12-2-96 agendav
•
CITY OF RICHFIELD
MONDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1996
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
7:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
1. 7:00-7:45 P.M. DISCUSSION OF HENNEPIN COUNTY WATER
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 44
II. 7:45-8:15 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF CITY MAINTENANCE FACILITY
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 45
III. 8:15-8:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL TO USE POSTCARD FOR
UTILITY BILLING
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 46
IV. 8:30-9:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS REPORT OF SIGN ORDINANCE
ENFORCEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
ASSISTANCE TO NON-COMPLIANCE BUSINESSES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 47
V. 9:00-9:30 P.M. DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF APPLE
BLOSSOM PARK FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 48
VI. 9:30-10:00 P.M. DISCUSSION OF STATUS OF AIRPORT RELATED ISSUES
STUDY SESSION LETTER NO. 49
• 10:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT
AUXILIARY AIDS FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES ARE AVAILABLE UPON
REQUEST. REQUESTS MUST BE MADE AT LEAST 96 HOURS IN ADVANCE TO THE
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR AT 861-9702.
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 49
Agenda December 2, 1996
Issue Statement:
Status of airport related issues.
Background:
Recent developments regarding airport issues include the following:
• Runway 4-22
In November 1993, a final draft of the EIS was issued. Richfield's noise mitigation and
technical issues were not addressed. Because the FEIS did not resolve several
environmental and operational concerns, and only after MAC refused mediation,
Richfield filed a lawsuit. In May 1995, Richfield agreed to stay action of the lawsuit
pending mediation with MAC. In June 1996, mediation was terminated unilaterally by
MAC without consultation with Richfield or the Metropolitan Council. Staff has
requested clarification from the Met Council regarding 4-22 review prior to construction
of the C/D taxiing complex. If the Met Council agrees to further review, then Richfield
will continue to stay on the pending lawsuit. If the Met Council opposes, Richfield will
proceed with court action.
• . Termination of Lease Agreement
MAC ignored the request to delay termination of the youth athletic fields, community
gardens and Rich Acres Golf Course land lease. The City Attorney's legal opinion
found that MAC's decision to terminate the lease agreement was in violation of the
lease agreement and environmental laws. City officials were advised that the lease
agreement was designed to give Richfield adequate notice to plan for replacement of
recreational facilities. It was further stated that pursuant to the Minnesota
Environmental Policy Act an Environmental Impact Statement needs to be prepared
and determined as legally adequate. MAC, in effect, did not complete the
environmental process and is not expected to until 1997. On November 18, 1996, the
City, under direction of the City Council, commenced a lawsuit against MAC in
Hennepin's District Court.
Attached is a draft letter for the Council's review regarding the lease termination. It is
proposed that this letter will be included as the front page of the January Your City
newsletter. In addition, staff will send the letter to community groups and board and
commission members.
• Comprehensive Plan
The Met Council has provided recommendations on how the City can accommodate
airport impacts. Don Brauer is working with other consultants to provide more detail on
• mitigation efforts. The revised comprehensive plan will be sent to the Planning
Commission in April . MAC's final EIS submission is apparently scheduled for mid-
summer. The City is working to assure that the Comprehensive Plan will be accepted
by the Met Council prior to MAC's FEIS.
• MSP Mitigation Committee/MSP Expansion
MAC approved Richfield's noise mitigation recommendations at its October 28 meeting.
Key elements of the recommendations include: expansion of the insulation program to
extend beyond the 65 DNL noise contour limit and include multi-family homes, nursing
homes, and churches with regular weekday day care; creation of a work group to
include cities surrounding the airport, MAC, and Met Council will be convened to identify
programs to improve the quality of life in surrounding airport communities; restrict
airport operations between 10:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m. to Stage III aircraft; expand
nighttime quiet hours in airline lease renewals; and negotiate noise abatement
procedures for Stage II aircraft.
The recommendations have been forwarded to the State Advisory. Council on
Metropolitan Airport Planning and will be ultimately sent to the Legislature.
The Richfield Airport Strategy Group (RASG) will be meeting on December 5.
• Metropolitan Aircraft Sound Abatement Council
MASAC will be meeting on December 3. The Technical Advisor's Report will be
forwarded to the Council.
• New Ford Town and Rich Acres Acquisition
The most recent status report for acquisition and relocation is as follows:
1) Phase I-appraisals remain for two properties. Condemnation appears likely in
these cases.
2) Phase IV offer meetings are near finalization. 80% of the Phase IV homeowners
have accepted their written offers. Acquisition closings are also nearing
completion with 70% finished.
