeal of Fee.
If a property owner or person responsible for paying the
surface water management fee believes that a particular fee is
' incorrect, such person may file a written appeal with the City
Clerk. Appeals will be heard by the City Council .
Sec. 19-147. Certification of Delinquent Fees.
' If a surface water management fee is not paid within three
( 3) months after a billing is issued, the City Council may
' certify the amount due, together with penalties, to the County
Auditor to be collected with other real estate taxes on the
parcel.
' Sec. 19-148. Surface Water Management Fund.
A separate fund shall be maintained for surface water
' management fees and expenditures.
Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective immediately
upon its passage and publication.
' PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this
day of , 1990.
' ATTEST:
' Don Ashworth, Clerk/Manager Donald J. Chmiel, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on , 1990. )
' -3-
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 I
town. So maybe we can discuss this in the Council Presentations. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Okay. We can move that .
Councilman Workman: So do you want to just hold that? Hold 2(k)?
Mayor Chmiel: Why don't we. We'll put 2(k) under Council Presentations.
Everyone in agreement?
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes.
VISITORS PRESENTATIONS: None.
PUBLIC HEARING: STORM WATER UTILITY DISTRICT; ADOPT STORM WATER UTILITY
ORDINANCE.
• PUBLIC PRESENT:
NAME __ADDRESS
Tim Erhart 775 West 96th Street
Don Patton Lake Susan Hills Partnership
Gayle Degler Lyman Blvd.
Al Klingelhutz 8600 Great Plains Blvd.
Roman Roos 10341 Heidi Lane
Conrad Fiskness 8033 Cheyenne Avenue
Tim Bloudek 1171 Homestead Lane
Mike Klingelhutz 8601 Great Plains Blvd.
Clark Horn 7608 Erie
Gary Warren: As Council's aware, we've been working since March to look at the
funding scenario for trying to address the challenges that face the City as far
as meeting water quality issues. Trying to keep up with the development in the
City as far as development proposals and also providing, be ahead of the game as
far as acquisition of parcels of property for consolidating storm water
retention ponds and things of this nature. Also recognizing some of the
upcoming capital expenditures that we are aware of from the various watershed
districts and as mandated by State Statute for complying with the Chapter 509
requirements for adopting a local watershed management plan. As a result of
this effort and through several workshops, as you're aware and with public
information meeting to receive input from the community and separate
questionnaire that was mailed out, we have fined tuned the document which is in
front of the Council for public hearing tonight which basically presents storm
water utility concept proposal for funding the anticipated financial plans here
before the City which we're looking at for the next 5 years. Some of the
briefly the highlights of the capital improvement program that are major
elements would be the identification of wetlands and wetland mapping which is
about a $55,000.00 element . The local surface water management plan that the
City needs to do in compliance with the State Statute's about a $135,000.00
item. Water quality plan, about $72,000.00 and we have a backlog which we've
estimated a backlog of construction for storm sewer improvements of about
$150,000.00 and future demands which we estimate at about $400,000.00. All
total it's about a 1.7 million dollar program and as was identified through. the
4 '
kr1141401 N3 • v
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
' preparation of the document , the current general operating fund of the City is
not capable of financing a program of that magnitude without having other
programs be shorted and the utility district concept which has been accepted now
' by several communities in the area, has been a concept that is the most direct
way of acquiring funds to deal and to dedicate them specifically to the purpose
for which they're required. Namely a storm water management. So the document
which has been prepared reflects this. The ordinance which is also in tonight 's
packet for adoption reflects the utility rates which would be conincident with
the adoption of the utility program. So we have placed the proper notices in
the newspaper for hearing and this is the public hearing to address public input
' in that regard.
Mayor Chmiel= Okay. Is there any discussion from the audience? Anyone wishing
to address this specific item? Please state your name and address.
' Tim Erhart : I 'm Tim Erhart , 775 West 96th Street , Chanhassen. Honorable Mayor
and Council, I had the opportunity to get the proposal and for the first time I
' feel a little bit like Eric Rivkin coming up here. So I hope I don't look that
way I guess and I don't want to ramble on and on but this is an issue that I
think it 's important and it affects a lot of people here. I note that the
' rrrvey that went out only received a 4% return so I don't know how valuable that
should be. I don' t remember getting it and most the people I talked to don't
remember seeing it . I think first I'd like to address the issue a little bit
about the philosophy of government and perhaps defend the proposal with that .
' I've been on the Planning Commission for almost 4 years and as I sit in here I'm
always amazed at how many times we see people, almost every meeting come in and
want their government to do something for them. Solve another problem and it
' goes on and on and I know Paul and Gary and the Council as well start getting a
feeling that everybody wants them to solve everybody's problems in the city and
so you're expected to respond to that and I think given your situation and at
' 'east get staff's situation probably respond with an equivalent proposal if I
was faced with all these people that wanted everything to be solved for them.
The problem I have with that philosophy is that it , and with this proposal is
that it takes away I think a lot bf the emphasis on the individuals to solve
problems and puts it on the city. In the past we've solved water problems
through assessments and looking at specific cases and taking money out of the
general fund only when the individuals or a collection of small individuals
' dealing directly with the problem weren't able to solve the problem. People
wonder then why taxes keep going up and' up and up and up despite all the
politicians saying that they're keeping the same. It 's because, part of the
problem is on us, the taxpayers as a whole, we keep wanting the government to
solve all the problems. It's just not practical. You know there's only a line
between us and what they're trying to get rid of eastern Europe and Sweden. You
know where do we draw our line? There's some things we can't solve. So that's
my little speech on philosophy. The other one, I have a little more philosophy
and that 's control. Again, I watched for 4 years we slowly have tried to
control everything we do. I relate to specifically wetlands in that I've been
involved in the city when we've written and expanded on some of the most
stringent wetland protection ordinances in all the Twin Cities and in fact,
correct me if I'm wrong Paul, I think we're looked at as a model case in some of
the other cities. Of course what happens when we write these ordinances? We
tend to get more restrictive in our ordinances and some people, in fact most
people don't know about it and they do things that they never expect that are
' 5
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
against `the law and then some of them get caught and it 's all sad for us who try
to, who love wetlands because then we expect to go back and ask them to fix it.
