The URL can be used to link to this page

06-17-2008 Meeeting & PC CITY OF SCANDIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Tuesday,June 17, 2008 7:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Roll Call 3. Public Forum 4. Approval of the Agenda 5. Approval of Consent Agenda a) Minutes 1) May 20, 2008 Regular Meeting 2) June 3, 2008 Meeting with Planning Commission b) Treasurer's Report c) Payment of Vouchers d) Adoption of Records Retention Schedule(Resolution 06-17-08-01) e) Certificate of Compliance for Medical Staffing Partners, 14800 Scandia Trail (Resolution 06-17-08-02) f) Amendment to 2008 Budget 6. Public Hearings (None) 7. Committee Reports a) Ice Rink Committee b) Comprehensive Plan Committee c) Park and Recreation Committee—Update on Wind in the Pines Park 8. Staff Reports a) Police Department Deputy Chris Majeski b) Fire Department Fire Chief Steve Spence c) City Engineer Bonestroo 1) Pilar Road Area Street Improvements, Resident Survey d) City Attorney Dave Hebert e) Building/Code Enforcement Official Steve Thorp f) City Administrator Anne Hurlburt 1) 2009 Budget Meeting Schedule 2) Draft Purchasing Policy 3) Draft Fixed Assets Policy 9. General Business a) Designation of City Engineer (Resolution 06-17-08-03) b) Citizen's Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Tiller Corporation Mining Project (Resolution 06-17-08-04) c) Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District SCANDIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA June 17,2008 Page 2 of 2 1) General Discussion/Background Information 2) Second Draft (4-30-08) of Proposed Rules d) City Participation in Taco Daze 10. Adjournment ( 4t ) May 20, 2008 A regular meeting of the Scandia City Council was held on the above date. Mayor Seefeldt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following councilmembers were present: Councilmembers Pete Crum, Dolores Peterson, Donnette Yehle, Mayor Dennis Seefeldt. Absent: Michael Harnetty. Staff present: Administrator Anne Hurlburt, City Attorney Dave Hebert, Bonestroo Engineer Paul Hornby, City Planner Sherri Buss, Building Official Steve Thorp, Deputy Clerk Brenda Eklund. PUBLIC FORUM Jeff Fusco, property owner at the corner of Highways 95 and 97, stated that he was opposed to the proposed re-zoning of that property from its current Retail Business to General Rural, as part of the updated Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Fusco was informed of the Comprehensive Plan Committee's meeting schedule and that a public information meeting and public hearing will be held prior to the adoption of the new Comprehensive Plan. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Yehle, moved to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA The following consent agenda was presented: a) Minutes 1) April 15, 2008 Regular Meeting 2) May 6, 2008 Meeting with Planning Commission b) Treasurer's Report Beginning Balance 04/01/08 $1,127,312.64 Receipts + 16,673.06 Expenditures 134,877.15 Payroll 19,634.77 - 154,511.92 Ending Balance 04/30/08 $ 989,473.78 c) Payment of Vouchers Councilmember Yehle, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. The motion passed unanimously. POLICE REPORT Deputy Chris Majeski presented the past month's report on police activity. A mail burglary suspect was apprehended on the west edge of Scandia. FIRE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief Steve Spence summarized the recently completed Insurance Services Office survey. Scandia's Fire Department maintained an ISO rating of"7" for those residences within a 5-mile driving distance of the fire station. Fire Chief Spence stated his satisfaction with the report, as the May 20, 2008 Scandia City Council Page 2 requirements for fire protection have increased along with Scandia's growth. Fire Chief Spence also relayed a positive development in silencing the alarm siren. Reprogramming the alarm in the next few weeks to an alternate analog frequency will allow the Washington County dispatch center to activate Fire Department pagers without sounding the alarm. A separate tone will sound the siren as a back-up only in the case of pager failure. This modification will require no new equipment, and will still be in compliance with state statute. Fire Chief Spence presented two quotes for resurfacing and sealing the interior floors of the Fire Department/Public Works building. Advantage Coating, Inc. submitted a quote that is near the budgeted amount of $11,000. Councilmember Crum, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, moved to accept the bid for resurfacing the floors of the Fire Department/Public Works building from Advantage Coating, Inc. in the amount of$11,368.00. The motion passed unanimously. CITY ENGINEER Paul Hornby, Bonestroo, presented the monthly engineering update. Council reviewed a draft survey that will be sent to property owners affected by the future paving of Pilar Road. Mayor Seefeldt recommended that the deadline for return to the city office be extended to June 13, 2008. Council agreed that it is a well-done, thorough survey and a good start to the street improvement project proposed to begin in 2010. The surveys will be mailed out this week to all residents of Pilar Road and the cul-de-sac streets off of Pilar Road (Paris, Perkins and Penfield). BUILDING/CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL Building/Code Enforcement Official Steve Thorp presented a summary of permits and zoning actions for the month of April. CITY ADMINISTRATOR Civil Defense Siren at Big Marine Lake Park Reserve Administrator Anne Hurlburt reported on a meeting she attended with County staff to explore the options of providing civil defense siren coverage in the southeast corner of Scandia. County Parks staff plans to purchase a siren for the new Big Marine Park Reserve sometime in 2008. For approximately$20,000, a siren covering a radius of 6,000 feet could be installed. This would cover significant areas in Scandia and May Township and much of the surface of Big Marine Lake. The park budget allows for$7,000 towards installation, resulting in a funding gap of $13,000. The Sheriff's Department has found no available grant funds. Council agreed that because of the public safety that this siren would provide, it would be worthwhile to set up a meeting with Washington County Board representatives, the Sheriff and May Township officials to discuss funding options. Councilmembers Crum and Yehle agreed to represent the Council at this meeting. Dust Control Policy Administrator Hurlburt presented a draft policy for dust control application to gravel roads. It is necessary to update the dust control application policy from the past practice of placing ads in the local paper. Due to dust control being needed on only a few streets, residents will be notified May 20, 2008 Scandia City Council Page 3 by mail with the cost of application for that year. The City will continue to subsidize approximately 50% of the cost for dust control to public roads, with this year's fee being $65.00 per 300 feet of road frontage. For treatment to private roads and businesses, the total cost will be billed back along with a 15% charge to cover staff time and administration costs. Councilmember Peterson suggested lowering the 15% overage to residents of private roads, i.e. Cedar Cliff development, but Attorney Hebert advised that it would be difficult to write this into the policy. Administrator Hurlburt reiterated that fifteen percent is a nominal fee to recover costs for this service. Councilmember Yehle, seconded by Mayor Seefeldt, moved to approve the Dust Control Application Policy as presented. The motion passed unanimously. Technical Assistance from CMSCWD for Erosion Control Projects Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed has offered to provide technical assistance at no cost to the city to design erosion control improvements to sections of 197th Street and also 205th Street. No project or improvements would occur without Council approval, and would be contingent on further funding. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Yehle, moved to authorize staff to accept the offer from Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed for technical assistance for both 197th and 205th Streets. The motion passed unanimously. LILLESKOGEN PARK PLAN Councilmember Peterson requested that the trail plan portion of the Lilleskogen Park Plan be opened for discussion after she was contacted by property owners adjacent to the park. Greg Benson, 21120 Olinda Trail, was present to state his opposition to having a trail connecting the loop trails in the park to the sidewalk on Olinda, as this trail is adjacent to his property. Mr. Benson is concerned about liability and theft, and pointed out the trail passes over a large drainage ditch that slopes into the park. Verona Kees, 21115 Olinda Trail, voiced her concerns about parking and misuse of the trail. Councilmember Peterson felt that one entrance to the park on Oakhill Road is sufficient. Karen Schik, chair of the Parks and Recreation Committee, stated that the intent is to provide connections in the City to natural areas and there may be a connection to other trails in the long-term. Ms. Schik stated that it is good to hear the concerns of neighbors in the early planning stages. Councilmember Yehle stated that these concerns will be kept in mind as the plan moves forward. WASHINGTON COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY—TEMPORARY ON-SALE LIQUOR LICENSE Brent Peterson, Washington County Historical Society, has applied for a temporary on-sale liquor license for a fundraising event to be held at the Hay Lake School Museum on June 14, 2008. Liability insurance has been verified. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Yehle, moved to approve a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License for the Washington County Historical Society. The motion passed unanimously. May 20, 2008 Scandia City Council Page 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR MINING OPERATIONS The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permits for gravel mining operations at their May 6, 2008 meeting, subject to findings and conditions on the city planner's reports. Resolutions have been drafted and reviewed with the applicants and the City Attorney. Resolution 05-20-08-01—Bracht Bros., Inc. Applicant Natalie Fitzpatrick asked for a revision of condition#14 in which dust control to Old Marine Trail is applied only when actively used for hauling. This change was made. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Seefeldt, moved to approve Resolution 05- 20-08-01 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Application for Bracht Bros, Inc. for Sand and Gravel Mining and Processing. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution 05-20-08-02—Dresel Contracting,Inc. Councilmember Yehle, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, moved to approve Resolution 05-20-08-02 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Application for Dresel Contracting, Inc. for Sand and Gravel Mining and Processing. The motion passed unanimously. Resolution 05-20-08-03—Tiller Corporation Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Mayor Seefeldt, moved to approve Resolution 05- 20-08-03 Approving a Conditional Use Permit Application for Tiller Corporation for Sand and Gravel Mining and Processing. The motion passed unanimously. Councilmember Yehle, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, moved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda Eklund Deputy Clerk c a) 00 June 3, 2008 A regular meeting of the Scandia City Council was held on the above date. Mayor Seefeldt called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The following council members were present: Council members Pete Crum, Michael Harnetty, Dolores Peterson, Mayor Dennis Seefeldt, Donnette Yehle. Staff present: Administrator Anne Hurlburt, City Attorney Dave Hebert, Building Official Steve Thorp, Deputy Clerk Brenda Eklund. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA Councilmember Yehle added a discussion of the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District to the agenda. Mayor Seefeldt suggested a change in order to items 5a) and 5b). Councilmember Yehle, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, moved to approve the agenda as amended. The motion passed unanimously. NOVAK AVENUE DRAINAGE ISSUE Heavy rains on May 25th resulted in flooding across the north end of Novak Avenue and impacting the property of Ronald and Diane Pottratz, 21450 Novak Avenue. A drainage improvement project was undertaken at the north end of Novak in 2007 to correct runoff flow across the road and flooding onto the Pottratz property. Photos of recent flooding were viewed. Bonestroo Engineer Paul Hornby submitted a report that identified the source of the runoff was from the farm field north and east of Novak Avenue. It was suggested to work with farm owners along with the Car-Mar Watershed District and the Soil and Water Conservation District to reduce the erosion and runoff from the farm field, which is tilled right up to the property line. Council was in consensus to regard Jim Shaver, CMSCWD Administrator, as the point person for these discussions and will hear a report at a future meeting. SALT/SAND STORAGE STRUCTURE Discussion of construction of a salt/sand storage structure at the Public Works building site was continued from the May 6th meeting. Building Official Steve Thorp provided additional cost/benefit information and answers to questions raised at the recent Capital Improvement Committee meeting. The maintenance department uses approximately 300 tons of salt per season and anticipates having up to 50 tons on hand for use per snow event. This on-site storage eliminates the need to travel to the County garage for salt as it is needed. Costs for steel or wood structures range in price from $38,000 to $50,000. The slab that has been in place since 2001 would not support a steel or wood structure, as the existing four foot concrete walls would need to be raised to a height of eight to ten feet to avoid contact with the corrosive salt. A fabric structure as proposed falls within the budgeted amount of$20,000 and could be constructed over the existing slab. Councilmember Peterson again voiced her opposition to the proposed fabric structure due to the aesthetics and stated that the intent for storage of sand/salt on this slab was not to cover the material with a building,but to use a tarp system. Councilmember Yehle was also opposed to a fabric covered structure due to aesthetics and the unknown durability of this type of building. City Attorney advised that language in the current ordinance excludes this type of building and allowing it could set a precedence for construction of fabric covered buildings. Administrator Hurlburt explained that exceptions can be made for specialized uses such as storage of bulk materials. Councilmember Harnetty stated that he understands the advantages for on-site storage, but when working with limited funds, economics states that the lower cost June 3, 2008 Scandia City Council Page 2 alternative should be the one considered. Councilmember Crum sees the benefits,but doesn't regard this as an urgent issue and suggested a change to the ordinance and investigation of a tarp system. Mayor Seefeldt would like to see the fabric-covered structure remain an option,but the building type and material ordinance (Section 9.14) needs to change. Consensus of the council was to refer this back to the Capital Improvements Committee and to hear recommendations at the budget workshops this summer. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order at 7:46 p.m. The following were present: Commission Chair Chris Ness, Commissioners Tom Krinke, Christine Maefsky, Susan Rodsjo,Peter Schwarz and TKDA Planner Berry Farrington. DAN AND RENEE LEE—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEM AT 19703 OLINDA TRAIL (RESOLUTION 06-03-08-01) Dan and Renee Lee, 19703 Olinda Trail,have submitted a Conditional Use Permit application to allow construction of a wind energy conversion system. TKDA Planner Berry Farrington presented the planner's report in which approval is recommended in that the applicant meets the standards outlined in Section 10.35.5 of the Scandia Zoning Regulations. The parcel size, setbacks, structure height and system features have all been met. Ms. Farrington suggested an addition to condition#3 of draft resolution 06-03-08-01 that the fence not exceed twelve feet in height. Chair Chris Ness opened the public hearing. • William O'Hara, adjacent property at 19565 Old Marine Trail, expressed his opposition, primarily due to the view he will have of the wind generator. Mr. O'Hara: Has the DNR been notified? Planner Farrington: Yes,but no written comments were submitted. Mr. O'Hara: Has placement to the north of Lee's home been considered?Mr. Dan Lee: Yes, but the proposed site is at the highest point on the property,making it the most efficient site for the wind generator. Placing the structure out of the neighbor's scenic view of the lake was a consideration in the placement. • Ernie Simonson, 14925 Oakhill Road, stated that the city should support alternative energy systems such as this. As there were no other comments, Chairman Ness closed the public hearing. Chairman Ness confirmed that the total height of the system will be 98 feet,just under the 100 feet limit allowed in the ordinance. Commissioner Schwarz questioned if a certified engineer should be involved in the construction, as the applicant intends to do the installation himself Mr. Lee stated that the footing diagrams have been provided by an engineer and used in a similar tower. Commissioner Krinke inquired about noise. Mr. Lee replied that it will not produce any more noise than the rustling of trees. Commissioner Maefsky asked if previously approved wind generators in the city were certified by an engineer. Chairman Ness answered that all have been. June 3, 2008 Scandia City Council Page 3 Commissioner Rodsjo addressed safety issues. Building Official Thorp stated the applicant must construct a fence and has indicated that he will place a"High Voltage" sign on the tower as a deterrent. Chairman Ness felt that a condition should be written into the resolution requiring a locked anti-climb device, as stated in the ordinance. Councilmember Harnetty asked if this wind tower fits into rural character. Commissioner Rodsjo stated that the structure may not look appealing,but it is an allowed use on the property. Commissioner Maefsky felt that concern for the environment and stewardship for the land are rural characters and doesn't have an objection with this application. Commissioner Schwarz asked if the tower can be placed to the north, among the outbuildings. Mr. Lee informed the Commission that as the land sits twenty feet lower at that point,the amount of power generated due to the loss of wind would not make this generator feasible. Planner Farrington advised that if a variance were needed for additional height, it would be questioned if an alternative site could be used, which there is. Mayor Seefeldt inquired if the necessary braking devices will be in place. Mr. Lee stated that both a manual and automatic system will be installed. The Planning Commission recommended approval of draft Resolution 06-03-08-01 with amendments. Councilmember Harnetty, seconded by Mayor Seefeldt, moved to accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve draft Resolution 06-03-08-01. Council discussed the requirements of a final inspection. It was determined that a representative of the manufacturer or an inspector as determined by the Building Official would qualify. This condition will be modified in the final resolution. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Yehle, moved to adopt draft Resolution 06-03-08-01 as amended. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. The City Council meeting continued UTILITY PERMITS FOR CONNEXUS ENERGY Connexus Energy has submitted two utility permits for the following work: 1) cable replacement to serve customer at13500 205th Street N. 2) underground electrical line to serve Old Marine Estates development (Lakamaga Trail). Bonestroo Engineer Paul Hornby has recommended approval of both permits with a condition for permit#1 requiring at least three feet of cover over the utility line in public rights of way, and permit#2 requires restoration to occur within seven days of disturbance. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Crum, moved to approve two Utility Permits for Connexus Energy for work at 13500 205th Street and for service at Old Marine Estates development with the condition that Connexus complies with the engineer's recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. June 3, 2008 Scandia City Council Page 4 UTILITY PERMITS FOR FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS Frontier Communications has submitted two utility permits for the following work: 1) place buried telephone service wire at 19877 Maxwill Ave. 2) place buried telephone service wire at 21450 to 21525 Pomroy Ave. Bonestroo Engineer Paul Hornby has recommended approval of both permits with the conditions that Frontier must provide three feet of cover over the utility line within public rights of way and restoration is to occur within seven days of disturbance. Councilmember Yehle, seconded by Councilmember Peterson, moved to approve two Utility Permits for Frontier Communications for work at 19877 Maxwill Avenue and at 21450 to 21525 Pomroy Avenue with the condition that Frontier complies with the engineer's recommendations. The motion passed unanimously. DISCUSSION OF CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST. CROIX WATERSHED Councilmember Yehle stated the necessity to address residents' questions and concerns regarding the accountability and budget processes of the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed. Mayor Seefeldt suggested presenting an information/discussion agenda item at the June 17th council meeting. CMSCWD Administrator Jim Shaver will be invited to participate in the discussion and to answer any questions. Councilmember Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Yehle, moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brenda Eklund Deputy Clerk Cor€ G SCANDIA City of Scandia Treasurer's Report May 31, 2008 Beginning Balance 05/01/08 989,473.78 Receipts 13,962.26 Expenditures 86,108.79 Payroll 19,621.37 -105,730.16 Adjustments: Ending Balance 05/31/08 897,705.88 Submitted by: Colleen Firkus, Treasurer !! SCAN DIA wrinfugnanni City of Scandia Treasurer's Report May 31, 2008 Beginning Balance 05/01/08 898,705.88 Receipts 13,962.26 Expenditures 86,108.79 Payroll 19,621.37 -105,730.16 Adjustments: Ending Balance 05/31/08 897,705.88 Submitted by: Colleen Firkus, Treasurer SCA.:i DIA In ' n- es n t * 2008 CASH BALANCES AT END OF MONTH FUND JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY 101 GENERAL 396,088 279,159 152,070 77,088 -12,296 301 DEBT SERVICE 544,454 544,454 549,362 500,810 500,810 401 CAPITAL IMPR 207,796 207,796 206,562 191,717 190,752 404 PARK CAP IMPR 45,395 41,562 34,430 34,430 34,430 406 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 33,820 9,732 9,732 9,732 9,732 602 201 SEWER 128,809 105,485 114,354 117,781 117,611 801 ESCROW 56,550 56,550 57,550 58,300 57,050 TOTAL 1,412,912 1,244,740 1,124,059 989,858 898,090 CITY OF SCANDIA *Expenditure Guideline Summary© Current Period:May 2008 YTD YTD MTD Enc % Description Budget Amount Amount Current Balance of Budget Fund 101 GENERAL FUND Dept 41000 Administation&Finance $342,762.00 $158,164.13 $38,827.72 $0.00 $184,597.87 46.14% Dept 41110 City Council $18,713.00 $5,453.18 $0.00 $0.00 $13,259.82 29.14% Dept 41410 Elections $5,770.00 $545.51 $75.51 $0.00 $5,224.49 9.45% Dept41910 Planning&Building $170,244.00 $80,036.61 $27,635.26 $0.00 $90,207.39 47.01% Dept 42100 Police $101,883.00 $47,137.36 $0.00 $0.00 $54,745.64 46.27% Dept 42200 Fire Dept $308,812.00 $82,433.76 $7,407.17 $0.00 $226,378.24 26.69% Dept 43000 Public Works $583,165.00 $152,743.25 $20,689.73 $0.00 $430,421.75 26.19% Dept 43210 Sewer&Water $3,330.00 $2,472.17 $10.17 $0.00 $857.83 74.24% Dept 45000 Parks&Recreation $45,922.00 $29,444.31 $4,504.63 $0.00 $16,477.69 64.12% Dept 45180 Community Center $52,926.00 $21,003.62 $3,508.65 $0.00 $31,922.38 39.68% Dept 48000 Capital Improvements $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00% Fund 101 GENERAL FUND $1,633,527.00 $579,433.90 $102,658.84 $0.00 $1,054,093.10 35.47 Fund 301 DEBT SERVICE Dept 47302 2002 Blacktop Bond $209,561.00 $209,561.25 $0.00 $0.00 -$0.25 100.00% Dept 47304 2004 Blacktop Bond $255,240.00 $7,620.00 $0.00 $0.00 $247,620.00 2.99% Dept 47307 2007 Blacktop Bond $305,163.00 $27,581.25 $0.00 $0.00 $277,581.75 9.04% Dept 47310 Fire Hall/Public Works Bond $121,135.00 $20,970.50 $0.00 $0.00 $100,164.50 17.31% Fund 301 DEBT SERVICE $891,099.00 $265,733.00 $0.00 $0.00 $625,366.00 29.82% Fund 401 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $59,600.00 $17,044.33 $964.50 $0.0 $42,555.67 28.60% Fund 404 PARK ACQUISITION AND DEV $14,000.00 $11,991.41 $0.00 $0.00 $2,008.59 85.65% Fund 406 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT Dept 48000 Capital Improvements $0.00 $4,065.11 $0.00 $0.00 -$4,065.11 0.00% Dept 48500 Equipment Replacement $0.00 $20,023.00 $0.00 $0.00 -$20,023.00 0.00% Fund 406 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT $0.00 $24,088.11 $0.00 $0.00 -$24,088.11 0.00% Fund 602 201 SEWER FUND $51,594.00 $24,789.77 $856.82 $0.00 $26,804.23 48.05% Report Total $2,649,820.00 $923,080.52 $104,480.16 $0.00 $1,726,739 48 34 84% CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM Page 1 � �; T h„ TT Payments SCANDIA M i n n e s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Batch Name 6-17-08 User Dollar Amt $59,040.24 Payments Computer Dollar Amt $59,040.24 $0.00 In Balance Refer 1443 24-7 EMS _ Cash Payment E 101-42200-310 Medical Training Fire Training $889.00 Invoice 08-1413 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $889.00 Refer 1399 A-1 TIRE SERVICE,INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-43000-222 Tires Tire Repair $162.50 Invoice 4514 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $162.50 Refer 1395 ACS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS INC Cash Payment E 101-42200-433 Dues and Subscriptions Software Support Contract $111.43 Invoice 71868 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $111.43 Refer 1398 AIR FRESH PORTABLE TOILETS _ Cash Payment E 101-45000-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Monthly Rental $320.00 Invoice 6674 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $320.00 Refer 1400 ALEXANDRIA TECHNICAL COLLEG Cash Payment E 101-42200-317 Employee Training Fire School Training $570.00 Invoice 5-23-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $570.00 Refer 1401 ALL SAFE INC. Cash Payment E 101-42200-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Fire Extinguisher Service $102.63 Invoice 84183 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $102.63 Refer 1397 AMERIPRIDE LINEN&APPAREL S Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Community Center Supplies $163.30 Invoice M002837-0508 Cash Payment E 101-41910-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Community Center Supplies $116.15 Invoice M573671-0508 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $279.45 Refer 1396 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER Cash Payment E 101-42200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery Battery charger repair $9.50 Invoice 2935 Cash Payment E 101-42200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery Radio repair $12.50 Invoice 2588 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $22.00 Refer 1402 BACKSTITCH EMBROIDERY - Cash Payment E 101-42200-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Fire Dept.Jackets $189.00 Invoice 751087 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $189.00 Refer 1403 BARTON SAND&GRAVEL CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM Page 2 , f ti Payments SCANDIA m i e n ,c s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Cash Payment E 101-43000-228 Gravel&Sand Class 5 gravel $288.43 Invoice 5-31-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $288.43 Refer 1406 CHISAGO LAKES DISTRIBUTING I _ Cash Payment E 101-45180-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Comm.Center trash bags $123.01 Invoice 364894 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $123.01 Refer 1408 CITIBUSINESS CARD _ Cash Payment E 101-42200-331 Travel Expenses Parking charge $48.00 Invoice 5-9-08 Cash Payment E 101-45180-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Vacuum cleaner repair $66.65 Invoice 5-1-08 Cash Payment E 101-41000-331 Travel Expenses LMC Conference-Hurlburt $400.70 Invoice 5-9-08 Cash Payment E 101-41000-200 Office Supplies Comp.Plan Meeting $6.00 Invoice 5-19-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $521.35 Refer 1405 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT CO. _ Cash Payment E 101-43000-224 Materials for Road Maint Hot mix asphalt $152.45 Invoice 5-15-08 Cash Payment E 101-43000-224 Materials for Road Maint Hot mix asphalt $184.75 Invoice 5-31-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $337.20 Refer 1404 CONNEXUS ENERGY Cash Payment E 101-45000-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Hay Lake Shelter $12.66 Invoice 5-28-08 Cash Payment E 602-43210-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas 201 System $25.73 Invoice 5-28-08 Cash Payment E 101-43000-387 Street Light Utilities Wyldewood Streetlights $65.69 Invoice 5-28-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $104.08 Refer 1407 CR PLANNING,INC. _ Cash Payment E 401-48000-312 Planning Services Comp.Plan Services $637.50 Invoice 2008-17 Cash Payment E 101-45000-312 Planning Services $1,912.50 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services $3,825.00 Invoice Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $6,375.00 Refer 1409 DUSTCOATING,INC. Cash Payment E 101-43000-405 Contractual Road Maint/ Dustcoating $10,116.00 Invoice 9173 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $10,116.00 Refer 1411 ECM PUBLISHERS, INC. Cash Payment E 101-41910-351 Legal Notices Publishing Lee CUP Notice $40.63 Invoice IT00117079 CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM Page 3 Payments SCANDIA. m I n n e_ s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $40.63 Refer 1412 EKLUND,BRENDA _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-322 Postage Pilar Survey Postage $14.70 Invoice 5-22-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $14.70 Refer 1410 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCT _ Cash Payment E 101-42200-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Medical Equipment $169.48 Invoice 1068656 Cash Payment E 101-42200-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Medical Equipment $190.64 Invoice 1068127 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $360.12 Refer 1413 FAIRMONT FIRE SYSTEMS Cash Payment E 101-45180-401 Builiding Maintenance/R Comm.Center Fire Inspection $103.00 Invoice 35589 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $103.00 Refer 1414 FRONTIER _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-321 Telephone City Hall $207.13 Invoice 6514332274 Cash Payment E 602-43210-321 Telephone 201 Dialer $74.00 Invoice 6514332274 Cash Payment E 101-42200-321 Telephone Firehall $138.03 Invoice 6514334383 Cash Payment E 101-43000-321 Telephone Public Works $61.59 Invoice 6514335223 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone Building Official $75.28 Invoice 6514335762 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $556.03 Refer 1415 FXL, INC. Cash Payment E 101-41000-300 Assessor Assessor Services $1,500.00 Invoice 6-2008 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $1,500.00 Refer 1416 GOPHER STATE ONE-CALL INC _ Cash Payment E 101-43000-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Locator Tickets $23.20 Invoice 8050812 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $23.20 Refer 1417 HEBERT,WELCH,HUMPHREYS, P Cash Payment E 101-41000-304 Legal Fees Prosecution $957.00 Invoice 14948 Cash Payment E 101-41000-304 Legal Fees Legal Services $1,398.00 Invoice 14950 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $2,355.00 Refer 1419 HENNEPIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE Cash Payment E 101-42200-317 Employee Training Fire Training $1,014.00 Invoice 00150130 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $1,014.00 Refer 1418 HULLEMAN, CLAYTON ?� t CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM Page 4 Payments SCANDIA. m i n n e s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Cash Payment E 101-45180-438 Misc.Contractual Comm.Center Lock-ups $96.00 Invoice 6-2008 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $96.00 Refer 1420 LOFFLER COMPANIES, INC. - Cash Payment E 101-41000-413 Office Equipment Rental Copier Rent $181.05 Invoice 100162312 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $181.05 Refer 1424 MCKELVEY,MARTY - Cash Payment E 101-45000-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Summer Rec Program Supplies $48.97 Invoice 6-6-08 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $48.97 Refer 1423 MENARDS - Cash Payment E 101-45180-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Comm.Center Lightbulbs $51.44 Invoice 23706 Cash Payment E 101-43000-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Shop Lights $7.58 Invoice 23706 Cash Payment E 101-45180-223 Building Repair&Suppli Screen Door $100.11 Invoice 23442 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $159.13 Refer 1422 METROPOLITAN AREA MANAGER _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-316 Conferences&Seminars MAMA Meeting $25.00 Invoice 2151 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $25.00 Refer 1426 MINNESOTA LIFE INSURANCE CO. _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-134 Employer Paid Life Hurlburt Life $4.10 Invoice 6-2008 Cash Payment E 101-43000-134 Employer Paid Life Morrison Life $4.10 Invoice Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $8.20 Refer 1427 MN CITY/CTY MGMT ASSOCIATIO _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-433 Dues and Subscriptions Annual Membership Dues $82.68 Invoice 6-2008 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $82.68 Refer 1425 MN DEPT OF HEALTH _ Cash Payment E 101-45180-334 License/CDL State Hospitality Fee $35.00 Invoice 5-19-2008 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $35.00 Refer 1421 MN NCPERS LIFE INSURANCE _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-134 Employer Paid Life Administration Life Ins. $48.00 Invoice 6-2008 Cash Payment E 101-41910-134 Employer Paid Life Bldg.Official Life $16.00 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-134 Employer Paid Life Public Works Life $48.00 Invoice Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $112.00 Refer 1428 MOORE MEDICAL, LLC CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM 44( I Page 5 ;t ,a Payments SCANDIA m i n ,n ,e s o_ t o Current Period:June 2008 Cash Payment E 101-42200-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Medical Equipment $179.25 Invoice 95224125 RI Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $179.25 Refer 1430 NAPA AUTO PARTS Cash Payment E 101-42200-404 Repairs/Maint Machinery Battery $111.33 Invoice 037172 Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $111.33 Refer 1432 NEOPOST LEASING Ck#000005E 6/3/2008 Cash Payment E 101-41000-322 Postage Postage-on-Call $300.00 Invoice 6-3-08 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $300.00 Refer 1429 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS Cash Payment E 101-41000-321 Telephone Admin Cell $39.48 Invoice 721650231-035 Cash Payment E 101-41910-321 Telephone Bldg.Official Cell $39.48 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-321 Telephone Public Works $118.44 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-42200-321 Telephone Fire Dept. $157.92 Invoice Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $355.32 Refer 1431 NORTH MEMORIAL EMS EDUCATI Cash Payment E 101-42200-310 Medical Training EMS Training $590.00 Invoice 3528-R Transaction Date 6/12/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $590.00 Refer 1433 OFFICEMAX CONTRACT,INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-200 Office Supplies Office Supplies $186.18 Invoice 316187 Cash Payment E 101-41910-200 Office Supplies Bldg.Dept.Office Supplies $7.62 Invoice 316187 Cash Payment E 101-41000-200 Office Supplies Printer Cartridge Return -$68.20 Invoice 056567 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $125.60 Refer 1434 RYBAK AGGREGATE LLC _ Cash Payment E 101-43000-228 Gravel&Sand Gravel,Limestone rock $345.09 Invoice 1025 Cash Payment E 101-43000-228 Gravel&Sand Limestone $192.60 Invoice 1053 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $537.69 Refer 1436 SCANDIA STORE Cash Payment E 101-42200-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Fire Dept.Dinner $188.49 Invoice 2944 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $188.49 Refer 1440 SELECT ACCOUNT Cash Payment E 101-41000-131 Employer Paid Health Hurlburt HSA $100.00 Invoice 6-2008 CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM I Page 6 Payments SCANDIA m i n n c s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Cash Payment E 101-41910-131 Employer Paid Health Thorp HSA $100.00 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-131 Employer Paid Health Egelkraut HSA $100.00 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21706 Accrued Medical Ins Egelkraut Contribution $200.00 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-131 Employer Paid Health Morrison HSA $100.00 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21706 Accrued Medical Ins Morrison Contribution $310.00 Invoice Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $910.00 