3) Phase V-will tentatively include multi-family residential housing (sixty-two
tenants), two businesses, two parks and vacant lots located along 66th Street.
The Open House for Phase V, scheduled for December 4, has been
postponed. A new date is planned for mid to late January. MAC and Schock
will provide an overview of the acquisition and relocation process.
4) Auction #7 Results-twenty-six of twenty-seven homes sold at the auction.
Recommended Motion:
Discuss current airport issues.
Basis of Recommendation:
It is important for the Council to provide direction to staff regarding airport concerns.
Alternative Recommendation:
Defer discussion to another date.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be discussed at the Study Session of December 2, 1996.
Respec Ily submitted,
Jam D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
0
0 DRAFT
Recently the MAC gave notice to terminate their lease with the City of Richfield for the
Rich Acres Golf Course, youth athletic fields and community gardens. It is our belief
and the opinion of the City Attorney that the lease could only be terminated after MAC
completed the environmental review process for the proposed north-south runway.
That process is far from complete. MAC is now saying they do not believe that they
should be required to complete the environmental review before starting this project. In
fact, MAC officials have publicly stated that it is "unacceptable" for City officials to stand
in the way of airport expansion for environmental reasons. They have also stated that,
if necessary, MAC will seek legislative approval to stop Richfield from raising
environmental challenges to this project. We believe that MAC is not only wrong, but is
displaying a dangerous arrogance. MAC's actions indicate that they believe the airport
is more important than federal and state laws designed to protect citizens. That's
wrong.
The City has initiated legal action to resolve these issues. But your help is necessary
too. Whether you agree with us or not, we want to hear from you. We encourage you
to call or write us and others involved with this issue. A list of addresses is provided.
Your opinions are important. Please take time to express those opinions.
i Sincerely,
Martin J. Kirsch
Mayor
Don Priebe
Council Member
Michael Sandahl
Council Member
Susan Rosenberg
Council Member
Russ Susag
Council Member
0
9 NAMES OF THOSE TO RECEIVE MAC LETTER.
REGARDING LEASE TERMIANTION
Governor Arne Carlson
Congressman Martin Sabo
Sandy Grieve, MAC Chair
John Himle, MAC Commissioner
Curt Johnson, Met Council
Neil Peterson, Met Council
State Representative Edwina Garcia
State Senator-elect Dave Johnson
Senator Jane Ranum
•
•
City of Richfield
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 27, 1996
TO: James Prosser, City Manager
FROM: Jamie Verbrugge, Media Assistant Emeritus
SUBJECT: Future Runway Operational Projections
As you are aware, I represented Richfield in a panel discussion on airport noise equity
at the 12th Annual Minnesota Conference on Policy Analysis, November 18. Much of
my discussion focused on the impact of future projections and the false hopes of
redistribution.
To support this perspective, I ran operational numbers for each of the runways using
1994 actual numbers (455,000 operations) and 2005 projections of 520,000 and
600,000 operations.* I'm sure the totals are of little surprise to you.
* - Numbers for arrivals and departures, respectively, were arrived at by halving
operational totals and multiplying by runway use percentages detailed on the attached
sheet; e.g. - 1994 Arrivals on Runway 4 = 2% x (Yx 455,000). These numbers will
obviously not be exact, but should provide a fairly reasonable estimate.
Attachments
Copy: Steven F. Pflaum
1-1
•
? 0
•
Cl 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
d co N O O O
ca .1? r rn I` rn O
O M M T Ln I-
o T T N T T N
cu
w F-,
C o Lf) LO O O O O O C)
-
E LO
LO N
00 I-
co O
N O
N O
't O
O O
O O
O
V
m r It ? .
V LO T GO
?
0 T T r
cts
w w
/?
?/ )
O LO LO O M O CV O CV O N O O O r
O N N O co 0 - 0 O 0 O ? O
L M O M N 'd• d. Cfl N O T O co
O
,
M co CO CO ...... ' co
? M N ? W c! ti
V
L +
'
O T r
N T r r N
a U ~
C
C
'
U
) 0 0 ? 0 0 0
w N O 0 0 0 O '
~ 0 LO
LL Z ? CO M N 0 N M O O a M
O _ T CD CO _
I` r ? 00 CO CO V
CD U') LO Iq O CO 11,
o O
a cu
W w
to LO O LO O co O m O r O m C) O 19T O I-
= 0 ? O O 0 ? 0 O O T 0 0 0 "i
a 0
0 T 0
0 CO 0
0 N M Lo r
co
LO ? (0 N c ti N m
T
G
LO U? 0 C)
r CD
C) CD co 0
0' C) 11, C)
It
4-- Co I` I? LC) O O c O O O O M
QZ 6 co co r- co co h IT 0 O O
N co 0 ? N
O 0 0 0 m m 0 O
Q T T N r T T N
co O O O O T-- O T O T 0 T O T O T
? CD cq C:) 04 C:) 04 c) C) C) 6 a ci
0 0 O N O N O N O O O
i
CO
C/) LO LO O M M ? 'IT ?