Well, it 's pretty difficult for someone to go back and repair a wetland. Put it
back to like it was and so the tendency has been to let 's police it more. As
I've been in meetings and I see this proposal, we're spending energy and money
on policing. Okay, we're going to spend $55,000.00 on a mapping of wetlands. so
that we know when someone is or isn't . And we're going to go out and twice a
year go and inspect every wetland so that we can see if anybody is doing
something. I just don't think we can afford that kind of policing and not only
that , I don't think people want people in their backyards twice a year
inspecting wetlands. And I see this whole thing sort of as the drug war in that
we're all against drugs and we•'re all for wetlands but we haven't been able to
police the drug situation and get people to stop using drugs by throwing them in
jail and I think the wetlands thing is as much education as is it trying to go
and spend another $75,000.00 to police it and add more people. You know it 's
part of a free society is that some people are going to make mistakes. We're
going to lose a little wetland here. Something's going to get damaged and we
deal with it at the time. Okay, I don't think we want to live in a society
where we go out and police every wetland and everything every citizen does and
try to avoid every mistake. That 's not realistic so. Let me address the
proposal itself. Some of the concerns I have. Yes, the objective is to raise
more money. We call this thing a utility. The way I see it , it 's because we
don't want to use those words tax increase. I think that stems all the way, for
the reasons I just stated, all the way from the federal government to our good
city of Chanhassen. I don't think this is a utility at all. It 's a tax on
something that we have to deal with. Those things that we have to deal with
collectively and I don't have a problem with that and I'd be more than happy to
put my money in to solve water drainage problems and wetland problems we have to
solve collectively. Well let 's call it what it is. It 's a tax increase and
what concerns me most about this, it 's a duplication of a tax we already have.
It 's a duplication of the adminstration costs that we have associated with real
estate tax. That 's what it is. It 's a duplication of real estate tax and we
already pay for the adminstration of that . The tax really isn't based on water
drainage. It 's based on the type of real estate because you really can't
measure, you really can't accurately measure drainage. You have things like
credits for retained runoff. You've got credits for low income. Are we going -
to be in the business in our adminstration to decide who's got low income in
this city? I think we're stretching a little bit beyond what we want to tackle '
here. You've got credits for conservation program. People like me have to go
to every down at the ASCS to file for it to get a credit . Some more waste of
time and more waste of your time. More administration costs. All these credits
just get decided by a staff committee. I don't know about that . We have
appeals to the Council. Sounds like a real estate tax to me. We have a revised
billing system. We have 10%c penalties and if we can't collect, we add it to
your real estate tax. If you read the document so it 's a real estate tax. How
many people are we going to hire to administrate this thing? I look at the
numbers and I'm sure you have and you can draw your own conclusions. It 's more
than 1. Document suggests that the rates are fixed for 5 years yet when I reach
page 13, it states otherwise. I won't read it but it sure doesn't read that on
that page. Document says it's fair. I think it's unfair. I think it's unfair
to the lot owners who have, reimbursed the developers who have gone in and put
proper drainage system in according to the engineering department's
recommendations and our policies. It 's unfair to people who have gravel
6
i
• City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
' driveways as opposed to asphalt driveways. Quite frankly, if you choose to
elect this kind of a system, I think the example's pointed out in the document
of the cities where they put a flat rate on individual homeowners makes a lot
' more sense than trying to measure runoff which I don' t believe you can do.
Lastly, I'd like to deal with specifically my case and a few of the others in
the room here and that 's dealing with agricultural property. I heard one fellow
called me this morning and was wondering if they were going to pay for the clean
out of his agricultural draining system since that now would be included in the
water runoff problem. I won't pose that question here but I think there's a lot
behind the question. On page 3, which I will read, basically it states. A
quarterly fee is typically charged against all developed parcels. It says to me
that then typically fees are not charged against agricultural or undeveloped
parcels. Later on on page 5 it says, we've established a $.50 per acre per
' quarter fee for agricultural land and it sounds to me like it 's an .arbitrary figure the way it 's stated. For me that fee would be $240.00 a year . It 's not
unlike other people that have agricultural land in the city. I find it hard to
believe that I should be paying $240.00 a year to solve a problem that 's
' associated as the document says, with developed areas and people in the
developed areas are paying approximately $20.00 a year . Lastly, I'd like to
just remind the Council that in 1987 I was involved in passing an ordinance that
II precluded the development of agricultural property in the city of Chanhassen in
order to preserve that land until such time the MUSA line was extended and sewer
and water can serve them. Essentially we've taken away any potential for
' economic gain until that time and I find it would be totally unfair that at this
time that we would try to assess those landowners who can't develop now because
of a taking in the ordinance change, a utility fund associated with development .
So I thank you for my comments on that and ask that you consider those ideas and
' requests.
Mayor Chmiel: Thanks Tim. Is there anyone else that would like to address the
issue? As I mentioned, this is a public hearing. This is your opportunity to
come forward and express your opinions.
Don Patton: My name is Don Patton. Did the planning for the Lake Susan
development . The reason that I guess I'm opposing it , you're really taxing the
Lake Susan Hill people twice. In 1987 when we put the development together,
worked the PUD through staff and Council, we and if you'll look at what I've got
' in my hand, we had Hickock do a water runoff plan which showed the• ponding. I
know that Gary has got a copy of it and it 's been a master document for what has
been done in Lake Susan. Sizing the ponds again affecting the water quality and
' the quantities of water. Runoff. I don't see why, we paid for it once. It 's
been implemented. Why the people in Lake Susan would have to pay for it again.