Refer 1435 SHERILL REID - Cash Payment E 101-41000-314 Animal Control Animal Control $75.00 Invoice 08-140 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $75.00 Refer 1438 SRC, INC. _ Cash Payment E 101-45180-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa Community Center $124.42 Invoice 6-4-08 Cash Payment E 101-42200-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa Firehall $33.17 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-45000-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa Lighted Ballfield $63.04 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-45000-384 Refuse/Garbage Disposa Log House Landing $58.06 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-41000-430 Recycling Recycling-May 08 $2,320.50 Invoice Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $2,599.19 Refer 1439 STILLWATER MEDICAL GROUP - Cash Payment E 101-42200-305 Medical Fees Medical $48.00 Invoice 1481623 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $48.00 Refer 1437 SW/WC SERVICE COOPERATIVE _ Cash Payment E 101-41000-131 Employer Paid Health Hurlburt $272.00 Invoice 7-2008 Cash Payment E 101-41000-131 Employer Paid Health Eklund $272.00 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-41910-131 Employer Paid Health Thorp $272.00 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-131 Employer Paid Health Morrison $697.60 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21706 Accrued Medical Ins Morrison Contribution $174.40 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-131 Employer Paid Health Egelkraut $697.60 Invoice Cash Payment G 101-21706 Accrued Medical Ins Egelkraut Contribution $174.40 Invoice Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $2,560.00 Refer 1442 TKDA _ CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM Page 7 Payments SCANDIA m q n e s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services Bracht CUP $3,162.83 Invoice 200802027 Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services Dresel CUP $3,169.13 Invoice 200802028 Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services General Planning Services $461.18 Invoice 200802030 Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services Holmberg Rezone $189.97 Invoice 200802031 Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services Lee CUP $275.52 Invoice 200802032 Cash Payment E 101-41910-312 Planning Services Tiller CUP $3,998.17 Invoice 200802053 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $11,256.80 Refer 1441 TODDS HOME CENTER Cash Payment E 101-43000-212 Fuel Fuel $1,325.63 Invoice 5-31-08 Cash Payment E 101-43000-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Supplies $102.63 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-41910-212 Fuel Fuel $60.09 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-42200-212 Fuel Fuel $270.22 Invoice Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $1,758.57 Refer 1444 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO. Cash Payment E 101-42200-223 Building Repair&Suppli Fire Dept.Repair $228.10 Invoice 296279 Cash Payment E 101-43000-223 Building Repair&Suppli Public Works Repair $83.22 Invoice 296087 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $311.32 Refer 1446 UNION SECURITY INSURANCE CO Cash Payment E 101-41000-135 Employer Paid Disability Hurlburt LTD $39.50 Invoice 6-2008 Cash Payment E 101-41910-135 Employer Paid Disability Thorp LTD $25.40 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-135 Employer Paid Disability Morrison LTD $45.20 Invoice Cash Payment E 101-43000-135 Employer Paid Disability Egelkraut LTD $25.40 Invoice Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $135.50 Refer 1445 V.I.P.PEST CONTROL Cash Payment E 101-45180-401 Builiding Maintenance/R May Pest Control $34.08 Invoice 5809 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $34.08 Refer 1448 WASHINGTON CO. PUBLIC HEALT Cash Payment E 602-43210-386 201 Operation& Mainten Anderson Erickson Mgmt. $197.99 Invoice 5-14-08 Cash Payment E 602-43210-386 201 Operation&Mainten Bliss Mgmt. $8,230.67 Invoice 5-14-08 CITY OF SCANDIA 06/13/08 10:51 AM Page 8 t Payments SCANDIA m i e n c s o t a Current Period:June 2008 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $8,428.66 Refer 1450 WEB ELECTRIC - Cash Payment E 101-45180-385 Sewer Pumping&Maint Comm.Center Septic Repairs $233.10 Invoice 2115 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $233.10 Refer 1447 WINNICK SUPPLY - Cash Payment E 101-43000-210 Operating Supplies&Eq Shop Supplies $19.86 Invoice 00093533 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $19.86 Refer 1449 XCEL ENERGY Cash Payment E 101-45180-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Community Center $545.39 Invoice 155024795 Cash Payment E 602-43210-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Lift Station#1 $18.78 Invoice 302519740 Cash Payment E 101-43000-387 Street Light Utilities Uptown Streetlights $169.52 Invoice 302785259 Cash Payment E 101-43210-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Uptown Sewer $11.07 Invoice 303033579 Cash Payment E 101-43000-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Flashing Light $26.70 Invoice 303328935 Cash Payment E 101-45000-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Aerator $8.52 Invoice 303682753 Cash Payment E 602-43210-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Bliss LS#2 $1.21 Invoice 154663093 Cash Payment E 101-43000-387 Street Light Utilities Streetlights $272.23 Invoice 155719056 Cash Payment E 101-42200-381 Utilities-Electric&Gas Fire Siren $3.27 Invoice 153687295 Transaction Date 6/3/2008 SECURITY STATE B 10100 Total $1,056.69 Fund Summary 10100 SECURITY STATE BANK 101 GENERAL FUND $49,854.36 401 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS $637.50 602 201 SEWER FUND $8,548.38 $59,040.24 Pre-Written Check $300.00 Checks to be Generated by the Compute $58,740.24 Total $59,040.24 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651)433-2274 Action Requested: Approve Resolution 06-17-08-01 adopting the Minnesota General Records Retention Schedule for Cities. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The State of Minnesota provides a records retention schedule for use by cities. The schedule establishes minimum retention periods for city records based on their administrative, fiscal, legal and historical value. • Staff has an ongoing project to organize the city's records and has been using the schedule in that effort. • A city may not dispose of records unless it has adopted the schedule and notifies the Minnesota Historical Society of its adoption. Scandia has not previously adopted the schedule. Recommendation: The Council should adopt the resolution. Attachments/ • Background on General Records Retention Schedule for Materials provided: Minnesota Cities • Draft Resolution 06-17-08-01 Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (records retention) Page 1 of 1 06/09/08 GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR MINNESOTA CITIES Purpose of the General Records Retention Schedule The purpose of a records retention schedule is to provide a plan for managing governmental records by giving continuing authority to dispose of records under Minnesota Statutes section 138.17. This City General Records Retention Schedule establishes minimum retention periods for city records based on their administrative, fiscal, legal and historical value. It lists records series common to cities and identifies how long to retain them. This schedule was originally developed by the Minnesota State Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division and the Minnesota Historical Society, Division of Archives and Manuscripts and was funded in part by a grant from the National Historical Publications and Records Commission. The revised schedule was updated by city clerks and officials representing the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association (MCFOA). Adopting and Using the General Schedule 1. A city that has adopted the previous version of this general schedule does not need to notify the Minnesota Historical Society that it is adopting this revised edition of the General Records Retention Schedule for Cities. It will be assumed that cities that have adopted the previous version will now utilize this revised version. If you have not previously adopted the general schedule, to begin disposing of records, you must notify the State Archives Department of the Minnesota Historical Society that your city has adopted the schedule. The enclosed form, "Notification of Adoption of City General Records Retention Schedule", is used for this purpose. 2. You may adopt the schedule even though your office may not have all the records listed on it. We recommend that you adopt the entire schedule. However, if this is not possible you may adopt individual sections. 3. The Minnesota Historical Society will sign and return the Notification form to you. You will then have the authority to dispose of your government records as indicated on the schedule. 4. Compare the records in your office with the records listed on the schedule. Retention periods listed on the schedule represent the rninimum length of time that you must retain your records. Once that retention period has been reached you may destroy the records as indicated on the schedule. If you need to retain some records series longer than the listed retention, you should establish an agency policy for those records. 5. Records identified on the schedule as archival may be transferred to a local/county historical society or other appropriate repository with the specific, written permission of the state Records Disposition Panel. Contact the State Archives Department at 651-297-4502 for guidelines. For further information, see the State Archives Department's web site at http://www.mnhs.orq/preserve/records/index.html. 6. The retention stated on the schedule applies to any form of the record (paper, computer tape or disk, microfilm, optical disk, electronic media, etc.). However, if you decide to change the form of a record (for instance, you microfilm a paper record)you may not be authorized to dispose of the original record. If you are considering changing the form of a record, contact the Minnesota Historical Society, State Archives Department, 651-297-451)2. 7. Data Practices Classifications are effective as of the printing of this Retention Schedule. Because data practices issues change regularly, classifications may have changed. For current information on data practices, consult Minnesota State Statutes, Chapter 13, or call the State of Minnesota, Department of Administration, Information Policy Analysis Division at 651-296-6733. Destruction Reporting After you destroy records according to the general schedule, maintain a list of destroyed items. Records not on the General Schedule Records not listed on this schedule cannot be destroyed without submitting either an "Application for Authority to Dispose of Records" (PR-1)or a "Minnesota Records Retention Schedule" (RM-00058). The PR-1 form is used to request one-time authority to dispose of records. A reproducible copy of the PR-1 form is enclosed. Since an approved PR-1 gives you authority to dispose of only those records listed on the form, we recommend that you use the PR-1 only for obsolete records (records no longer being created). For ongoing authority to dispose of records not listed on the general schedule, complete a "Minnesota Records Retention Schedule". This form can be obtained from the State Archives Department of the Minnesota Historical Society, 651-297-4502. Duplicate Records This retention schedule concerns itself only with the city's official record copy and the retention periods assigned reflect that. It is each city's responsibility to identify the official record copy and to identify when to destroy any other copies of identical records, after they have lost their legal, fiscal, historical and administrative value. Duplicate copies should not be retained as long as the official record. Normally the retention period on duplicate records will not exceed two years. Records Reproduced on Optical Image Storage System (M.S. §138.17 subd. 10) Any government record, including a record with archival value, may be transferred to and stored on a non- erasable optical imaging system and retained only in that format, if the following requirements are met. All documents preserved on non-erasable optical imaging systems must meet standards for permanent records specified in section 15.17, subdivision 1, and must be kept available for retrieval so long as the law requires. Standards under section 15.17, subdivision 1, may not be inconsistent with efficient use of optical imaging