..O r
Z
LO LO O O m O M O C') O d O M O r
cn
Q M M (C 0 0 CA
. C
0 0
0 IT G N O co O N
N N It It CA N M C3) N
Ln V) Cl LO LO T (0 (O M
r r r
L Q N i a) ? a) N a) i a) 0- a) M a)
Q Q a' .
0 0 a- 0 Q 0 0 °' O 0
O 0
o U U w U U U o U
H Q o o o m o o o
rn o 0
rn c CD
N N
c
m
.I- I
N
N
ca
U
t0
U
O
C
N
N
O d'
c
ca ca
t
U c
\°
-
C
LO
O cc
N
N ?
C N
co co
L „/ O O
Q. ' co cu
O
Td 4- ^ C CL CL
CD O O O
O O O
>, cu O O
-0 L) N O
0 O
N t LO O
c C O O
Q N N
O C C
I
.2O .2O
M O N N
L O O
'= C Q Q
L C O O
(n cu N N
(Q AL` ^L'
ca cu cu
) " W W
0
w }
?, U II II
a) Q Q m
' O O
O O
N N
w
I-
O
Z
N
LL
,22°
11
23%
hid
t
`17"/o
29L
1994
25%
25%
2005
8%
11 Iz.
I
f
i
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 48
Agenda December 2, 1996
Issue Statement:
Consideration of potential redevelopment of Apple Blossom Park for residential
purposes.
Background:
There are currently four lots just north of 67th Street between Girard Avenue and the I-
35W soundwall. These lots are designated as Apple Blossom Park. That land has
been identified as potential housing by the Community Development Department.
These lots would be suitable for re-subdivision into three slightly larger lots for housing
purposes.
In 1948, Blossom Park was transferred to the City of Richfield. These lots had been
lost through tax forfeiture to the state by George Blossom, the developer of Blossom
Park. The transfer by the state requires that those lots be used exclusively for "park
purposes." Use of the lots for other purposes would require approval by the state for
redevelopment of the property. State approval is possible but by no means a certainty.
A more significant issue, however, is neighborhood reaction. The park may appear
underutilized since there are no park amenities constructed on the site. The neighbors
have been approached in the past about development of the park but have preferred to
leave the space open to allow for unrestricted activities such as pick-up baseball,
softball, football, etc. The neighbors have not been officially contacted regarding this
concept in the past nine years.
The next closest park is the Fairwood/Monroe park complex located two and one-half
blocks west, roughly between Irving and Morgan Avenues and between 66th and 68th
Streets.
Recommended Motion:
Request that the Community Services and Planning Commissions deliberate including
meeting with neighbors and provide a recommendation regarding the potential
conversion of the Apple Blossom Park property to residential purposes.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. There is a need to identify additional housing sites within the City.
2. There are suitable park facilities within a reasonable proximity of Apple Blossom
Park.
0 3. The cost of maintenance of small "pocket" parks appear to exceed their value.
4. The recommendation is to explore the possibility of conversion. A recommendation
should appropriately come from a review by the Community Services and Planning
Commissions.
City Manager
JDP:cak
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide not to pursue potential conversion.
2. The Council could decide to use an alternative method of exploring potential
conversion.
3. The Council could determine to convert property without consultation with the
Community Services or Planning Commissions.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented at the December 2 Council Study Session.
Respectf ly submitted,
James Prosser
0
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 47 .
Agenda December 2, 1996
Issue Statement:
Status report of sign ordinance enforcement and recommendations regarding
assistance to non-compliance businesses.
Background:
In 1987, the City Council approved the sign ordinance. The sign ordinance prohibited
certain types of sign applications including roof mounted signs, and limited the sign
area for businesses. The sign ordinance also prohibited outdoor display advertising
signs (billboards). In order to provide an opportunity for these business owners to
recover the cost of original sign installation, City staff had recommended a five year
amortization period. The Council amended the amortization period to ten years. The
ten year amortization period will expire in October 1997.