So I would ask you to oppose or at least omit the people that have already paid
for it in the price of their house and the development we put together from
' paying for it again. Thanks.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Gayle Degler: I'm Gayle Degler and we live at Lyman Blvd. We're the dairy
farmers in Chanhassen along with my -folks on CR 17. I guess I have to be
' against this concept , or when you call it a utility, whatever because first of .
all rainfall runoff, that's a natural event. We make it sound like this runoff
is all negative. Without the runoff we wouldn't have our lakes, our streams and
7
i
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
any of this other stuff. We need the runoff. What we don't want and what we're
trying to control is the man made runoff. Your streets. Your blacktops. Your
parking lots. Your big buildings. The man made runoff is what we're trying to
control and that obviously does need control. Like Mr. Patton said, some areas
of the city are already doing their job controlling it and I don't agree with
this double jeopardy in that way. Utility concept has been mentioned in a lot
of the literature and in the paper and it makes it sound like other cities have
already adopted this. Well, making a few phone calls Fridley, it 's all storm
sewer utility. They're charging storm sewer. Fridley is liberal enough, they
don't even charge vacant land and undeveloped land. They will charge them once
it's again being used but if it 's vacant at the time or if it 's undeveloped, '
they don't get any charge. Shakopee, agricultural land, no charge. Storm
sewer . Again, storm sewer. Bloomington. They don't have much in the line of
agricultural land obviously but the land that they do have, it 's only charged on
the percentage that uses the storm sewer. All these other cities have a utility
concept but storm sewer utility. And I think the City of Chanhassen obviously
has some storm sewer and it does need maintenance. That 's different than
charging a flat rate. The shot gun approach of charging everybody some
grandiose idea. Storm sewer, obviously we need. It 's hard to justify charging
ag land. These prices get passed on. If I have a company, a business and
somebody charges me extra taxes, that just gets passed on in my product . In
agricultural, I don't set my prices and it 's hard for me to pass that on.
Obviously we farm more land than we own so I'm going to be paying for the next
person's land that I'm renting. That is going to be paid by the person farming
the land and me as a farmer, I'm going to have to somehow justify that but I
can't add it onto the produce that I'm trying to sell. I'd like the opportunity
to compete with the dairy farmer in Chaska which is a mile away from my place.
He doesn't have to put up with that . He's got sewer and water going right
through his property. We'd like to be on an equal basis. I think agricultural
land obviously doesn't need. We do maybe need a utility for storm sewer but not
this general broad base type approach. Thank you. ,
Mayor Chmiel: Is there anyone else?
Al Klingelhutz: I'm Al Klingelhutz. I live in Chanhassen, Minnesota. 8600 '
Great Plains Blvd. . Environmentally I think I'm as concerned as anybody in this
room but after reading through this thing here and seeing the costs involved, it
looks to me like a good 60: to 70% of it would be for consulting fees,
administration and collecting fees. I've read there's a $300,000.00 backlog in
storm sewer arrangements in the city. I guess since day one when I was on the
Council and Mayor, anytime a developer came in he had to come up with a storm
sewer plan. Put in ponds. Put in the storm sewer. All these things on his own
and they were all charged against the person that bought the lot . I think this
is what Mr. Patton was referring to saying 'that these people would be put in a
double jeopardy. They already paid for it once and would have to pay for it
again. I'm also a little bit concerned that the last legislative session came
up with a ruling that the soil and water conservation district in each county
would be the lead agency in controlling storm runoff water. I'm wondering if
there's been any connection with this plan and soil and water up to this point
in the saving of a lot of consultant fees. Mapping of wetlands and these •
things. I'm also a little concerned about people who already had storm water
assessments hearings. Places that were put in prior to developer's having to do
this work and I know there's areas right in the old part of Chanhassen that have
8
i
II . City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
II had a couple storm sewer assessments because there was no storm sewer put in at
the time of development . Are these people going to have to pay for somebody
else's storm sewer or are they going to be eliminated from paying again? I
I really feel that if the Council is thinking about passing an ordinance like
this, there should be a lot more input and a lot of checking with other units of
government that do have some control over these things. Like the Soil and
Water Conservation District Extension Committee. Carver County. Watershed
II districts. They all have a little finger in each one of these things. I was up
to a State Health Board meeting last week from Wednesday until Friday evening
and there was one whole conference on storm water runoff. So there's a lot of
II
. different departments that are concerned about it and I think before we run off
and pass an ordinance like this, rather than have a lot of overlapping, there
should be a lot more networking done with the other organizations that have been
doing some work on this also. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel = Thank you Al . Is. there anyone else?
II Roman Roos: Good evening. I'm Roman Roos. I live at 10341 Heidi Lane. I can' t
reall; address what 's already been_ addressed. I think it 's been well presented
to Council but I guess I have a real problem about being hit twice and I'm
I speaking as a private citizen at this point in time. A good case example would
be Bluff Creek Road. It 's a road that connects Pioneer Trail down to TH 212.
That road was put in. Curbs and gutters. B612 curbs and gutters. Storm sewer
I running all the way down to control the surface runoff on Bluff Creek which is a
paved road now. We're grateful to have that . My assessment charge is about
$3,600 .00 for that road. That road was assessed back to the individual abutting
property owners on Huse Farm and the two farms running along Bluff Creek. We
II sustained the full cost of that short of government funding some grant aid
dollars that we received. We were willing to do that . That road is used by the
majority of people coming from Shakopee to Chanhassen via a shortcut up Bluff
II Creek Road. I guess I don't have a problem paying my fair share but I have a
real problem when I get hit a second time as a private citizen. As a developer
in the City of Chanhassen, case in point would be, there's not a project in the
I last 4 years I would assume that have not come under the control of the city
engineering. Gary Warren and his staff. They've done an admirable job but it 's
a thing called sewer costs. Okay? Storm sewer . I'm in the process right now
of getting hit on a storm sewer, second phase on a 4 acre parcel in the Chan
I Lakes Business Park. It 's going to hit me some $57,000.00. Now you're going to
tell me on that 4 acres, besides paying for the full cost of my prorata share of
that storm sewer, I also have to now pay a surface useage charge. I can't
I believe it . I just think it 's totally unfair both to the private citizen and to
the developer. Thank you very much.
Mayor Chmiel Thank you Roman. Anyone else?