systems. A government entity storing a record on an optical imaging system shall create and store a backup copy of the record at a site other than the site where the original is kept. The government entity shall retain the backup copy and operable retrieval equipment so long as any law requires the original to be retained. The backup copy required by this paragraph must be preserved either(1)on a non-erasable optical imaging system; or(2) by another reproduction method approved by the records disposition panel. All contracts for the purchase of optical imaging systems used pursuant to this chapter shall contain terms that insure continued retrievability of the optically stored images and conform to any guidelines that may be established by the information policy office of the department of administration for perpetuation of access to stored data. For further information regarding imaging systems, refer to the standards (IRM 12 and IRM 13)issued by the Minnesota Ofice of Technology, "Reproduction of Government Records Using Imaging Systems"available on the Office of Technology website at: http://www.state.mn.us/cgf- bin/portal/mn/isp/content.do?subchannel=null&programed=536881358&sc2=null&id=-8487&agency=OT>. Category Definitions for the General Schedule Record Series Description: A record series is a group of records clustered together because they all relate to the same topic and have the same retention period. Retention Period/Statute: The retention cited is the minimum amount of the time a record must be kept. A number printed alone, e.g. 10, means ten years. If months or days are meant the entry will display that, e.g. 6 months or 30 days. The stated retention does not include the year the record originates. For example, if Record A is filed by calendar year and it has a retention of 3 years,the disposal date for 2000 records is January, 2004. Statutes listed here cite specific retention periods for the records series. Archive: If a Y or"yes"appears in this column, these records have historical value and must be permanently retained by the city. If the city wishes to otherwise dispose of the records, the city should contact the State Archives Department of the Minnesota Historical Society at 651-297-4502 for guidelines and assistance. These records may be eligible for transfer to a county or local historical society, or other repository, and the State Archives can assist in this process. For further information see the State Archives Department's web site at <http://www.mnhs.org/preserve/records/index.html>. Data Practices Classification: This phrase refers to records classified by the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act or other state or federal laws. The classification system includes: public, private, confidential, nonpublic or protected nonpublic. More than one classification may apply. Data Practices Statute: This phrase refers to the statute or law which cities the data practices classification of the record series. Resources Questions about archival records: Questions about data practices: Minnesota Historical Society Department of Administration State Archives Department Information Policy Analysis Division Minnesota History Center 305A Centennial Office Building 345 Kellogg Boulevard West 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55102-1906 St. Paul, MN 55155 Voice: 651-297-4502 Voice: 651-296-6733 Fax: 651-296-9961 1-800-657-3721 Fax: 651-205-4219 Email: info.ipad(c�state.mn.us NH/Adopt Schedule Instr.doc 6/2005 CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. 06-17-08-01 ADOPTING THE MINNESOTA GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR CITIES WHEREAS, to comply with the Records Management Statute MS 138.17, it is necessary to adopt a plan for managing governmental records including the proper retention and disposal of municipal records; and WHEREAS, the Records Management Statute MS 138.17 establishes the Records Disposition Panel and requires all government entities to follow an orderly process in disposing of government information; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has approved for use by all Minnesota Cities the "Minnesota General Records Retention Schedule for Cities" which authorizes cities adopting said schedule an orderly method of disposing of municipal records; and WHEREAS, the "Minnesota General Records Retention Schedule for Cities" is regularly updated. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Scandia, Minnesota adopts the Minnesota General Records Retention schedule and directs the City Clerk to notify the Minnesota Historical Society/State Archives Department. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that following state approval, City Departments are directed to provide for retention and destruction of records as set forth in said schedule and its subsequent revisions. Adopted by the Scandia City Council this 17th day of June, 2008. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk/Administrator Meeting Date: 6/17/08 Agenda Item: City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Issuance of a Certificate of Compliance to Gary and Darla Rushmeyer DBA Medical Staffing Partners to move into the building at 14800 Scandia Trail North. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The building has been used as an office for businesses with low volumes of customer traffic in the past. Medical Staffing Partners is a use that follows this same kind of business with most correspondence being done electronically. • The applicant will have 4 employees and there are currently 5 parking spaces for the building. Occasionally, additional parking may be needed but will remain on site. • A sign will be placed inside the building that will be visible from the outside. They will have no sign either freestanding or on the exterior of the building. • No additional exterior lighting will be added. Recommendation: My recommendation is to issue the Certificate of Compliance for this new business. Attachments/ • Draft resolution Materials provided: • Zoning application Contact(s): Prepared by: Steve Thorp Code Official Medical Staffing Cert of Comp Page 1 of 1 06/11/08 CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR 14800 SCANDIA TRAIL NORTH WHEREAS, a Certificate of Compliance is required for a new business to move into an existing building in the General Business District; and WHEREAS, the property is legally identified with a Washington County Parcel ID #14- 032-20-43-0006, Washington County, Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request on June 17, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does approve the request of Gary and Darla Rushmeyer DBA Medical Staffing Partners, Inc. for a Certificate of Compliance. FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED, that the following conditions of approval shall be met: 1. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with issuance of this permit. Adopted by the Scandia City Council this 17th day of June, 2008. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk/Administrator Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: 3 ) City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`11 St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Amend the 2008 budget to reflect expenditures for sealing of floors in the Fire Hall/ Public Works building. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • When the 2008 budget was developed almost a year ago, the Fire Department proposed two projects: sealing the floors inside the garage bays of the building, and sealcoating the parking lot. • The 2008 budget as adopted included two line items relating to these projects: $3,000 to seal the garage floor(101-42200-530) and $14,000 in the Capital Improvement Fund budget to sealcoat the building parking lot (403-48000-530). • The Fire Department presented quotes to seal the floor in both sides of the building at the May 20 meeting. The quotes were for $5,308.81 for the Public Works side of the building and $6,060 for the Fire Department, plus approximately an additional $350 for placement of yellow traffic lines on the floor for the Fire Department. • The parking lot will not be sealcoated in 2008, but will be deferred and combined with the city's next road sealcoat project. Recommendation: While the Council has already approved the expenditure, the budget should also be amended. I recommend that the Council approve the following changes to the 2008 expenditure budget: Budget/Department Line Item # Change Capital Improvements 403-48000-530 ($14,000) Public Works 101-43000-530 + $5,310 Fire 101-43000-530 + $3,410 The result is a total increase of$8,720 in the two general fund expenditure budgets, offset by the $14.000 decrease in the capital improvements fund budget, for a net decrease in 2008 spending of $5,280. Page 1 of 2 06/12/08 Attachments/ • None Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hthrlburt, Administrator (budget amendment) Page 2 of 2 06/12/08 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: 7 6?) City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Receive a report from the Ice Rink Committee. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • We have confirmed that the replacement boards for the ice rink will be available from the City of Roseville at the end of July. • The Ice Rink Committee met on Tuesday, June 10, to strategize about the project, which is planned to be completed largely with volunteers. • The 2008 budget (Capital Improvement Fund) includes $5,000 for costs relating to this project. Expenses will be incurred for demolition and disposal of the old rink boards, insurance, parts and hardware and a variety of miscellaneous items. • The City of Roseville will ask Scandia to sign an agreement relating to liability for salvage of their boards. That agreement will be brought to the Council at a later date. Recommendation: N/A Attachments/ • Meeting notes, June 10, 2008 Ice Rink Committee meeting Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (ice rink project) Page 1 of 1 06/11/08 Scandia Ice Rink Committee June 10, 2008 Meeting Notes The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m. Present: Dennis Seefeldt, Mike Harnetty, Moose Malmquist, Matt Rasmussen, Alex Bildeaux., Anne Hurlburt. Absent: Mike White. Confirmation from Roseville on the project to replace their ice rink boards was expected today. Assuming that the project has a firm conunitment, the committee agreed on the following preliminary schedule and assignments for salvaging Roseville's boards and reconstructing the Scandia ice rink: Demolition of Existing Rink—July 12, 2008 • Rasmussen will be in charge of recruiting labor(for all three work dates.) Adults from the FLAA will be recruited along with others. • Committee members will look at rink to determine tools needed to dismantle it • Public Works staff will be consulted about o Tools and equipment(including compressor, front end loader, palette forks.) o Removal of skate park equipment. o Arrangements for and size of demolition dumpster(to be placed in parking lot.) o Availability of staff person(Mike E?) to work on demolition day. Removal of Boards from Roseville—July 25-27 • Committee members (Harnetty, Rasmussen, White, Malmquist) will arrange to mark boards for re-assembly and photograph existing set-up in Roseville prior to dis-assembly. • Bildeaux will obtain markers. • Roseville plans to take the boards apart and wants them removed by the end of the same weekend; we will need to be flexible and work with them on exact time. • Anne will contact them for name and number of person supervising the dis-assembly so we can work with them to preserve the boards, stanchions, hardware, plexi, etc. as much as possible. • Volunteers (6 to 8) will be needed to load boards in Roseville, and then again to unload them in Scandia on the same day if possible. • Boards will be stored on rink surface, on palettes, until they can be put back together. • Mike White will be asked to confirm with Roger Rydeen that he will have a truck available the weekend of July 25-27. Reconstruction of Scandia Rink—August 2 and/or August 9 • The"marking crew" will examine the boards on their visit to Roseville, to determine what parts, hardware, tools etc. will be needed to re-assemble them so we can purchase them in advance. • The"marking crew" also needs to be on hand, with photos, to direct the re-assembly process. • A crew of volunteer labor will be needed; Matt will recruit. • Depending on how long the process takes and what safety issues might be identified, the site may need to be secured with construction fencing but we hope to avoid the need for this. 1 Miscellaneous Tasks— • Report to Council at June 17 meeting. • Written agreement with Roseville will be finalized by July 1 Council meeting if possible • Staff will consult with LMCIT and arrange for insurance. • Staff will arrange for water and food for volunteers on three work dates. Possibly check with Lions for grill. • Press release about project will include request for volunteers. The Committee will meet next on Wednesday, July 2 at 5:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m. 2 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: , 5) City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Receive a report from the Comprehensive Plan Committee. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The Comprehensive Plan Committee is nearing the end of its work to prepare a draft plan, which will be reviewed at two upcoming meetings on June 23 and June 25 (6:00 p.m.) • Two Council members (Seefeldt and Harnetty) have been active members of the Committee. There has been less participation by other Council members. • After the June meetings, public meeting(s) and a hearing will be scheduled before the Planning Commission. The Council will be asked to approve the plan for submission to the Metropolitan Council for review,tentatively in September Recommendation: The entire Council may wish to consider attending the June 23 & 25 meeting, to become informed and provide your input before the draft for public review is finalized. Staff would post the meetings so as to comply with the Open Meetings law. Attachments/ • None Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (CPC update) Page 1 of 1 06/11/08 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: 7, e) City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`h St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Receive a report from the Parks and Recreation Committee regarding recent improvements to Wind in the Pines Park. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • In 2007 the City entered into an agreement with Great River Greening (GRG) for a project to control erosion and stabilize trails in Wind in the Pines Park. • The $8,000 project was funded with $6,000 from GRG with a $2,000 match from the City (Park Capital Improvement Fund.) • The work has now been completed and Park and Recreation Chair Karen Schick will report on it at the June 17 Council meeting. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council receive the report. Attachments/ • Photographs Materials provided: Contact(s): Karen Schik, 433-5254 Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (parks report on WIP park) Page 1 of 1 06/12/08 • / • , ,;1-t4-' . . , ., . ,- ,, ,....-. -- - Aloic,t_ _i\ . 'Tql*it Rill 4:- r''''''' ' 4.*. ,,-.4,,—,..- Lel A- ' 4.•!' %-.%-•-. ''. ' t l' , - I • t' ••-. 1-. 1 ;WaterbarS and steps at East end of ridge trail. ,; , East steps & waterbar from above. • tc.t. A1W1" .-.1.-.:40-.6', • - • - •A I )3/4, . -,p --ct - v --r t f, -- $1k ' c Jf--,) ..i,' ;;., ,‘ b *.;i , ., ' .,: ? • ., ,.L _ ,-..,-.. --A. , ...-..„..„..A.,,,,,. _.„- , -41'8''' '-- A i .. ..! "..„ „........- ,- ' ' - .- i 1 '-- 'e.: i =- %,..•- i - .r.„.. ...„..„....... ,_,......„..,.....„„, . ...,...... - . . _ . , ,,,,, ...,... .., ..: ,,,,.,,, ,... ... ..,- ,...,. . .„.., . ,, ,,„.... , ,'..F i A.4. . Y„,...11.•-•4•44 ,,, ,0....- -... •".r. 41-- ,4*- •••4•:tr* • • • '••-'•' •-•• - > ' ,ri..., . , Fr- --, . ‘ - 6,-.,.: . , 7,-:..,_- .- „ -‘ __, ..24,c-• , - .1, ;'it.,i...-.:- .4 t.:!-0.-./ - '1-rtki.-"k_ ?;•-'e 4.IS.PV•• -..'A' 414'. --4 A"'"Ail,"-. ‘4.'..-.* ''''' ,-•'• 'IrrigafitAgr- "4-r/r'4..• •'•• ,•,•**S:-,f 4.'1*, '.•4r*WS4A,'"'•1* ViR•tf. • It•,:' "••, '•••-'2:-; " i, ,,lic-:;•14..'-, .;,,,,," ,..":•':'‘...tert-..-7-_-,. , 414Zer"..;ior--,s.,;..A.,417-.",......„' -- . '--- ,•4_,....-!-:-......:'-. • ..4, i.e..„,„.„..4. %,c eaf.g...,„1.1.7.7-,A-orr. - -,. ,,,,g•,._,..'L-•%..4.. ' if-Vo --- ...)-•••-•. :...It 7,-. - --,........-- ,,,:-,.2.--..,, • . .:,'1,115,1,4,4-It' et „..,,,ler•1;40 ..„7••• ,....„;„,t•-.0,Wt,„_„,,, - .. • „ ••••11 ..... ...-;.-',.- , -‹,?!.-•.„"r-.-7,14‘.4'•4", "4•4-40.1146.. .."‘•.-,•'-......•-•&4- tt t.t.ipt,,V•sk -' ,-,.. 4 tip:L.'. ..t.••,"•-•;t74,17,,-.-4V*/%, .t.„.4•It• '''` 7..."'`''''•r- • ff-,:-.,.., ,fg ;- "0"..1,p7', ,• -', . --:-.,"- •. a-nerawk"'4!----,.•.*•...ts' ' 4 ...#1;ali.s-askrior-,,- ,"?..-,.?q,,...,:e..."=„,,,S0.2,--•-.04.grri.t,--,..- -x-b-.071,- -'s ...1.~ --i.r..., 0,- .'. -..1-..\.Z. ,.., '42,411.,•1.• ,,,•-•••" 7__•Cro,t...4/..„:,.. „re- •kr:-.--„,,..<•-•_,,..4,.*-`;*.-- ---7----7;77..-..-e- ,. -:,.14,4 -4.4,...„ ,••,.. -." -• ., ,,,,„..• ,.--, .;-. .,,,-- 't--•`,.4 ,I.Zik.‘ • -43,,, --,i,••' 7.T.I7'„,,,,.•-",••41111: •••• • 1.--.*;••14•16...47-6ft,,s,„ - ..--••!Sr.'"a. A.44''',XF 7•47e•I'.:.:;44•K AIMS••••‘,.....-•%:- ••• 1 ".r„.-,,.. •••t`PAV, ''t"4 2. ...;.‘l•`'• ' .5>4.4;•''''•:•'::• *..;. .1,!-.','...r 4'1...4;1; •,,Vt.t.,;••'`•,..11r--' '" -•4te.*•,..* Y15,144 •-'! ,.451-- 4..:•••••••--,•".40...1;:-.;,..1---‘,...c....47....S-.... 4 ." ,N,'''-5; - . .......,.., . ,...,..,.- '4---:. ...- _-•--;',. . ..k..-C-.;,'; ---r-.4." lt), k•,:.'v--' ' IX 47-V----'=-V.--.2.--,' " !f - -..,,' .- • -, - - ': 1.71K. _„,-.te,•;--- - ,,T-•-2--_,..7.- •-i,t''''‘,...•--z•-.1.-irg.:J44.-2:- ..r.'"...- - `' ..„- "-,- -;, - „„,„•--.- - ' ',__, ; 0`,. 4.•:' - --,.. . 0,-- lz.,, • ; . -, *9„7.....,, .3„,e„„. 1---t•; ,,•,. ....- V.. ., "A,7. .„2.,,,, ., '.. .A•:+,, ' j?- 4'4' • f•!•• -,.. •-3,'44, 4,'..s.,./17. 1, • .P. •• . 7. •r... s,,-."'. ; -,„. , I .;.>..44-‘..-Z&Ikt-. - .'* -.-, „:.1*V.,_4 .-., -,g.. ...12,074,-,1 :,-.--4:-.,,,.;.:4,:,'0;',"I'v-4,,,4,-,-;=- 4., :•';--4i --t.-- -:.‘, .'"--.-'.7,--- ,---4-FZ-L-AIL.."42-' l '''...,-,,.. ., -..--.;-"-.14'''-`-•-•:."-,-:-;...'„i•••*"•;%.-,-,:-. -...,,,-.•,.- 44,,,,' . -,- ,*.tt. A --.4.-..1:---:-..4b.S,._ • ---!,,..--rfr„1...-‘,.7..-.444'..4-4....1,7,.-t,„--",e1,., ., ''',-:-17,,.c.-.g.-,N,,.:i'e „:.,7,- .. ,„.., , , ...,"-A 'A -'' ,,k ' „ -,•••`"'C'..4.41q' ', V.7;i4'."-?.“7.....-".'t."• 7 tgbri,1,rn.:7A'1`..,4 --C''.7 r;•-•,- --.,,-4',.....„..,."T „., „:::, . - ...0 rt.„...-•,-,_ .-„ke-k...---;_„,.-4,,--- -pr-A.-,3?.4..„- •-",,----,, . .....,..„.4.-, -, zor,,„ , . 1tgeY....„-•:-.1-•..-;-...:-... ""-----•.v.-. -,-, ,.-s- "4.• ,---. -•-.,2--;". , - • ---- --- -4";--',:-... ;:•;..---.0. •71-fCc ••• ••••• •1 -.5'1°.''ir,•,•-...,:i:te. ., • ,o,,,..--,-:Tii,4,t,..••V•••z".,,..•,, ..,,E::: iie•44.,; • ''"-'`•-••7 "Z. • ' ..,...1...‹F.'-•;•-•44;:NI.'••••::'4"7' ..,,,e-4.44,,, ., -......,.4r,47-,.:&ck• - ...,t-i,. ' -:-.,-,..;t= _,..".... . .., ',..:-......,-, .-t.t.-44.,'.,,,-,. ,.,,. - - -44„zA,,,,,,,,m;t. •,:&,,yr!„._•,,,,,I4 ."::•t„•-• --**;‘,„'"Y,,-.•),-4-"k,r4,;„,_4 \ •--'Itr,...-4.1.„'i,.i.,,;,p7._-. •,$4-A V.• , -t.,'-••••'•:.... '-`,-^, ht • . -,''' ' 1. _.,,‘: 4,4,114`: -fz-- • ..,..',-,,--e,-.0%,---- : •-,,f,......',...-te ' „..,„,-• "•••,.. •., / ..,,,:4n...•'• it ",',.. 14A-1.'",-.4- •„1-1t„., 01.,..' ...,-,-,''''', -•-'4,—,,T. #9.7.--,.'t r. .4.4.. . •.,t,....tr-,ic,fr.:..-1,...,..,1__ .0.,-,4.,;7 4-,.,•-: ,..-t',,„:in,,t, ,., 4 .. ,__ _. .... ,..._ .,., , ...„. . _4 ./. •,..,..-.".Zkr'...0/1; ' .. • "0'1';•..f.V. ' 9e44.',...-4 ,• il!-",,,._,N--A,--"A1044.,•'0.14 , _- _x4 -4!", .'., .-.,-,,._:.,:"1,-- .-ALLL_:•Ivr ..:Z., ,-,- 4r-N.:tv ........t. ..... ., -, , ,.,......-*7 •;-V. ''-',. - --. - .r. ,,,,,-"- ,,t--4.-- _, ,, i_,....i,,,:e te2g...,... . ,..r. .-,•,' ' 7,.... ,,,, „,..,.-'..,,2. -4*244,....= . ••`..4-'` f-* '4'41 '."`'1, '• e 4 tt. `.4:•,,t . i •••• "..•5••••^.V•is‘..z.e; •s: ,'''`i•,,.,: -•'''.7 s., .•••••,114.:",:`,0,C.:.-3- f'-‘-'-iPi.' •' -,,w...,! ,,,,----"•'il -.•:".s• - --",' ,-.,,t 4,....1:,,A-- ,' •A,,.. 47-';',,'•--.. -4.s .\LI t„.,1_,---''''..N. Aar*,.= • --- --.1,...:4-4.3.:„ ,---='!" .:4,,' 4 1,.N. "ri,',"1.t.•". -4tV.•-•:r."':---',•-,....---4,4-4*••--.• ''''-" • ' - -- ,t, *-- '„',"" , - '.1" . .;,.-•1--7i-, _-,-*;„-±i...---,..„-_,„""-_-.:..01,,..t,`,;;;;;;44, 1:,\,,efc 5 * .,..., ,...,._,,, ..x,.:‘,... ._..i. kt---t=":.'-‘-'7.--,..:•_/-_,4.=',. -==,-'.4r-2,14...• t.;," r4--t. •-•"' • • - ''-'•• •t; 6';',. .tolr•t• ,,•,..,_-'4.04' :9"."..,•-:7..-,• ;•• IN '• . " • ,..•-- " ,_ -:• " .."-....Pr.' i"i‘4. .0,-..-%,' ..0.1.-../- ' .P. , •-•-• ,,, - .,. I I t, „' ,.U.T*&e,Al-Ks•:' ' '7-.1:-.4'f-:';1',,,,f;'.7'_.7-1'..:,,If-.,,,„, ',: *.' ,s; ..•• ...„0 , . ..,.. .. '...i ."--.4-....E ar''„Zitt• ....- -..••...."--•:-.,:,-,-,/7;4.47, 1A,.;,..„ 40,„„. ,__„,„,„„:...;_.„1.44-ii,„, far_ _:.••/ k. -4- .....A.4...r-,-g----.:....0." 6...-.-:: -_., ....-_,.• - •-, - .0- •..2.,:". ---_-.,‘"--,,-;,.....---; --,,,.-,-,-- -:,'....- --- t---1•:,-;-- -e-,-•ixttr,..-..-s... •.--4.7.,,,,• ,.':-r..;-.: •••'-'.7- '',.,...1,:,y-.;,-; 4,41"-.4-•,31-: ' " '„. t.--• --'' --- ---:-'4"---1.,:-.4."0.:-.',,,..-.21'f=i-t-44--f....2?--.-:;,!=..:4-,-„, •.-1,-,-,-c ; - ' _,...e•A .. ••• 1,,,, ,.4".4:`,1z7.1,ii .. ',..'..?,:r,Vti*•••;7 V '.'-. it,- • ..._,ct'r‘ 7,.. r'„( •--:W.-,*,.-•:,,t.,1\01,44:,,-.,;3.1*.,.. ._.',, VI, .• <- : 7-,>--,, ---.. ', ---- - • - 4 ii,•,„,• '- A"-Ar*Prft • A „,.„ I - \„-,,.. ' _f.. " . .„1,1t...-1,V,,,• ''''• - ,/'`i''' t 9 V & i .-1 ' i ie ;1424 41144.:4; ‘.- • -i I 2\e'Ll'4.'4. /1/• • S.'t At ‘?.t., Lower steps at West end of trail. - ,,,,,,',—.1,1-,r:3,: 't.",,t . 4,..121. Upper steps at West end of ..'"„$,f,'.4s.,,402,r;11t,",•*:i...1,1,i,i,.'1.-,;1,"0-.VJ„,e)1,,-.,n.,=t't,1t641,4vi,-wg:,,,-,i-.-..l-r*.,1*-4.,,A,..•,.1....'..r,.A,,,-,,.,,,,„te:',--',,-4 i.s,:--'.,I,7..,.•-.,,.6••'=,4.0.47.,.-i,/t ,1,''•-4•_,*',..,,.,1-i.-,,',`,.7.•-, ,i'i--,,.....t r`,--,=,.,,a...,li4,.:_4i,,,i.-•t..,.t..„...,..,"_-,;-„1:4-4,-:t,'•-e•-__-;----...-..i,i4„...,.•r -,c',.,=1V,111 Iir irl,itr:j'.t1v,'.•e.,7-.t9"44ft-S.i' k'I•i?4 ,1/4'7'.3.7,'i;v:.,.f t`t-4„ i.'•'7'0'R%iAr.*:p:-.141e,l'O,4 t1,1.r'„i 4tS'str.„,Uf1..'-,.:4irI1,,Fi t,VA'v,Y,r7it:1iiei.,,,l./,.;,.',,4,1.,.'.'t.i11f.rt,..,t4;.1Fr.p44.,,.t..„;,(1•:4-7,,•5„.t,'t..$.,1.r..,..".,1 trail. y i i r \ , f t4i.l1,1'.•if r&'.,•,...,„-.._, tw.-,5i,41--tA.er•,.4"..!",4-,4,,-,•.,a'..i.-..?e.`,,s..",?7:.':•i.,•r',,i7Vi._l.c,le gttk3„' t.i ':- LF fr = , , .•. t1 1.- ••• -,-• 'e`i,). .'-:' v.-I,' -r.y1 .,,,,tz::- ','","--- Ae...s.".---1-' '''-.1:-.i.;. ,- - .5-- ----.....--- •; ' ii‘...fl"'"g'll'i,z-.7 4; i '1?-lff"`'.-.." - , k''''N-4-f-' "---,4,f;‘,i'C'r 1 i-' 1,`,"- t..i';;;-4 '.X.-'".'!'. >-'''T.-1 ..-%4'-ir'--`-'-',,,,-..5'PrE4,-,. ... ',•, i1;6.-7-;" `;'''' 11.71:.'-‘,4,41`'" yr,-t-ktir -' %,...m., „gi .vc.c,. - (4--:46ftt--.^.1 t.i: -, ' t.ilizirmi,•.: ,,,,,--...,k--%-,..,v2,„--,:::;--I4. , ,,-, -,.-c...,„ . .:,. 4 .14,i,....-----;_•-„,•"--...,41,,c, , ,p.z(i,! - 44.4--4,,* r8.-,,-,t,,,,:z= .Zhi --4 •-',, ' ;•,--ri. -. ,-.• . ,‘-i.'4,2:-.=,-------rIo ' '. . • -4.-.-A",..--4 . g •-.'f-a-4140%.:14-3L:.!,.._,%,' ,1 T. 4. ,'- ......,7 .46,- ...---7,_,...A---= '4 1... el - 4,104-- .7,,„;#. -,..1,1,'•--;'1:\,,;-4=5:41-'fi,,,,,,:::• =i7-,, 4,-, .„... "I.'.r•-k.:_!,..„,.." ,.. -.44",-,6.;,._ '''.i.1 . ..t.tu '-'.•. .'z.`"y ' A,>' •-----,""vv*,,,,,...i 1,,,I,), ‘?(.. •-.1, 0.----.....4..-,-,-. 1`. ',--,,,,,t.-v%.":" ,.r. ...-- .. T.,`,.; " . . , ' ..,,,t.,,,O,V%.,,•_ ,,4"1,47,...r ..,-...,:e),..1..t : ti t• fax- 1.-....-.%t „-i= .1.'''' ..i."-.1,-: . -'',,‘-•=. .. ..t, 4 ,,, S6',1/.16-40" i W'' 'A.-`. -V1 ef NI.-'/.fi'7.- .s.,- -sw":5"P--.. ''''--4.-ativ -N.- •-t:',At--,Q. • .." .s. %. -- . ....y.r.-1. •e• •• ' .....,:t••••'it- ag t tilii tIM...•••44,14 ',44a-41,-..., ---'-‘..----z,-' .0-4. z. A .,''' Ca :.,441.- '7 - 4 .''..S.'r - if,' -,,... --."4-W-A • '''-'2'' '''' ' --,..- -,-4 1 :,*,%,(„.f.:,,,,,i4_,..-ci-.E.---,i7.4,,,tzl: ___ „0_,.. ..z.- ,o. ..-;: 2.,Q-141 i, ,?zi,,,-,:---. --„,-4;77. :? ' :S%<,..'` .:,ir'f,rii/tr - ' --.•, ..-:*-'.Iii4t17wx5:4-r`ect...rA. ,$".„-c--7,--- .277.7---*:`:t.',- z;fA1.4,,,,kit :$44 ..4,,,- ,.- .;.e..,..•......-',, ?. , ,: -:-:.1.--1-‘,7 ----,- =-,--.----11 ,,.. 4.tv.. ---. -,. •_„'-s, , .$...--A-4-tr"*- :_._*!. 4'... •?'•!::;7-3"(''s.,.-2 -..*,4 _. .--''IA, ''' °".'"- A- -,'--4k' : ....._ , .1., 't.ft6t4 ' ,, =,,,,;,%-,L,, :.,,",4 '', . . IN - ..7 ',.. 7, -_, ..- , ,.....f-4;v4 .,1„At I) ...., , ....•-'t .A.t•V•• - . .... 'A .. 4 i„,141 44‘...494.4.e44`" ':". *•••• •,,44.,-;,„, ,IIE. , , 1,4,. cx.if,, '''ss. , .....`4. , '„ •,..._-- '4'•'.. irtj,f•-- 4-• -7 -'nla--.."---.--,,,."!91 ' .. s' ''''... '4" 'Z.'''. ."' - 0„,:;' • -,a4re,„,,,,.. 4•:..,-..nt--.-..„- ,....,.4,_ - -.. ',,,,,•,.. -it. k ,., , , ,,- .: -tr.", , •-f'.-.---. ---'*". 3.- .`VtZ '-`1' - • .."' . ''. .". - ..' - - ' "-‘1.'.•*.- - ...t '' ^ ..C641.1.,.. -441 k.A1 li i, .7e.±t I.,• •. . _.,4 -' 4. • ,7.- .--.... -'.:-. ' l -,,-;--.=-....4-0.---4,-.4.-,--!1•. -'..--,-c..-4 .4---4tp '. ' -114i.' -4.-...- - -• .... , 41;r:1,1,-. -..•- - .ttil .. r 4.cr.,... . .,..a .w*,...r. i.s. t: A. .w,. _ • .1:,..---,. .,..4,. .. ...4.:-..,,--:-: _',:fr-w,...' :>. • ett" •- % .