In June, the City Council directed staff to initiate an information program to advise
remaining non-complying businesses of the need to comply with new sign ordinance
regulations.
During the past nine years, many businesses have brought their signs into compliance
with the new ordinance. In addition, new businesses have constructed signs in
compliance with the ordinance. There are about 50 remaining non-conforming signs
and 19 billboards.
The Council has previously been provided with copies of pictures non-comforming
business signs. Businesses have been contacted regarding the ordinance
requirements.
Most of the billboard signs are owned by Universal Sign, the successor to Naegele Sign
Company. Universal Sign has indicated their belief that the City sign ordinance does
not comply with state and federal laws. Furthermore, they believe provisions within the
ordinance do not clearly require removal after October 1997. City staff and City
Attorney have met with representatives from Universal Sign. In addition, City staff has
met with representatives of the Richfield Chamber of Commerce.
Recommended Motion:
The City Council should consider directing staff to:
1. Establish a program to provide technical assistance to businesses that own non-
conforming signs. The technical assistance would include support in designing
alternative signage that would improve the overall appearance of the business.
2. Develop a special financing option that would essentially allow the businesses to
establish a special service district to pay for the cost of the sign.
3. Provide assurances that businesses purchasing new signs would be eligible for
reimbursement of the unamortized value of replacement signs if the business was
acquired as part of an HRA established redevelopment project. Amortization would
be on a ten year straight-line basis.
4. Amend the sign ordinance to clarify that billboards are required to be removed at the
end of the amortization period. If this option is chosen, it will be necessary to extend
the amortization period for billboards.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. It is reasonable to consider options to assist businesses in complying with the sign
ordinance. There is a significant benefit in removing outdated, non-conforming signs
without causing a hardship to the businesses.
2. Apparently at the time an amendment to the original 1987 ordinance was drafted,
sufficient care was not given to provide clarification regarding the amortization
requirement for billboards signs. However, clearly the intent of the Council was that
the billboards would have to be removed from the City at the end of the ten year
period. Providing a clarification at this time avoids the potential for costly litigation.
3. The City Attorney has determined that the City sign ordinance does comply with
state and local law. The state law does require that signs constructed prior to 1971
are eligible for compensation if removal is required as a result of local government
action. However, the City Attorney's interpretation is that if sign structures are
reconstructed subsequent to 1971, compensation is not required to be paid. It is the
City's position that all the signs within the City have been substantially reconstructed
since 1971. If substantive evidence can be provided that existing signs have existed
since prior to 1971, then the City Council will be advised to consider whether or not
enforcement should be initiated. Estimated compensation costs could be provided to
the Council at that time.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. The Council could decide to repeal the sign ordinance.
2. The Council may decide to amend the sign ordinance to provide for compliance of
some or all of existing non-conforming signs.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This matter will be presented for discussion at the Council Study Session of December
2, 1996. City Attorney Corrine Thomson will be present for discussion of this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
James Prosser
City Manager
0 JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 46
Agenda December 2, 1996
Issue Statement:
Proposal to use a postcard for utility billing.
Background:
As part of the upgrade in the City's computerized finance system, the utility billing
system is scheduled to be upgraded and in use by January 15, 1997. The new system
uses the standard postcard size and format for billing. The present system uses a
window envelope. The cost of customizing the new software to accommodate our
billing form would be approximately $1,500. City staff investigated the option of using
the standard postcard format. The postage charges could be reduced from $0.32 to
$0.18 per bill. With reduced postage costs, the overall savings of using a postcard
utility bill is about $12,550 per year or about $1 per year per customer. Changing the
form to a postcard would eliminate the need to purchase special-sized billing envelopes
and also the "stuffing" of the bills.
The postcard format includes four text lines for message information, such as
announcing upcoming events and rate changes. One possible disadvantage of the
change is that other announcements "stuffed" with bill could no longer be used.
Recommended Motion:
Discussion of replacing the existing utility bill with a postcard utility bill. No action
required at this time.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. Using the City-wide computer vendor's standard utility billing form would reduce
costs for mailing utility bills by approximately $12,550 per year.
2. Several local cities successfully use a utility postcard form.
Alternative Recommendation:
Council may wish to discuss the current system and any other alternative utility billing
methods which may be desirable.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the December 2, 1996 Council Study Session. City staff will
be available to discuss the current and proposed billing method.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame f. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 45
Agenda December 2, 1996
Issue Statement:
Status of City Maintenance Facility.