IIConrad Fiskness: I'm Conrad Fiskness. I'm President of the Riley-Purgatory-
Bluff Creek Watershed District and I'm a resident of Chanhassen living on 8033
II Cheyenne Avenue in Chanhassen Estates as well. It 's rather interesting having
seen the articles in the paper and listen to the discussion here tonight, the
issue of water is one that I've heard in many different forums just in this
II year. It 's an issue which we're going to hear a lot more of and there's going
to be a lot more struggles and there's a lot of effort to get involved in,
especially in terms of control of water resource, not only in this state but in
II 9
II
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 1
the whole nation. Water is going to be a major problem whether you're in State
or County or City or whatever have you. I've had my own tangles with the Met
Council on this subject already and I'm expecting a few more. As a
representative of the Watershed District , quite frankly we as a board have not
had an opportunity to really see what you folks are proposing. I did have a
copy of a newspaper article which I had at our last meeting and we talked
briefly about it . Obviously that didn't have information in detail so we didn't
really get into any indepth discussion. On the basis of what knowledge we do
have of these types of utilties, we are assuming that what you would be doing
and our discussion I guess did have some assumptions like this. One is it , the
design of what you are proposing probably would go beyond the watershed
district 's activities in terms of water management and we would not be expecting
that what you're doing would be a duplication of watershed activities that have
already taken place and it would be, at least my assumption that what you're
looking at is I guess what it 's referred to in the trade as a detailed interior
system design. If that is correct . Then we would basically, I guess I'm here
to say then that whatever you choose to do, and if you do choose to go ahead,
that the watershed district wants to make it clear that any information that we 11 have, any work that we have done. Anything that 's in our file, we would be
certainly not only willing but we feel both obligated and eager to share
whatever work we have done that our files are obviously available. They are
public property anyway but I just want you to be aware that we would make those
available to you and offer whatever expertise and assistance that we can should
the City of Chanhassen choose to do this.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Conrad. Is there anyone else?
Tim Bloudek: Good evening. I'm Tim Bloudek, 1171 Homestead Lane and I must
admit I'm not very well educated on this whole proposal other than the fact that
there are a few points that are a little bit of concern to me. I'd like to ask
you a question if I could. Somebody stated that communities have adopted this
type of utility plan. What communities are there? Are those that adopted that
plan?
Mayor Chmiel: Gary, would you like to address that? ,
Gary Warren: Most recently the City of Eagan has done it . The City of
Roseville. The City of St . Louis Park. Plymouth. Shakopee. St . Paul.
Councilman Johnson: Those are the local ones. Throughout the country there's
others. Seattle has had one for about 5 years now.
Tim Bloudek: Okay. A couple of people that had addressed or had contacted some
of these other cities talked about the rural areas, that they were exempt a few
other things. I live in a what I guess would be called a rural residential area
and so far I don't see any benefits to utilities that the City provides. We
have no city water. No city sewer. About the only thing we do have is
underground electrical utilities and telephone. That 's about it . So I really
derive very little benefit from city services other than we do have fire
protection but it's pumper trucks and that type of thing which means my
insurances are higher and that type. So I'm not real excited about additional
taxes. Also I see one of the items for capital expenditures would be the
backlog of construction projects and future construction projects of which I
10
I
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
assume I won't have any benefit again but again I would be paying a tax
probably, and I agree with whoever stated before, this is a tax. It 's another
form of tax so I would prefer to call it that . I don't see any benefit nor
would my neighbors see a benefit yet we would be paying a higher assessment or
' tax than anyone else that would live within the city that would have access to
storm sewer and that type of thing so I guess I'd just like to be on record as
saying I'm opposed to some type of special taxation and I'd lust as soon see
that lumped into the real estate taxes which is what I think somebody else
brought that up also. That it is a form of real estate tax. Why should we
duplicate again the expenditure of adminstrating that? Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel : Thank you Tim. Is there anyone else?
Mike Klingelhutz: Mike Klingelhutz, 8601 Great Plains Blvd. . I have a copy of
the plan here and I had a chance to look at it quite extensively. It 's going to
generate a lot of money and a lot of money is going to be spent on consulting
hydrologists and it looks like they're going to try and ease the burden on that
' engi.neening and adminstrative department but I don't think that the way they're
spending the money isn't going to really help to do much for our already
identified problems in the lakes like Lake Susan. I don't think that they went
about this and thought of their objectives before they made, they came up with
utility concept . I'd like to see them look more at , you know create a list of
objectives and then see if enacting a storm water utility meets or helps to meet
those objectives. Objectives like keeping Eurasian Milfoil out of lakes.
Keeping susceptible winter kill lakes from dying out every other year.
Educating the people on non-point pollution. Stuff like that . I'd like to see
a list of objectives just there is one or I'd like to see one made before this
I ia enacted. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you. Anyone else?
Clark Horn: Clark Horn, 7608 Erie Avenue. I think what you're talking about
considering here is a long standing policy in the city of Chanhassen. I think
whenever you do that you have to take a careful look at what you're changing and
why things were put in place the way they were. This method of assessing storm
water runoff has been in place probably since before Al was on the City Council
and it 's worked in the past and I think the gentleman is right . You're talking
' about another tax. You're talking about administering it and you're only
looking at one aspect of this thing. What comes next? Street assessments?
Will those be put on a basis like this? I think you've taken one aspect out of
this and you're. looking at it . You really have to study the whole philosophy
and assessment policy. Thank you.
Mayor Chmiel: Thank you Clark. Anyone else? If not , can I have a motion to
' close the public hearing?
Councilwoman Dimler moved, Councilman Workman seconded to close the public
hearing. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The public hearing was
' closed.
Mayor Chmiel: Jay, do you want to start off?
Councilman Johnson: I've been one of the original people pushing for this in
11
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
that there's a lot of things going on in this city in storm water that needs
some central coordination. We have Cake Susan Hills doing their storm water
plan. Saddlebrook doing their's. This next development doing their's and they
look at a microcosm. They look at only their development and what 's happening '
within their development . Not what 's happening within the whole city. We need
to be able to pull all these plans and the developments will continue doing
these plans and they'll continue paying for their storm water . I like all the
shaking heads but we have to have it . The developers will continue paying to
work a storm water plan but now with this, we'll be able to integrate it into a
city storm water plan. Not just a site specific storm water plan. It 's
something that the watershed district wants us to do. The State wants us to do
and eventually we're going to have to do it anyway. Whether we take it out of
property taxes, which many people things a regressive tax. Or whatever. A lot
of people, the higher priced house ends up paying a lot more than lower priced
house for the same utility. People say we don't have a storm water utility.