--Is...4..‘" $ .. _s. ,, * ,t ,tti ... . .- ••. ,..-tik- - -•.-;- -1-.1_ :;-. .. - -- e -:• -- • ..,1- \- .1-4, - iv- • • . fr- t*.e, '.- . . --- . "---/',,,KAt 41,1-' • .4-.1,xklik,:,-..\.,---- •Ptik.. ...;.'4' .. .-• • . • ,--,. .`. • . .•..,-- ----. -.• - • -- - 444;294 - .-7--,. ...7,-..y .- -4,1..._ --.. -eft .,..., - ..„-2.„,--31:14ArL - -:41--,- ,;.",...1`,...i" • ,,, s'1":".._- .._ s•..•',•,-.•-, ••''...._, '.. rY ,:,..,...*. . ',..,71,,,•Viiiilf.,k;;;%.r-41-..,•*•41•Weqe; 4.., -•-. ir&ti ..4,. . .,4' .1,• A... 1•F- ., ..„„,,i ' ^..•-•.0-,=".... -. ,,,D! . ' '.1`.1i''' v tl, 17:4 .r;m4.'''' ' .....e. ,- - - ..,---..:;...4.,-.•.•_.--, ';;;S.., •- -,;_1---wN,'LQ*, ''•g...-- 41.-.L"- '-'0-'s?*".' '': - '..7f&---. , • .7- _,_,• -.. ----,••-• -- -j... --wit ''--Pf 7.-.7; r-,, ,' .- !!',i ..-' `z ,---ta,.--F"Z->r;---4.Y..4„,,;!`.?.. - - %, ,i,t,t4. U(# •• ‘.. .‘. -4p; . 3• .'i -",4',,,' 7te`: ., .i: ,-'' ' -g..' r„., "''',--,,u-...,4f-t. 2.-, -:- -'-'',..--•!--.'."--.-, •-;'),. "if,l'itoe.t. -' ' ‘1.-!"--=--?k•vs„...„.. '-'1;,_ • •, --'"-Itf.„,: '1-1----E• • 2%, '','W • - , -. • c''4.-- - ----t%•.;...1=1" —---**--- --,.. - :-, -,: . --'..-.:.' ..%,%., ,... ... p, ,.. . . .....:,-4..„-...._ Wi.....i. -, ,_ . , . ...... . .._ _,.......,, _, . .,...........„....,...... t • , _ .1- .,V, - ' -_ _,.. --------- :..--i-_,..;:r'''''' 1. .A. -----,„,,.....-.... .r,,' r.-„',_.-*„442,1),41.414 9 ./ -,--.- -.4.:4-.--, y 4-t-'••.',.!,,."--.!,,,,---;',.----4,)•,,--•,-':,1i,. --` -).: 'n'C-,"S...i,k t r• .4..t"44.'• :,,,,, ' lE.,142,1'r--, "..,4,7:-.3,-,:iitift_....-::.-....;11 , .4,;,.... 3/4....,.. .,......„„.....„, •-._'1.<-'''''''.' 4.', I"Cle4.-..*..'4 . ' - ---•C'•• ,-1 ,-- • - . 7 .., = '.. !--4,'''.•.*„.7% •04.,,t', It* /'v';'' ""-:`.4 r="..4 - e-1-;;. , ,i..-:4." .•...,-A--- " Nu-.7 -• --,.-...;,:A A k=..-i‘t,.,,,,.--ev.„---- _-. ,,- -- . -,4-:-.,-,--pz - -,,,:,,,..---t.... .4--,?•:,-.:- •1:-,;, r ._,., _ Ai' ,,.., ..../.;,•42,4,,,,,,,,, ,c,, 4 , -,-, it .t-,...s,..0,70. _ .•,..4.. _ .....,„_ ,: , . m-,,,ig......„ , . .,_4_,‘,.-,..t.t.t. _.p.-_-„, ,- .ek. 1,47-...".7-.".-.;.`„s;;..-_'- -=',--vis.' -r-,,, ..._•,,-- - -; p. „.1.17,... 4 ...-'5-4,,,---• , -,........0 L . .7-„,_,Isa,.. --1 •.....1_ -,,........t._ , .•. ., - '' - f.,, '•-...'?4.0...91- , - Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: Y, City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: None—information only. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • Monthly reports on calls and citations issued are received from the Washington County Sheriff's office. • Deputy Chris Majeski will be present at the City Council Meeting to answer any questions that the Council may have concerning police protection for the City. Recommendation: N/A Attachments/ • Citations by city report, 05/01/08 to 05/31/08 Materials provided: • Contract ICR's report, 05/01/08 to 05/31/08 Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (sheriff report) Page 1 of 1 06/09/08 ALCOPFR$ (10) PF Citations by City Rpt QIJS Page 1 6/01/08 5:26:57 Washington County Sheriffs Office CITATIONS BY CITY REPORT City Selected: SCANDIA From Date: 5/01/2008 To: 5/31/2008 SCANDIA Offense Offense Location Citation# Date Time 5/01/2008 0000 SCANDIA TR N & OZARK AVE N 93414 Statute PASS ON SHOULDER 5/02/2008 2200 OLINDA TR/OAKHILL RD SW387254 Statute 169 30 B DISOBEY STOP SIGN 5/05/2008 1640 LOFTON AV/228TH ST SW387256 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 64/55 5/06/2008 1730 ST CROIX TR/ OBRIEN SW387335 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 71/55 5/06/2008 2040 16500 BLK 199TH ST SW387336 Statute 169 30 B DISOBEY STOP SIGN 5/07/2008 1600 13700 BLK SCANDIA TR SW380360 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 70/55 5/07/2008 0722 OLINDA TR/ PILAR RD SW387257 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 64/55 5/11/2008 1049 23000 ST CROIX TR SW242819 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 71/55 5/12/2008 1126 SCANDIA TR/ NEWBERRY AV SW387259 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 64/55 5/14/2008 0806 OLINDA TR/ PILAR AV SW387260 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 64/55 5/14/2008 0828 SCANDIA TR/ LOFTON AV SW396381 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 64/55 5/16/2008 2127 OLINDA TR/ PILAR RD SW396382 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 86/55 5/17/2008 2045 MANNING / 170TH ST SW388008 Statute 171 24 1(3) DAR 5/21/2008 1945 MAYBERRY TR/ MANNING SW387626 Page 1 ALCOPFR$ (10) Statute 169 18 4 PASS ON RIGHT SHOULDER 5/22/2008 1535 220TH ST/OLINDA TR SW396383 Statute 169 797 2 NO INSURANCE PF Citations by City Rpt QIJS Page 2 6/01/08 5:26:57 Washington County Sheriffs Office CITATIONS BY CITY REPORT City Selected: SCANDIA From Date: 5/01/2008 To: 5/31/2008 Offense Offense Location Citation# Date Time 5/23/2008 0752 OLINDA TR/ PILAR AV SW396386 Statute 169 797 3 NO INSURANCE 5/24/2008 0811 13000 SCANDIA TR SW396961 Statute 169 14 2A3 SPEED 71/55 5/24/2008 1038 11800 MAYBERRY TR SW396962 Statute 169 34 14 PARK WHERE SIGN PROHIBITS 5/24/2008 1043 11800 MAYBERRY TR SW396963 Statute 169 34 14 PARK WHERE SIGN PROHIBITS 5/25/2008 2140 LOFTON AV/ST CROIX TR SW380937 Statute 169 30 B DISOBEY STOP SIGN Total for City: SCANDIA 20 ** END OF REPORT *" Page 2 05-08-CJBWPFR$ (10) PRT CONTRACT ICR REPORT QIJS Page 1 6/01/08 5:26:57 Washington County Sheriffs Office CONTRACT ICR's Contract Report for SCANDIA For the Period 5/01/08 To 5/31/08 Date Time ICR# ID# Street Name Complaint 5/01/08 4:06:26 108012902 0136 SCANDIA TR DRIVING COMPLAINT 5/01/08 11:28:08 108012936 0138 SCANDIA TR W/W PASS ON SHOULDER 5/01/08 13:23:40 108012947 01'38 MAYBERRY TR ALARM 5/01/08 16:00:34 108012974 0136 MANNING TR EXTRA PATROL REQUEST 5/02/08 8:29:23 108013026 0110 LANGLY AV JUV ISSUE 5/02/08 10:03:08 108013056 0100 240TH ST OFFICERS INFO 5/02/08 10:07:38 108013058 0100 240TH ST OFFICERS INFO 5/02/08 16:47:23 108013153 0173 OAKHILL RD SUSP SIITUATION 5/02/08 22:02:59 108013169 0190 OLINDA TR CITE STOP SIGN VIOL 5/02/08 22:06:03 108013171 0190 OAKHILL RD DIRECTED PATROL-STOP SIGN VOIL 5/03/08 1:23:09 108013180 0190 OAKHILL RD W/W STOP SIGN VIOL 5/03/08 1:34:09 108013181 0190 SCANDIA TR W/W TAIL LIGHT 5/03/08 1:44:31 108013182 0190 OAKHILL RD WAN SPEED 5/03/08 1:59:07 108013184 0190 MANNING TR WAN HEADLIGHT 5/03/08 12:46:41 108013234 01'10 202ND ST AGENCY ASSIST/WELFARE CHECK 5/04/08 23:20:38 108013355 0136 OAKHILL CT MEDICAL 5/05/08 0:42:54 108013358 0136 MANNING TR XP-OPEN GARAGE DOOR 5/05/08 10:05:39 108013387 239TH ST RECEIPT#080000525 5/05/08 10:25:48 108013394 0190 ST CROIX TR MEDICAL 5/05/08 12:26:40 108013428 0190 MANNING TR RES BURG 5/05/08 16:46:44 108013482 0190 LOFTON AV CITE SPEED 5/06/08 8:39:32 108013552 0175 LAYTON AV 911 MISDIAL 5/06/08 13:25:45 108013604 0190 OLINDA TR PRESENTATION 5/06/08 13:43:42 108013605 0190 OLINDA TR PROPERTY DAMAGE ACCIDENT 5/06/08 15:00:14 108013616 0190 OLINDA TR THEFT REPORT/EXTRA PATROL REQU 5/06/08 15:54:21 108013620 0190 MANNING TR STREET SIGNS MISSING 5/06/08 17:45:49 108013628 0165 ST CROIX TR CIT#SW387335 71/55 5/06/08 20:56:20 108013644 0165 199TH ST CIT#SW387336 DISOBEY S/SIGN @ 5/06/08 21:36:22 108013648 0165 SCANDIA TR OPEN DOOR 5/07/08 7:24:35 108013668 0190 OLINDA TR CITE SPEED 5/07/08 7:44:37 108013670 0190 OLINDA TR W/W SPEED 5/07/08 7:50:29 108013671 0190 OLINDA TR DIRECTED PATROL-SPEED/25 MINS/ 5/07/08 14:46:43 108013730 0190 OLINDA TR FRAUD REPORT/21 5/07/08 16:08:02 108013741 0166 SCANDIA TR TRAFFIC/CITE: SPEED 70/55 5/07/08 19:39:01 108013772 0166 KILLIAN AV BURNING COMPLAINT 5/08/08 6:52:06 108013789 0175 OLINDA LN BEAR SIGHTING-INFORMATION ONLY 5/08/08 12:22:11 108013824 0190 238TH ST W/W SPEED 5/08/08 13:25:38 108013829 0190 OLINDA TR 911 CALL 5/08/08 14:13:53 108013831 0190 OAKHILL LN 911 TEST CALL 5/08/08 19:04:10 108013870 0194 OLINDA LN DEAD DEER 5/08/08 19:46:08 108013873 0100 SCANDIA TR THEFT FROM MV 5/08/08 22:44:10 108013881 0158 PARKVIEW AV 911 HANG UP 5/09/08 14:37:49 108013940 0190 MAYBERRY TR AUD ALARM *CANCEL FROM TH 5/09/08 14:40:14 108013941 0190 PARKVIEW LN AUD ALARM 5/09/08 18:10:38 108013975 0158 238TH ST MEDICAL 5/09/08 20:53:11 108013998 0158 SCANDIA TR DK DRIVER 5/09/08 21:46:07 108014003 0152 POMROY AV STRONG GAS IN RES Page 1 05-08-CJBWPFR$ (10) 5/09/08 23:46:46 108014014 0195 MANNING TR MEDICAL 5/10/08 5:47:07 108014029 0195 ST CROIX TR RUNAWAY REPORT 5/10/08 11:40:06 108014046 0138 LAYTON AV CHIMNEY FIRE 5/10/08 14:24:48 108014057 0138 OBRIEN TR INJURED DEER *TRANSFE 5/11/08 10:52:05 108014115 0138 ST CROIX TR CIT SPEED PRT CONTRACT ICR REPORT QIJS Page 2 6/01/08 5:26:57 Washington County Sheriffs Office CONTRACT ICR's Contract Report for SCANDIA For the Period 5/01/08 To 5/31/08 Date Time ICR# ID# Street Name Complaint 5/11/08 18:21:02 108014162 0173 MAYBERRY TR MEDICAL 5/11/08 21:10:39 108014180 0173 MANNING CIR 911 CALL 5/12/08 8:33:15 108014200 0138 ST CROIX TR UNK SITUATION/MALE W/GUN 5/12/08 11:28:23 108014224 0190 SCANDIA TR CITE SPEED 5/12/08 11:35:12 108014230 0190 SCANDIA TR W/W SPEED 5/12/08 11:57:29 108014240 0190 SCANDIA TR DIRECTED PATROL SPEED-30 MINS/ 5/12/08 14:14:59 108014289 0190 OLINDA TR WARRANT ARREST 5/13/08 23:52:21 108014443 0136 SCANDIA TR INSURANCE REQUEST FORM 5/14/08 7:09:52 108014455 0190 SCANDIA TR W/W SPEED 5/14/08 7:34:13 108014457 0190 ODELL AV DIRECTED PATROL-SPEED/25 MINS/ 5/14/08 7:46:42 108014458 0190 OLINDA TR INSURANCE REQUEST FORM 5/14/08 8:08:52 108014461 0190 OLINDA TR CITE SPEED 5/14/08 8:30:43 108014468 0190 SCANDIA TR CITE SPEED 5/14/08 12:55:09 108014507 0190 OBRIEN TR SUSP SITUATION 5/14/08 13:52:55 108014527 0100 OAKHILL RD LAWNMOWER FIRE 5/14/08 17:15:08 108014546 0158 MEADOWBROOK AV ABANDON VEH 5/14/08 20:00:26 108014557 0158 BONE LAKE 911 CALL/DISTURBANCE 5/14/08 23:57:29 108014571 0136 220TH ST WALK AWAY REPORT 5/15/08 0:28:45 108014573 0183 220TH ST K9 ASSIST 5/15/08 4:51:48 108014578 0136 MEADOWRIDGE TR OPEN GARAGE-NCC 5/15/08 12:13:22 108014611 0175 SCANDIA TR ALARM *CANCELLED AFTE 5/16/08 21:30:25 108014788 0190 OLINDA TR CITE SPEED 86/55 5/16/08 21:43:47 108014792 0190 OLINDA TR WAN SPEED 5/16/08 22:15:39 108014797 0190 MANNING TR WAN TAIL LIGHT/NO DL IN POSS 5/17/08 0:02:39 108014803 0190 207TH ST WAN HEADLIGHT 5/17/08 0:36:21 108014808 0190 NEWBERRY AV WAN EXP VEH REG 5/17/08 1:04:47 108014809 0190 OAKHILL RD WAN STOP SIGN 5/17/08 2:44:48 108014814 0136 ST CROIX TR SUSP ACTIVITY 5/17/08 12:17:23 108014850 0175 QUINNELL AV ALARM 5/17/08 19:10:34 108014890 0158 238TH ST GAS SMELL 5/17/08 20:28:32 108014897 0190 205TH ST HARRASSING PHONES CALLS 5/17/08 20:55:24 108014901 0158 SCANDIA TR DK DROVER 5/17/08 20:59:55 108014902 0158 MANNING TR TRAFFIC-DAR/NO INS 5/18/08 11:56:13 108014964 0138 OAKHILL CT SICK RACOON 5/18/08 13:06:24 108014970 0138 189TH ST ABANDONED VEH 5/18/08 14:55:52 108014982 0173 QUALITY TR CHECK AREA "' COMP TO B 5/18/08 18:54:36 108015000 0173 SCANDIA TR ANIMAL CONCERN 5/19/08 6:27:09 108015027 0191 SCANDIA TR DEER 5/19/08 10:14:15 108015063 0190 205TH ST CUT GAS LINE 5/19/08 11:32:33 108015079 0190 OLINDA TR WAN SPEED 5/19/08 18:05:22 108015122 0187 240TH ST MEDICAL 5/19/08 18:39:17 108015125 0187 KIRK AV MEDICAL Page 2 05-08-CJBWPFR$ (10) 5/20/08 5:49:57 108015148 0136 205TH ST BARKING COMPLAINT **21 REQU 5/20/08 10:14:32 108015181 0'135 ST CROIX TR ALARM ***CANCEL PROPER CODE 5/20/08 20:13:43 1 0801 5320 01190 209TH ST CITY COUNCIL MEETING 5/20/08 20:58:09 108015324 0190 MANNING TR DWI ARREST/CANC IPS/WARRANT 5/21/08 10:33:05 108015388 0175 OAKHILL AV WW-SPEED 5/21/08 19:50:33 108015489 0170 MAYBERRY TR TRAFFIC CITATION #SW387626 NO 5/21/08 22:20:04 108015495 0170 MEADOWBROOK AV 911 CALL 5/22/08 2:11:22 108015502 0136 MEADOWRIDGE TR NCC OPEN GARAGE/INTERIOR DOOR 5/22/08 8:32:58 108015519 0175 QUINNELL AV ALARM 5/22/08 11:11:35 108015545 0175 220TH ST N DIRECTED PATROL-SPEED PRT CONTRACT ICR REPORT QIJS Page 3 6/01/08 5:26:57 Washington County Sheriffs Office CONTRACT ICR's Contract Report for SCANDIA For the Period 5/01/08 To 5/31/08 Date Time ICR# ID# Street Name Complaint 5/22/08 14:54:01 108015568 0190 199TH ST FIRE ALARM 5/22/08 15:37:56 108015572 0190 220TH ST CITE NO INSURANCE/NO MN DL 5/22/08 18:02:34 108015599 0190 OAKHILL RD W/W OFF HIGHWAY MOTORCYLE VIOL 5/22/08 20:48:45 108015626 0100 SCANDIA TR LARGE GRASS FIRE 5/22/08 21:48:49 108015631 0190 MARGO AV FIREWORKS VIOLATION 5/23/08 9:25:41 108015671 0190 220TH ST W/W NO FRONT PLATE/LOUD EXHAUS 5/23/08 12:01:13 108015714 0190 LAKAMAGA TR OUT OF CONTROL CAMPER 5/23/08 15:11:05 108015769 0190 MANNING TR W/W PASS ON SHOULDER 5/23/08 17:38:18 108015793 0165 OAKHILL RD SOLICITOR ISSUE 5/23/08 19:39:25 108015806 01135 OLINDA TR VANDALISM 5/24/08 0:43:46 108015827 0142 ST CROIX TR CLOSED BUSINESS//LIGHTS ON INS 5/24/08 8:15:31 108015842 0138 SCANDIA TR CIT SPEED 5/24/08 10:48:20 108015856 0138 MAYBERRY TR CIT PARK WHERE SIGNS PROHIBIT. 