Background:
For several years, the City has been exploring options for improving or relocating the
City Maintenance Facility The need for facility improvements was accelerated in 1992
when the City Maintenance Facility at 7700 Pillsbury Avenue was partially demolished.
The Lampert site was purchased to provide temporary quarters for maintenance
facilities. At the July 1, 1996 City Council Study Session, discussion was held on
activity to that date including discussion with developers about the current maintenance
facility sites, interest expressed by the Minnesota Department of Transportation for a
shared facility, sites explored to date, and budget.
At the present time two sites are being actively explored: a shared facility with MnDOT
on MAC property, most likely in the New Ford Town area, and an independent facility in
the vicinity of the Water Plant. City staff will update the Council on current status at the
December 2, 1996 Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
There is no formal action recommended at this time. The discussion is intended to
• provide direction to staff regarding a City Maintenance Facility.
Basis of Recommendation:
Improvements could be brought about through any of several possible options. Council
direction would be helpful in narrowing the field of options and providing direction for
coordination with other agencies.
Alternative Recommendation:
None.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item has been scheduled for discussion at the December 2, 1996 City Council
study session. MnDOT indicates construction on a new maintenance facility will begin
in early 1996. Whether or not the City shares a maintenance facility with MnDOT
should be determined no later than January 1997.
Respectful) submitted,
91
James D. Prosser
0 City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Study Session Letter No. 44
Agenda December 2, 1996
Issue Statement:
Discussion of the Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee final
report.
Background:
The final report of the Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee
identified some problems with and recommendation for the existing surface water
management and regulatory system. Some of these concerns were outlined in the
November 8, 1996 City Council memorandum (attached). Duplication of the regulatory
efforts of federal, state and local agencies was identified as a principle concern.
City staff agrees with most of the findings and recommendations in the report. Staff
especially agrees with those that indicate a need for delegation to the lowest level
possible and those that indicate that there is confusion between roles of the WMO's
and cities and a need for communication towards clarifying those roles. Of particular
concern is that watershed districts may be funding the kind of capital improvements that
Richfield has been funding through City stormwater utility. This may result in Richfield
residents paying for their own stormwater improvements through City stormwater utility
and then paying for similar improvements in other cities through watershed fees. City
staff will review these concerns at the Study Session.
Recommended Motion:
No action required at this time. Council, as members, are familiar with the
Richfield/Bloomington Water Management Organization. Council may wish to consider
inviting members of the Minnehaha Watershed District and/or the Nine Mile Creek
Watershed District to a future meeting to discuss concerns and points of interest.
Basis of Recommendation:
1. The final report of the Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee is
available.
2. Staff has some agreement and some concerns related to the report.
3. This Study Session is an opportunity for members of the City Council and the City
staff to discussion whether there should be further pursuit or consideration related to
the findings and/or recommendations in the report.
Alternative Recommendation:
1. Use this opportunity only for clarification of staff observations related to the report.
2. Delay discussion of the report until a joint meeting can be established with members
of watershed districts.
Discussion/Decision Mode:
This item is scheduled for the December 2, 1996 City Council Study Session.
Respec submitted,
is James D. Prosser
City Manager
JDP:cak
CITY OF RICHFIELD, MINNESOTA
Office of City Manager
November 8, 1996
Council Memorandum No. 129
The Honorable Mayor
and
Members of the City Council
Subject: Final Report of the Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee
Council Members:
The final report of the Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee was
adopted by the Hennepin County Board on August 20, 1996. The Committee reviewed
the existing surface water management and regulatory system and identified and
discussed alternatives to streamline and simplify the existing system. City staff have
some of the same concerns identified in the report.
Selected highlights of the report are as follows:
1. FINDINGS OF THE REPORT
Duplication among federal and state agencies
The findings of the report indicate a duplication of regulation efforts. At the State
and Federal level there is duplication between the Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency (MPCA), the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. The report identifies how these agencies are
working together to streamline reviews and what more can be done.
Duplication among local agencies
The report identifies "a need for better communication among watershed
management organizations (WMO's); and among WMO's, cities, the County and the
public.... " Another finding of the report is that "permitting authority should reside
at the lowest appropriate level of government.... "
II. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT
A. Delegation
Generally, encourage state and federal agencies to delegate authority to local
governments. "Encourage WMO's and cities to use the existing water planning
process to identify roles and responsibilities."
B. Accountability
Improved financial reporting system for WMO's.
• "Direct County staff to work with watershed districts to develop a program/budget
review process, which provides the necessary oversight regarding the taxing
authorities of appointed watershed district boards, especially regarding priority
setting for capital improvement projects."