Well what is everything out there? We have a storm water utility. We just
don't have operating fees like we do for our water utility or electric utility
or sewer utility. We have fees for those. We pay for maintenance of them.
There's no fees to pay for maintenance of our storm water facility at this time.
Chan Pond out here is filling up with sediment from a storm water drain that was
put in under a development that was supposed to do it right and it didn't go II •
right and now we're going to have to dredge out that pond eventually. Building
a new delta in there. There's no money to do that in the budget . We could do
it on a general property taxes but then again we're charging more because of the
way property taxes are in this, the higher price of your house, the more you
pay. So the guy with a $200,000.00 pays 4 times as much as I do for the exact
ame service where his house probably doesn't contribute to the storm water
system any more than mine. That 's why I like the flater rate personally than,
it 's closer to people representative to what they're getting. I'm not too sure
I'm too wild about 50 cents an acre on the agricultural land. That 's a little
much for the large agricultural tracts. But agricultural also does contribute
to storm water and to the pollution going into Lake Susan. Non-point source, as
it has been brought out tonight , we need more money to address that . The State
says you have to address non-point source pollution. Where's the money State?
We have to address it but there ain't no money from the State to tell us. They
just tell us we have to address it but we have to get the money somewhere to
address non-point source pollution. Dairy farms, they have pollution. The cows
aren't all potty trained. They have a high BOO coming off and then the
modern, I'm not sure about our local dairy farm here, whether they have all the
control systems that they have to put on the modern farms. The new dairy farms
with the settling tanks and everything else for the cows for the milking barn. '
I like the list of objectives. We've heard a lot of objectives that our staff
wants as far as, I just don't see it presented here. I think there is a list .
We can come up with a list but I think, there's another misconception I kept
hearing tonight was we're going to use this to build storm sewers in
developments or, that's not the purpose of this. When somebody makes a
development , they build their own storm sewer for that development. It becomes
part of the city utility just like they put in sewers. They put in the
watermains. The whole bit. They pay for that when they make their development .
But then after those utilities go in, there's no more fees for use of those
utilities. The storm water utility. That's the story of my comments. I
Mayor Chmiel: That's about it .
12 ,
. City-Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Councilwoman Dimler: Can I go next? '
Mayor Chmie 1 : ∎L.i - Be my gue st _
Councilwoman Dimler : I happened to save my agenda from the City Council meeting
on May 9th and I don't know why we didn't have the Minutes from that because at
' that point I guess I'd like to clarify that I was not one of the ones that
wanted in any way to pursue this. I really don't know where it came from but it
was presented to us at the time and so my comments at that time were, that this
is a tax. We have to make sure that everyone knows that we're increasing taxes
here but I was willing to study it more carefully only with the following
conditions and that was that we address water quality and not just ways to move
'writer along. I see nothing in this final report that addresses water quality.
' The quality of the runoff. We're not saying anything about fertilizing lawn ,.
Educating the public as to that running off into our lakes. We're not saying
,anvt'hing about the present condition of our lakes. We're not
' - - - going to use rh,3t
money to clean them up Even if you get the purest water to run in from new on,
our lakes still need to be cleaned up. It just is not going to take care of
itself. Also I wanted to find ways to educate the public as to find ways to
' conserve water . That would be sanitary. Okay. Anyway, and I think some of the
points that have been made here tonight , I didn't want that we increase
personnel and I think the report indicates that we would be increasing personnel
to monitor and manage. I see it as an adminstrative headache. I see mole work
for the Council. Perhaps to the point where everyone would be coming in for
adjustments and we would need another Board of Adjustments just to handle
everyone's concerns. I think it 's hard to correlate the fees to the benefits
' and although I see credits and exemptions that are allowed for special cases, it
is up to the property owner to justify the fee adjustment . I think it 's hard
enough for the engineers to find the benefit and much less for the property
owner to come in and prove the benefit . So my intention would be to vote
against this.
Mayor Chmiel : Okay. Tom?
Councilman Workman: I don't know, we're graced with a lot of big voices from
the community tonight . It 's big if Al Klingelhutz comes out . I'm interested in
' what Father Barry has to say about this I think a lot of the goals that we're
trying to accomplish in this plan, I don't know that I'm ready to vote against
it tonight or for it . It 's obvious to me that there's a lot of different things
' that we need to still shake out . I see Gary writing over there franticly but
there's a lot of really good comments from everyone. It really would seem to me
that a lot of this really came out of, and Gary you can tell me if I'm wrong,
out of the Frontier Trail update where there was an argument about well,
' actually the storm water system that they had on that beat up old road was
actually adequate and they had already done it so they didn't want to be
assessed again so Council was kind of concerned about where that money was going
to be coming from and then potentially how many more Frontier Trails would we
have in the future where we'd have to assess people, which I think is probably
the number one thing Council least likes to do is assess people. Am I sort of
correct?
Gary Warren: I would say Frontier Trail is a classic example of the challenges
' 13
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 t
that we're faced as far as funding improvements of this nature but I think it
would be a wrong impression to imply that it was because of Frontier Trail that
we said that we needed a district . We have been thinking all along based on the
reguesr that we get for fighting Eurasian Water Milfoil., wetland mapping and the
other things to come up with a funding source to address the things that we saw
coming. The water quality plan that we had in the program here is one element..
The state mandated 509 local plan that Mr . Fiskness referenced that we're going
to have to do. Those really have been things that we've been watching the
Statutes and see them coming and since they're big ticket items said, well this
is a funding source that directly approaches the money for those particular
improvements. So Frontier Trail is a classic example. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just interrupt here? The people on Frontier Trail
are still being assessed. They were assessed once and they're being assessed
again with the redoing improvement . Are you saying that in the future we could
use that money to not assess people as we do their road improvements and storm
water improvements?
Councilman Workman: Just the storm water portion.
Councilwoman Dimler-: But you would do it along with the road right ? '
Gary Warren: Typically that 's the way we do it . The real interest , and it 's a
very important distinction. Some of the comments that we heard tonight are the '
fact that the utility fund in no way, shape or form is intended to pre-empt any
developer from paying his fair share for the construction of improvements. It
does provide the city a little more discretion, flexibility to deal with some of
the more difficult problems. If you imagine trying to go back into Carver
Beach, which is very delinquent in storm sewer . Having very little of it and we
deal with it almost every week in trying to work out drainage issues with
particular property owners. To try to assess a project of that magnitude, it
will just be a nightmare and so it provides I think more flexibility to the City
to try to implement some necessary projects that can have very significant water
quality impacts when you look at the relation say to Lotus Lake.
