EC SUM 2013 12 11
Chanhassen Environmental Commission (EC)
Regular Meeting
December 11, 2013
Members Present: Glenn Kaufmann, Matthew Myers, Amy Wenner, Bret Borth, Keith Anderson, Amy Omann
Members Absent: Katie Mahannah
Staff Present: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resource Specialist
Minutes: November minutes were approved.
Work Plan draft review: The commission went through the draft work plan month by month. Minor changes
were made. Jill will update the 2014 dates on the plan. The commission approved the plan with the changes and
corrected dates.
Sustainability Report: The commission discussed the report and who would like to cover which section. It was
decided that the sections be assigned as such:
Water Conservation – Katie, Keith
Stormwater – Glenn, Amy O
Surface Water – Bret, Amy W
Urban Forestry – Matthew
In January commissioners will come prepared with an initial review of their section with areas to change or
update highlighted. In February, commissioners shall have a rough draft of their section prepared. The
commissioners wondered if new goals could be developed rather than using the goals from the Comprehensive
Plan. Additionally, Amy W thought that having two pages per section would better serve the education
component of the report by allowing for more narrative, graphs and details pertaining to the topic. These ideas
will be discussed at next month’s meeting.
SWMP update planning: The commission began their discussion of the SWMP update by answering the
question “What’s the biggest water quality issue in Chanhassen?”
Soil erosion with current rain events of increased intensity and occurrences
Pollution/trash entering the stormwater drains
Development pressure/impacts to wetlands
Regulation, especially in regards to water conservation
Fertilizer/runoff into lakes and wetlands
Development impacts and impervious surfaces
Slowing down runoff/keeping stormwater on site for as long as possible
The commission then talked about the potential survey that would be sent out to residents. They thought that the
survey should be clear about why the survey is being done and that the survey is about water resources. They
liked the simplicity of the Douglas County survey for a couple of reasons: it focused it on the most important
question (biggest water quality issue) and that it’s short so it can be completed quickly. The convenience should
motivate more people to complete and return it. They agreed that the survey should be a maximum of one page.
They think the first question should be “What type of residence do you live in?” in order to categorize the
responses as to lakeshore/non-lakeshore, single-family/multi-family, senior, etc. Additional questions to ask may
1
include: ‘Who/what do you think is the largest and second largest contributor to pollution in our waters’, ‘What’s
the biggest threat to water quality’, ‘Do you obey watering restrictions’, ‘Do you feel involved in the management
of the city’s water resources’, ‘Do you want to be involved in the management of the city’s water resources’. The
survey could be disseminated in the city utility bill or inside the Connection both with a web address so that the
survey could be taken online instead. A notice in the paper and on Facebook as well as the RSS feed could alert
residents to the survey. For follow-up, a summary of the answers could be put on the website, Facebook or in the
Connection with all of the comments posted in their entirety since people are interested in reading those. Keith
referenced a survey he had taken for the 50 Lakes community. He will look that up.
General Discussion:
Terry is scheduled to attend the January meeting.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 7:40 PM.
Minutes prepared by Jill Sinclair
2