C. COMMUNICATION
• "Encourage WMO's to involve cities and general public earlier in the planning
process for capital improvement projects."
City staff agrees with most of the findings and recommendations in the report. Staff
especially agrees with those that indicate a need for delegation to the lowest level
possible and those that indicate that there is confusion between roles of the WMO's
and cities and a need for communication towards clarifying those roles. City staff is
particularly concerned that watershed districts may be funding the kind of capital
improvements that Richfield has been funding through our stormwater utility. This may
result in Richfield residents paying for their own stormwater improvements through the
City's stormwater utility and then paying for similar improvements in other cities.
City staff is planning to cover this topic at the December 2, 1996 Study Session.
Attached is a copy of the Findings and Recommendations as well as a notice of
upcoming Minnehaha Creek Watershed District workshops.
Respectfully submitted,
Jame Prosser
City Manager
JDP:ds
Attachments
Copy: Michael J. Eastling, City Engineer
Hennepin County
Water Management Advisory Committee
Final Report
E
Hennepin County
Department of Public Works
Environmental Management Division
Adopted August 20, 1996
11
•
Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee Report
I. Introduction
The Hennepin County Water Management Advisory Committee was established by County Board
Resolution 95-12-899. The Committ ee was created in response to Board Resolution 95-11-778.
Resolution 95-11-778 called for the establishment of a committee to examine ways to streamline
and simplify the existing regulatory system. The Committee is composed of members of the
Hennepin County Board and other locally elected officials, board members of local special
purpose governments and representatives of state and federal agencies that have water
management responsibilities and authorities. Names of Committee members and their affiliations
are listed in Appendix A.
The Committee reviewed the existing surface water management and regulatory system and the
recommendations prepared by Hennepin County staff in response to Board Resolution 94-11-
850R1. As part of their review, the Committee heard presentations from the agencies and
special purpose governments represented on the Committee and the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE). A summary of these presentations is included as part of this report.
Copies of County Board Resolutions are provided in Appendix B.
The Committee identified and discussed surface water management and regulatory alternatives.
Ground water management needs and programs were not addressed. This report summarizes
the findings and recommendations of the Committee regarding surface water management and
related regulatory system.
II. Findings
In the course of
agreement than
their review, the Committee discovered that members found more areas of
disagreement concerning surface water management issues. The Committee
members agreed that they shared common goals: improving the protection of surface water
resources and customer service through efficient program delivery. Members of the Committee
found many positive examples of important environmental programs being administered by the
agencies and local governments represented on the Committee. The consensus of the Committee
is that:
1. the state, Hennepin County and cities should support watershed planning because
watershed planning offers the best approach for comprehensive surface water
management;
2. our existing surface water regulatory system was not planned or implemented as
a single coherent management strategy, but has developed over time in response
to a variety of individual federal, state and local needs to protect and manage
surface water resources;
3. as a result of this ad hoc development, there are many different players with
varying responsibilities and authorities regarding surface water management;
4. the major area of duplication is between local regulatory programs and programs
administered by federal and state agencies;
5. some duplication does exist at the local level between a few watershed districts
and cities, but the existing water planning process provides a mechanism for
clarifying roles and responsibilities and reducing duplication;
6. examples of program confusion regarding wetland protection include the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Section 404 authorities, Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency 401 certification, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MDNR) Work in Protected Waters permit program and implementation of
Minnesota's Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) by local governments;
7. examples of permit duplication regarding storm water management and
erosion/sediment control include the Minnesota Pollution 'Control Agency's
(MPCA) General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity and permits
issued by local governments (watershed districts, joint-powers
organizations/cities);
8. additional confusion results from the existence of county ditches established and
regulated for agricultural drainage purposes now serving as drainage systems for
urban areas;
9. the MPCA has done an excellent job minimizing the paper work and time
required for applicants to receive the permit while complying with the federal
mandate that requires a state storm water permit program for construction
activity;
10. development of a one-stop shopping system for environmental information and
permits is a desirable goal and will require the cooperative efforts of federal, state
and local levels of government;
11. the MDNR general permit program is commendable and is a good example of
delegating permit responsibilities to local governments;
12. permitting authority should reside at the lowest appropriate level of government;
•
2
13. Hennepin County is not the appropriate unit for permitting or enforcement
authorities regarding surface water management;
`'-14. there is a need for better communication among watershed management
organizations (WMOs)1;.and among WMOs, cities, the County and the public;
15. compliance by WMOs with current reporting requirements is poor and there is
no enforcement of these requirements;
16. obtaining and interpreting financial records of WMOs is a cumbersome process;
17. improved communication and better compliance with reporting requirements
would build trust among all parties and encourage delegation of federal and state
permitting programs;
18. additional oversight/review by County Commissioners is needed concerning the
taxing authorities of appointed watershed district boards, especially regarding
priority setting for capital improvement projects; and
19. the Hennepin Conservation District (HCD) has an important role providing
technical assistance to individuals and other local governments.