Councilwoman Binder: So at that point you would make the decision to use it for
that particular, use the fund for that particular project? It 's at your
discretion?
Gary Warren: It would be brought to the Council on a particular basis like we
do with any other improvement project to lay up funding proposals and similar to
Carver Beach. I'm sorry, to Frontier Trail, where we said we have street
improvements and we have storm sewer improvements and here's what we think is
reasonable for city general obligation participation. Here's what we think is
reasonable from a special assessment standpoint . So we would follow those
guidelines pretty similarly.
Councilman Workman: So there's the dilemma I guess. We have the dilemma of
wanting, we've had many discussions here on Lake Lucy and it's uncleanliness. I
don't know. I guess a lot of this is what we're talking about yet we're not
really specifically talking about it. As Mike Klingelhutz mentioned, some of
the objectives, the things that we can really point to and say this is what we
want to do or this is where we're going to start or this is a wish list of
14 1
1
' City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
things that we want to do with the $1 .7 million over the next 5 years would
maybe give us, who have simpler minds an idea about exactly what we're going to
do. So I guess that 's why I say I'm not ready to vote against it but I'm not
ready to vote for it perhaps because I'd like to learn a little bit more about
' some of these concept . I hear reoccuring theme of taxation and it 's a tax.
Call it a tax and that makes me very nervous. There's something of a slippery
slope there. I would definitely like to see a sunset clause in this to say that
' in 5 years it will end unless Council approves to carry it out for another 5
years or however that would work to give the Council's in the future, in 1995 an
opportunity to re-evaluate the process a little easier. That 's really all I had
for now.
' Mayor Chmiel : Okay, thanks. Some of the things that are contained in there tco
indicate what those annual rates can be reviewed on a yearly kind of basis a
' well . I too get a little hesitant . Number one, tax as you've already said.
I don't want this to be a sort of fund raiser for the City. I don't see where
we should he the ones to come up with the amount of dollars. I have some real
' conrPrns about i' . One of the things too, even in that May memo that we had or
Council agenda. It was indicated in there that Eagan City Council's expecting
to adopt a storm water utility district . Have they done that as yet?
Oary Warren: Yes-
May ;r- Chmiel : They did? Okay.
Gary Warren: And a water quality management plan.
' Councilwoman Dimler: They have a plan. That 's what I wanted_
Gary Warren: We do have a budgeted plan element in this.
Mayor Chmiel : Have we reviewed their proposal to see a comparison to what our's
i s?
' Gary Warren: We at this time were not provided with a copy of it so I haven't
specifically gone through it , no.
' Mayor Chmiel: I guess I'm not in a position right now to say let 's can it .
I guess I'm in a position to say let 's look at this thing a little further.
Let 's study it a little further. Let 's look and see what these total figures
really mean. I'd like to see maybe something from Mr. Oegler's area to see what
assessment costs would be for him. I'd like to know what it'd be for
Klingelhutz' . Some residential individual units. Some of the commercial
properties and under some of these land uses, as I say, we're covering parks.
' Some broad spectrum. Does that also include the City of Chanhassen?
Gary Warren: Yes sir.
' Mayor Chmiel: Okay. I'd like to see a few other things brought into proper
perspectus before I think we should even consider adopting this at this time.
Gary Warren: The specific ordinance itself, because that was a separate
revision here to the report and it 's contained in the Council packet, does
' 15
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990 ,
provide up to an 80% credit . I think Tim Erhart referenced this earlier for the
agricultural property and undeveloped ,property if they can document that they
have an implemented soil conservation service program so we were trying to
addre:s the public. Put the concerns that were presented to staff here
throughout the development process here. The agricultural and undeveloped
parcels represent about 4% of the total revenue package that is currently shown
in the document . The ordinance also in contrast to the document itself , when we
looked at the ordinance, I didn't feel comfortable with locking rates for 3 to 5
or the proposal so we set the ordinance up to have the fees and the annual
budget reviewed on an annual basis with the City's annual budgetary program
because I think that there are needs out there. There are studies that have to
be done to more specifically identify them and the proposal that has been put
together has been put together with a lot of thought and review of our current
land use but until we get into some of the specifics and are able to study this
system a little bit more, there needs to be that flexibility to annually take a
look at this program as it develops to see that it isn't an albatrose so to
speak and it 's effectively addressing the interest of the city.
Mayor Chmiel: Yeah. As I see our growth going and constantly population counts
coming up, I guess I would like to try to adhere to the practice of not hiring
someone just to study or to take over this particular aspect of what we're
proposing here. If, and some calculations were made too and I think Al made the
statement that 60% of that would he for fee of staff rather than put back into
the proper use and that 's another thing that sort of disturbs me a little
hit So with that I would.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I just ask?
Mayor Chmiel: Sure.
Councilwoman Dimler: Can you address, were you planning to hire some new people
to administer and monitor?
Cary Warren: Actually we have a need prior to this funding. In fact the
engineering department had been looking to acquire a storm water drainage
engineer and a portion of his salary would be funded out of this fund. There are
some additional adminstrative costs just for implementing the program of about
$12,000.00 because we will be adding several parcels onto our utility building
and such but that's pretty nominal. So that wasn't going to take any staff
addition on the part of the utility adminstration end of it but storm water
drainage engineer is a person that 's specialty we're looking to establish here
to help us with a view of the proposals from the developers as well as to get
our handle on a comprehensive nature of this whole system.
Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, so part of his salary would come out of this. Where ,
would the rest come from?
Mayor Chmiel: The budget . ,
Councilman Johnson: Developers.
Councilwoman Dimler: So we're increasing the budget?
16 '
i
- City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
' Gary Warren: It 'd be a combination of probably the Adminstrative Trust Fund.
Councilwoman Binder I guess one of' my concerns with the budget shortfall that
we'd be cutting the budget and not increasing it . I think we need to look at
that real carefully Also, getting back to Mr Erhart 's concern. You know he
testified to the fact that yes we can get credits and yes but it takes him a day
off of work. It takes everybody a day off o-f work and to go down to some
authority and to prove your point and I know what kind of headache that is.
Even though we're making conditions available for them to do it , it is just ,
it 's a headache for the public to go through.
Councilman Workman- But we don't deny that there are storm water, I mean we're
going to have to pay for some of this somehow, someway though. We all
understand that and
' Councilwoman Dimler: Well I guess I don't because I thought if the developer
pays and then the people get assessed so they paid once. If you improve it
they pay again through assessments so they're paying and we're not improving the
' quality of the runoff. That 's my main point . If we were doing that , I creid
see some of this but we're riot .
' Gary Warren: The statement is accurate that developers pay to install storm
sewer systems and retention ponds and such when the developments are first
installed. But that 's it . After that the maintenance of wood skimmer basins
which go through abuse through frequent freeze and thaw cycles. The removal of
' sediments out of these retention basins that , if you're going to have them
working right , you've got to be committed to removing the sediments. Removal of
sediments out of the City's catch basin inlets. We talk about getting a handle
on our actual quality, the degregation of the lakes and where we are in that
element . Those things aren't funded.
' Councilwoman Dimler: Okay, where are those things beind paid for right now?
Out of what fund?
Gary Warren: Right now it 's being done through a combination of the public
' works staff. From primarily the street department which would be out of the
general fund and at this point in time staff, there's not enough staff to
address those specific repairs except on basically an emergency basis. We've
' got 4 men in the street department .
Councilwoman Oimler: So you're increasing staff there as well?
Gary Warren: We wouldn't be increasing staff at this time with this proposal
but certainly is an element of the program that is a necessary part of the
puzzle. It 's the on-going maintenance that 's really being sacrificed at this
' point in time.
Councilman Johnson: As each of these developments put in a lot of small little
ponds, as we have in the past , and now we're talking about doing a
comprehensive, is it lower maintenance to have a more comrepehensive system with
some larger facilities and integrated facilities versus? I know some of the
facilities you've got to .go through people's yards. You can only get in there
in the winter with your big trucks. You have to have the ground frozen and
stuff like that .
' 17
1
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
Gary Warren: There's economy of scale, there's no question about it but there's
also another important element and that is the water quality ability of a larger-
pond is much more significant than smaller ponds. You can take a large pond and
gf,t enough capacity so that you have good retention time and your ability to
settle out solids and allow for the volatization of the nutrients, you can do a
lot better job of treating the water . There's no question about that . And Near
Mountain is maybe a good example. You're eluding to our access challenges in
our ponds up in that area. The larger pond's to be ahead of development to
acquire property so that we can- have these larger facilities instead of running
around with 10 small ones. I think there are definitely some economies to be
had.
Councilwoman Dimler: But the developers still pays for the pond that 's in the
development contract?
Gary Warren: Right . This does not preclude the developer paying. ,
councilwoman Dimler : So we're not using this money to make.
Councilman Workman: I'd move to table. 1
Councilman Johnson: Second.
Mayor Chmiel: It 's been moved and seconded. Any more discussion? Mike, you '
wanted to make a point . I'll give you a quick minute.
Mike Klingelhutz: I just have one comment . Regarding the agricultural land.
For us farmers to comply with ASCS requirements and gather the credit , if this
is enacted, it 's going to cost us several thousand dollars in new equipment .
We're basically going to have to retool. No till planter . No till drill. I
mean that stuff's not cheap.
Mayor Chmiel: Yes. We understand that . Okay, thanks. '
Councilwoman Dimler: Could I ask a question here? I would vote in favor of the
tabling under one condition and that would be that when I approved the
preliminary report , I had asked that these concerns be addressed and yet the
final report came back without that . Now if we were concerned that Eagan had
done such a good job, why wasn't there a goal as to improving water quality that
Eagan had? You know that should have already been in the final report . '
Mayor Chmiel: There were some of your questions that you had. . .
Councilwoman Dimler: I don't want to keep studying it and putting more money ,
into the study if we aren't going to see these purposes clearly stated.
Gary Warren: Just so I understand, the 5 year capital improvements program 1
which I've addressed the water quality plan and monetary programs as a part of
that is not what you're looking for.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yes, because in the article here that was in the paper,
Eagan clearly said that the whole system is for water quality management not
18 ,
City Council Meeting - August 27, 1990
' just runoff and we're not addressing that .
Councilman Johnson: It 's in there.
Gary Warren: Page 10 of the report we have $72,000.00 budgeted for water
quality.
Councilwoman Dimler: Yeah but you're not saying specifically how you're going
11 to do it That 's the difference.
Gary Warren: Well the scoping those documents obviously takes time and effort
as well. We have attempted here to establish the goals and objectives. The key
elements of the program where we saw expenditures necessary but the refinement
of those programs similar to, we're not doing Chapter 509 plan either which is
'
$135,000.00 estimate. Those would be things that will be funded and developed
as a result of these programs.
Councilwoman Dimler: Could you get a copy of the Eagan?
Gary Warren: We certainly will do that .
' Mayor Chmiel : What I don't want to do is spend one heck of a lot more dollars
on this particular proposal either. We do have a budgetary shortfall. and I
don't want to spend any more dollars than is absolutely necessary or keep. . .
Councilman Workman moved, Councilman Johnson seconded to table adopting the
storm water utility ordinance for further study. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously.
' SURFACE USEAGE ORDINANCE AND JET SKI UPDATE.
Mayor Chmiel: Being that Scott Harr is not able to be here this evening because
he had some car problems in Hutchinson. His car broke down and unfortunately he
was coming home from vacation. That 's my story. Maybe Gary can address this
just briefly.