The Committee also recognized that the financial and technical capabilities of local governments
in Hennepin County vary as do the demands placed on those resources. The appropriate level
of local government will depend on the local capabilities and resources as well as the demands
placed on those resources. Delegating agencies must also recognize these differences and
ensure that local resources and local commitment are sufficient to implement the regulatory
authority before delegating permitting responsibilities to local governments.
III. Recommendations
Committee recommendations fall into three categories: actions to encourage delegation of
permitting authorities to lower levels of government; ways to increase accountability; and
actions to improve communication. The Committee believes implementing the recommendations
in this section will: reduce duplication of regulatory programs; clarify roles and responsibilities;
increase accountability; improve program delivery and customer service; and improve
communication among the federal and state agencies, local governments and the public.
' watershed management organizations include watershed districts established under M.S.
103D.201 and joint-powers watershed organizations established by agreement to fulfill the
40 requirements of M.S. 103B.211.
3
A. Delegation
1. Encourage cities and WMOs to take advantage of existing general permit
opportunities such as:
a. the MDNR's general permits' for work in protected waters, bridge and
culvert projects; and
b. the USACE general permit number 17.3
2. Request federal, state and local authorities, including federal elected officials, in
cooperation with the MPCA, to pursue the necessary authority within the Federal
Clean Water Act to delegate the General Storm Water Permit for Construction
Activities to local governments.
3. Request USACE, MPCA and MDNR to actively pursue additional delegation of
agency permitting responsibilities for wetlands and non-point pollution control to
cities and WMOs and to provide training, technical assistance, program oversight
and enforcement assistance.
4. Request the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to assist and
promote the delegation/general permit process by coordinating discussions among
the USACE, DNR, MPCA and local governments regarding delegation
requirements.
5. Encourage WMOs and cities to use the existing water planning process to identify
roles and responsibilities, to ensure communication and coordination, and
minimize duplication.
' MDNR general permits are issued to local regulatory entities or the general public, M.S.
103G.245 subd. 3 and 5, regarding specific activities. Activities that meet local requirements
and the conditions of the general permit do not need a separate MDNR permit.
3 General permit number 17 (GP-17), is a general permit that eliminates the need for an
independent, detailed review by the USACE for projects with relatively minor impacts on
wetlands and is intended to reduce duplication between federal and local programs in Minnesota.
Activities exempted or not regulated by the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act are not
authorized by GP-17. General permits do not involve a delegation of federal authority, but grant
federal authorization for certain activities. Additional information regarding GP-17 is included
on pages 7 and 8 of this report.
4
(. B. Accountability
1. Request BWSR to develop in cooperation with local governments, state and
federal agencies, an improved reporting system for WMOs which includes a
standardized format for reporting financial activities.
2. Direct staff of the Hennepin County Environmental Management Division to work
with the watershed districts in Hennepin County to develop a program/budget
review process, which provides the necessary oversight regarding the taxing
authorities of appointed watershed district boards, especially regarding priority
setting for capital improvement projects.
C. Communication
1. Request the HCD to establish a clearing house, both electronic and physical, that
contains all the information regarding application procedures and permit
requirements for federal, state and local permits involving surface water resources
in Hennepin County. Public access to this information and related information
and educational materials should also be provided at locations such as city halls
and libraries.
2. Request that the HCD be responsible for distributing, maintaining and updating
the information as delegation proceeds and/or requirements change.
3. Encourage WMOs to involve the cities and general public earlier in the planning
process for capital improvement projects. Encourage watershed districts and
joint-powers watershed management organizations to hold public
hearings/information meetings in the city halls of each city where a capital
improvement project will occur before authorizing the project to proceed.
4. Request BWSR to prepare an annual report summarizing the annual reports
submitted by WMOs in Hennepin County; the summary will be distributed to the
Hennepin County Board, municipalities and WMOs in Hennepin County and the
HCD. The report should include the status of delegation efforts.