Gary Warren: I'll paraphrase, if I can be allowed, his August 8, 1990 update to
the City Manager. Basically Mr. Harr addresses the response, to just update the
' Council on actions that have been taken in enforcing these regulations on jet
skis. The following actions have been taken. One, he's met with the Carver
County Sheriff's Department , Water Patrol Division to request aggressive
' enforcement of the Jet Ski regulations. Two, he's met with State of Minnesota
DNR Conservation officers assigned to the area requesting their assistance in
the enforcement of the regulations. Three, he's met with the Park and Rec
Department here to retain their assistance in educating gate attendants as to
' the applicable laws and how to respond to witnessed violations. And four,
educational efforts have been initiated through the local newspapers and he has
offered any assistance to the Sheriff's Department and the DNR as far as our
' CSO's assisting. However, he's qualified that from a liability standpoint it
didn't seem prudent to have our CSO's on a solo basis actually being in
watercraft and enforcing it so. He's received positive responses and he is
bringing this up on an upcoming Public Safety Commission meeting.
19
I
I
•
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, MN. 55101 612 291-6359
September 18, 1990 1
Paul Kraus
I
Director of Planning
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55317
I
Dear Mr. Kraus:
As you know, July 1, 1996 is the deadline for reducing nonpoint pollution in the Lower Minnesota
I
River by 40 percent. (Nonpoint pollution includes urban and agricultural runoff). As the designated
water quality planning body for the Metropolitan Area, the Metropolitan Council has held several
meetings with local officials to explain the goal and invite their participation in addressing this issue.
I
Efforts to achieve this goal must involve local governments because of their land use and water
resource planning responsibilities. Local governments have expressed their concerns and interest
in assisting with this effort. I
A number of technical issues need to be resolved in order for the Council and communities to make
progress in meeting the deadline. The staff of the Natural Resources division is forming a technical
I
advisory group consisting of local planners,engineers,and other technical staff to help develop a plan
of action to achieve the 40 percent goal by mid-1996. The tasks will include clarifying the goal,
identifying the source of the problem, evaluating current water quality management efforts in the
watershed, assessing the need for additional research,evaluating possible programmatic strategies for
addressing the problem, and developing recommended short- and long-range action plans. I
anticipate that the advisory group will require two years to complete this task, at which time it will
be discontinued.
I invite you to be a member of the technical advisory group as a representative of your community I
and the other municipalities in the watershed. Your knowledge of land use planning/
implementation and local government will contribute to the success of the advisory group.
Please respond as soon as possible, as the first meeting is tentatively set for early October. The
I
group will probably meet monthly during the day. Please contact Jack Frost (291-6519) or Carl
Schenk (219-6410)with your response and an indication of the best meeting times for you. If there
are any other questions, please call me (291-6402). We look forward to working with you.
I
Yours�truly,
Z.I.,_e......el, .. I
Marcel R. Jo eau •
Manager, Nat • •esources Division I
cc: Marcy J. Waritz, Metropolitan Council District 14 RECEIVED
SEP20 1990
CITY OF CHANHASSEN I
11-71 to o .
....„..__________.
JI
GENERALIZED IMPACTS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT ON RUNOFF WATER QUALITY
Phosphorus Export:
' Undeveloped Lands 0.06 pounds/acre
Urban x
Low Density 0.74 pounds/acre ( `
High Density 2.4 pounds/acre
--�-� Agricultural
Low Intensity 0.26 pounds/acre
Middle Intensity 0. pounds/acre
High Intensity 3 pounds/acre
1
EXAMPLES:
1. 10 acre development from undeveloped to low 47sity urba :
Before: 0.6 pounds phosphorus/year
After: 7.4 pounds phosphorus/year (12-fold increase)
�. After w/watershed treatment (assuming 50% efficiency) :
3 .7 pounds phosphorus/year (6-fold increase)
2. 10 acre development from low intensity agricultural to low
' density urban:
Before: 2.6 pounds phosphorus/year
After: 7.4 pounds phosphorus/year (3-fold increase)
k4, After w/watershed treatment (assuming 50% efficiency) :
3.7 pounds phosphorus/year (1.4-fold increase) X(
1
* 1 pound of phosphorus generates 500 pounds of algae.
' * Most other pollutants are treated with greater efficiencies
than phosphorus. For example, solids-related pollutants are
treated by watershed basins at 90% efficiency.
* Even if the phosphorus exports following land development from
agricultural to urban uses are equal, the impacts on lakes are
greater because of the different seasonal effects.
47-1-0.‘
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission
Mears Park Centre, 230 East Fifth Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 612 222-8423
CONTACT: ANDREA FREKING
(612) 229-3269
GOVERNOR PROCLAIMS "WATER QUALITY AWARENESS WEEK"
ST. PAUL, September 14, 1990 -- Governor Rudy Perpich has proclaimed September 23-29
"Water Quality Awareness Week" in Minnesota. In his proclamation, The Governor urges all citizens
to "gain a better understanding of the state's water pollution control facilities and how they operate." '
The second annual "Water Quality Awareness Week" is sponsored by the Central States
Water Pollution Control Association (CSWPCA) and Minnesota Wastewater Operators Association I
(MWOA), organizations of individuals involved in the proper treatment and disposal of municipal
and industrial wastewaters in, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Illinois. Many employees of the local I
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission (MWCC) are.CSWPCA and MWOA members.
During Water Quality Awareness Week and throughout the year, the public can tour MWCC i
facilities or receive information about sewage treatment by calling MWCC's Public and Community
Relations Office at (612) 229-2129, or by calling one of MWCC's 11 wastewater treatment plants in I
the Twin Cities area:
Anoka, 1480 South Ferry, Anoka, 445-4061
Bayport, 498 South Main, Bayport, 437-4212
Blue Lake, 6957 Trunk Highway 101, Shakopee, 445-4061
Chaska, East Second and South Beech Streets, Chaska, 445-4061
Cottage Grove, 9211 - 110th Street South, Cottage Grove, 437-4212
Empire, 2540 West 197th Street, Farmington, 463-4611 1
Hastings, 100 Lea Street, Hastings, 437-4212
Metro, 2400 Childs Road, St. Paul, 772-7101 (tours are on the second Tuesday of each
month and one must be 18 years old or older to tour)
Rosemount, 4005 - 140th Street East, Rosemount, 463-4611 '
Seneca, 3750 Plant Road, Eagan (no tours available due to construction and safety reasons)
Stillwater, 6163 St. Croix Trail North, Stillwater, 437-4212 RECEIVED
SEP 17 1990
-more- cIty OF CHANHASSEN
Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer II 1