5. Reconvene the Water Management Advisory Committee in October 1997, to
discuss the BWSR report, review progress concerning the Committee's 1996
recommendations and identify additional opportunities to streamline and simplify
the existing regulatory system.
5
i
Gray Freshwater Center
Hwys. 15 & 19, Navarre
Mail:
2500 Shadywood Road
Excelsior, MN 55331-9578
Phone: (612) 471-0590
Fax:(612)471-0682
Email:
admin@mnwatershed.org
Web Site:
www.mnwatershed.org
Board of Managers:
. Thomas
President
Pamela G. Blixt
Vice President
Monica Gross
Secretary
Thomas W. LaBounty
Treasurer
C. Woodrow Love
Thomas Maple, Jr.
Malcolm Reid
District Office:
Eugene R. Strommen
District Director
Suzanne M. Weedman
Asst. District Director
0
Miunehaha Creek Watershed District
Improving Quality of Water, Quality of Life
Mayor Martin Kirsch
City of Richfield
6700 Portland Avenue S
Richfield, MN 55423
Re: Watershed Regional Ponding Workshop
Dear Mayor Kirsch:
October 29, 1996
I know that Richfield shares our concern regarding surface water quality
issues and hope you will be able to participate in one of our upcoming workshops
on regional stormwater management on November 8 or November 20 per our
previous notice.
As you may already know, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District is
undertaking a major new initiative to improve water quality through a coordinated
strategy of developing "regional" ponding facilities to be located throughout the
District. By approaching these facilities as partnership opportunities with the
respective cities, we aim to focus the resources of the entire watershed on
addressing the long-term stormwater management problems. We hope that both
council members as well as vour staff may attend this workshop to explore these
opportunities for partnership.
As you know, the legislature has charged the District with the task of
protecting and improving water quality in our highly urbanized and diverse
watershed. While the MCWD Rules have always required sediment removal and
rate control as a condition of permitting development, the leading threat to water
quality today - phosphorus - was not specifically addressed.
In your city, phosphorus enters stormwater along with runoff from lawns
and fields treated with fertilizer, from animal waste, and from other sediment
generated by urbanization. This is "non-point source" pollution, which means that
there is no single source or point of origination to "correct" or "blame." Instead, it
must be addressed through a system of subwatershed ponds and wetlands, as well
as Best Management Practices.
® Prmted on recycled paper containing
at least 30% post consumer waste
October 29, 1996
Page 2
The amendments to MCWD Rule B provide that the Stormwater
Management Plan for a development or redevelopment must provide for wet
detention basins that meet the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency design
standards that were developed based upon the results of the Nation-wide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency.
These "NURP ponds" are designed to provide treatment to remove phosphorus in
stormwater runoff. For development or redevelopment sites 40 acres or larger, the
design and construction of NURP ponds will be a workable and effective approach
to stormwater management and treatment of phosphorus. Smaller sites, however,
pose challenges because site constraints may prohibit the construction of a pond
meeting NURP standards.
Rather than simply prohibiting the development or redevelopment of such
parcels, the District has sought to address these practical constraints by providing.
that the permit applicant may, in certain circumstances, contribute to a dedicated
District water quality/stormwater storage fund in lieu of providing the ponding
facilities on site. The fund will be used in the planning, constructing and
maintenance of regional detention basins and wetlands, but the contribution is
allowed only if an agreement for a regional facility is in place with the affected
municipalities, if there is an existing or planned District regional stormwater facility
within the same subwatershed, or if the Board of Managers determines that
another facility in a different subwatershed is of a higher water quality priority.
The District has already begun to build partnerships with several
municipalities to provide for these off-site ponding facilities. As we develop these
partnerships, it is clear that this initiative can provide for new opportunities for
Watershed District resources to address long-standing stormwater management
problems in local communities. We are excited to meet together in a workshop
that will allow us to explore the implementation of this Rule and in particular,
regional stormwater problems and solution opportunities in your city.
Please come to the workshop with some of the following thoughts or
issues in mind:
Where are the most significant development and redevelopment pressures
in your community?
2. What are the more serious stormwater management problems in your city,
including both flood control and water quality protection?
3. What site opportunities are there within your community, either on city
property or other publicly owned property or private property where
stormwater ponds may be either enhanced or newly constructed?
October 29, 1996
Page 3
(-9
We look forward to meeting with you soon and working on taking
advantage of these opportunities for partnership to improve water quality within
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed. Please do not hesitate to contact the District
office if you need any information prior to the workshop.
Very truly yours,
John Thomas, President
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District
Board of Managers
cc: City Administrator
0