5/24/08 10:49:01 108015858 0138 MAYBERRY TR PARK WHERE SIGNS PROHIBIT. 5/24/08 12:36:30 108015877 0138 213TH ST ALARM 5/24/08 14:46:18 108015891 0147 MALLARD AV VEH LOCKOUT 5/24/08 15:01:37 108015893 0147 SCANDIA TR NEIGHBOR COMPLAINT 5/24/08 19:00:07 108015912 0147 OLINDA TR ANIMAL CONCERN/21 5/24/08 23:09:26 108015932 0145 MEADOWBROOK FIREWORKS 5/25/08 6:44:37 108015953 0135 OAKHILL RD OVERDUE MOTORIST 5/25/08 16:52:47 108016014 01 73 197TH ST SHOTS HEARD 5/25/08 17:20:33 108016036 SCANDIA TR POWERLINES DOWN 5/25/08 17:36:04 108016042 0145 OREN AV ELECTRICAL WIRE DOWN 5/25/08 21:34:39 108016083 0195 205TH ST ROAD HAZARD 5/25/08 21:40:00 108016084 0195 LOFTON AV ACCIDENT ***AMBO ROUTINE*** 5/25/08 23:36:37 108016100 0195 LOFTON AV ALARM 5/26/08 0:10:09 108016104 0195 SCANDIA TR SUSPICOUS PERSON 5/26/08 0:28:21 108016106 0195 232ND ST SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY **COMP CA 5/26/08 9:56:11 108016125 0190 MAYBERRY TR DEBRIS IN ROADWAY 5/26/08 10:46:49 108016127 0190 PILAR RD W/W LOUD EXHAUST 5/26/08 12:22:34 108016146 0190 SCANDIA TR ATV VIOL 5/26/08 14:46:24 108016163 0190 185TH ST BOAT STORAGE VIOLATION 5/27/08 9:35:31 108016237 0190 185TH ST W/W NO FRONT PLATE 5/27/08 10:56:45 108016248 0190 220TH ST DIRECTED PATROL-SPEED 5/27/08 20:13:37 108016358 0149 ST CROIX TR W/W 92352 SPEED UVV725 5/28/08 8:20:34 108016388 0138 SCANDIA TR CIT SPEED 5/28/08 10:40:45 108016413 0138 SCANDIA TR LOOSE COW Page 3 05-08-CJBWPFR$ (10) 5/28/08 11:43:04 108016437 0190 MANNING TR SUSP ACTIVITY 5/28/08 14:08:03 108016460 0190 ST CROIX TR TRAFFIC HAZARD 5/28/08 14:24:30 108016463 0190 SCANDIA TR CITE SPEED 73/55 5/28/08 17:14:15 108016497 0173 MANNING TR ATV COMPLAINT 5/28/08 18:07:43 108016502 0173 MANNING TR TRAFFIC CIT-FDCR DEC 07 5/28/08 19:05:08 108016512 0173 207TH ST 911 CALL/PUBLIC ASSIST 5/28/08 19:09:23 108016513 0111 LOFTON AV AUD ALARM 5/28/08 21:22:07 108016530 0187 MANNING TR IMPAIRED DRIVER 5/29/08 7:24:03 108016549 0175 ST CROIX TR SUSP MALE 5/29/08 8:19:15 108016556 0156 SCANDIA TR TRAFFIC-CITE SW389849 NO SEATB 5/29/08 16:19:41 108016649 0190 OAKHILL RD VANDALISM REPORT 5/30/08 15:20:44 108016791 0165 205TH ST HARASSING PHONE CALLS 5/31/08 0:43:51 108016858 0136 OAKHILL RD OPEN GARAGE DOOR 5/31/08 3:08:00 108016867 0136 MEADOWBROOK AV MEDICAL 5/31/08 7:26:05 108016871 0100 220TH ST BURG ALARM ***********CANCEL PRT CONTRACT ICR REPORT QIJS Page 4 6/01/08 5:26:57 Washington County Sheriffs Office CONTRACT ICR's Contract Report for SCANDIA For the Period 5/01/08 To 5/31/08 Date Time ICR# ID# Street Name Complaint 5/31/08 13:07:11 108016910 0175 OLINDA TR LOOSE HORSES Total ICRs Processed: 157 ** END OF REPORT ** Page 4 Scandia Fire and Rescue Activity Report - May 2008 Fire and Rescue Operations > There were twenty-three emergency response calls in May; two fire calls and twenty-one medical calls. > There have been seventy-six emergency response calls, 2008 YTD. That compares to seventy-five emergency response calls through May 2007. > Zero injuries YTD. Fire and Medical Training > Fire fighters trained on blitz and roll to sustain interior fire tactics. > Firefighters trained on emergency medical responses at the Washington County Big Marine park reserve. > Fire fighters on the Low Angle Rescue Team trained at Winds in the Pine. > Fire fighters trained on the interior attacks in simulated fire conditions — Hennepin Technical College burn trailer. > Firefighters trained on fire staging and apparatus placement scenarios. Department Activities and Administration > O&M expense budget is favorable to plan. > Nelcom is committed to completing the civil defense siren changes (two tones) by the end of June. Fire Chief's contact information Fire Chief Steve Spence cell: 651-746-4485 scandiafire5191@frontiernet.net Assistant Chief Jim Finnegan cell: 651-755-8675 scandiafire5192@frontiernet.net Assistant Chief Steve Yehle cell: 651-403-0358 scandiafire5193@frontiernet.net Steve Yehle C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: c City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Receive a report on the survey of residents in the Pilar Road street improvement area. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The next major street improvement project is planned to include the paving of Pilar Road and several connected streets. The Council authorized a resident survey to obtain public input before the design stage, to help determine specific concerns and help estimate the potential costs for the city's Capital Improvement Program. • The survey was mailed on May 22 and residents were asked to return it in a stamped envelope by June 13. As of the writing of this report, 19 of 35 surveys have been returned. Responses have been compiled into a summary report. Any additional responses will be forwarded to the Council as they arrive. • Engineer Paul Hornby has provided a memo summarizing the survey results and will be available at the June 17 meeting to discuss it with the Council. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council receive the report and give any direction you may wish. Attachments/ • Memo from Paul Hornby, Bonestroo Materials provided: • Survey form • Survey results Contact(s): Paul Hornby, Bonestroo (651 967-4625) Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (Pilar survey) Page 1 of 1 06/13/08 Memorandum ' Bonestroo To: Anne Hurlburt Project: Pilar Road Area Date: June 12,2008 2335 Highway 36 W Improvements St.Paul,MN 55113 From: Paul Hornby Client: City of Scandia Tel651-6364600 Fax 651-636-1311 Re: Resident Survey File No: 568-08000-1 www.bonestroo.com In May the City Council authorized staff to prepare and distribute a resident survey regarding roadway improvements in the Pilar Road area of the City. City staff identified 35 parcel owners in the improvement area,distributed the survey by mail and has received 19 responses to date. Attached is a list of questions prepared along with a list of responses to each questions. In summary,the following trends were identified from the responses received to date: • Residents like the rural and scenic character of the area roadways. • Residents do not like the dust,washboard, and speed of traffic. • There are some sight distance problems,erosion,standing water during the spring thaw, resulting in potholes. • Several residents do not see value in using curb and storm sewer to reduce tree impacts. Some of these residents may have been thinking the use of curb was to be along the entire roadway. This was not the intent. Many responses indicated that residents were not in favor of paying higher assessments for the use of curb and some storm sewer. • There is nearly 50%to 50%split in responses from residents being willing to work with the City for acquisition of easements. • There seems to be a consistent trend in many survey question responses that the roads should remain rural and not be paved. Residents are concerned about increase in traffic volume,speed, and change in rural the character if the roadways are paved. The results of the resident survey are not unexpected when compared to the discussions with the City Council at the May meeting. There are some comments that provide helpful information regarding problematic drainage areas, sight distance concerns and erosion. The City may want to discuss alternatives to improvements along this corridor, perhaps performing some general maintenance to repair some of the problematic items while utilizing targeted improvement funding for maintenance of the remaining City roadway system. Please do not hesitate to contact me,at(651)967-4625,with any questions or comments you may have regarding this resident survey. SCANñIA m i n n e s o t a May 22, 2008 Dear Resident: The City of Scandia is starting to plan for one of the last remaining projects to pave gravel roads in the city. The project includes Oakgreen Avenue, Old Marine Trail, 185th Street, Paris Avenue, Perkins Avenue, Penfield Avenue. and Pilar Road. Due to budget limitations, the roadway improvements would likely be constructed in the 2010 construction season or later. The Paris Avenue, Perkins Avenue, Penfield Avenue, and Pilar Road improvement area is thought to be unique in character from recent City road improvement projects due to the meandering road, heavily wooded areas, and surrounding terrain. We are seeking resident input in the roadway improvements in advance of preliminary design. The City Council values resident input and is asking for your assistance with several questions listed on the enclosed survey. Please complete the survey and return it using the self-addressed stamped envelope by June 13, 2008. After that date we will compile the responses for review by the City Council so they can decide on the timing and next steps for the paving project. If you have questions about this survey request or the City paving project you can contact me at 651-433-2274, or via e-mail at a.hurIburt@ci.scandia.inn.us.ci.scandia.inn.us. You may also contact our consultant Engineer, Paul Hornby. at 651-967-4625 or via e-mail at paul.hornby(u)bonestroo.com. Sincerely, Anne Hurlburt City Administrator 14727 209°r St. N., Scandia. Minnesota 55073 Phone (651 ) -133-2274 Fax (651) =133-5112 http:/Amw.ci.scandia.mn.us City of Scandia Survey Paris Avenue, Perkins Avenue, Penfield Avenue, and Pilar Road 1. What is the single characteristic you like the most about the existing roadways? 2. What is the single characteristic you like the least about the existing roadways? 3. Are you aware of any problematic drainage issues in the project area (standing water in the roadways, ditch, culverts, or front yards)? If so please explain what the problem is, and where it is: 4. Are you aware of any issues in the project area that become problematic seasonally, such as during the spring thaw, during winter travel, after a rainfall event? If so please explain what the problem is, and where it is: 5. The City may be able to reduce tree impacts by constructing curb and storm sewer, but this may increase costs as compared to past paving projects. Should the City use curb and storm sewer to reduce tree impacts? Would you be willing to pay higher special assessments to reduce impacts to trees? 6. The City may need to acquire additional permanent and temporary easements for road construction. Paying for easements will increase the cost of the project and could delay the start of the project. -Are you willing to work with the City in good faith to provide easements and to reduce overall project costs? 7. Please provide additional feedback with other concerns you may have regarding this City improvement project. Thank you for completing the survey! Please return it to the City of Scandia (14727 209th St. N., Scandia, MN 55073) by June 13, 2008. The City may want to contact you regarding your comments and would like your name and contact information. However, the City respects resident privacy and providing this information is optional. Name (optional): Telephone (optional): Email (optional): City of Scandia Survey Paris Avenue, Perkins Avenue, Penfield Avenue, and Pilar Road 1. What is the single characteristic you like the most about the existing roadways? • The small scenic feel of the road. • Its rural character, the trees & grasses growing close its ability to allow rain/snow/moisture to settle into the soil. • Not a lot of through traffic, Cty Rd 3 - Hwy 95 • None • It's a gravel road, don't pave it and ruin the last rural character road in Scandia. • The unique beauty of the hills and curves in this countryside. • I do not really like anything special at all. I will be happy to have the roads paved. • It is well maintained summer& winter. • Picturesque, overhanging trees. • It is a gravel road. • What we have now are great, but please don't change the true country roads!!! • The rural feel of the road with all the curves and bends. The trees, the wild flowers. • Many are rural and winding—it forces you to slow down and enjoy the beauty of our area. • Dirt road has a nice"country" feel. • Rural country setting—view is beautiful reduces excessive speeds and traffic. • Gravel surface on a meandering roadway through a heavily wooded area. • Their natural character. I prefer that the roads stay as they are and not be paved. • That the roads are rural, (not blacktopped), narrow, scenic, and about what the "City" is supposed to be preserving—rural qualities, not suburbia. 2. What is the single characteristic you like the least about the existing roadways? • Only thing I can think of is the trees (branches) take out the electric wires when it gets windy. • The dust, when it has been dry for a long time. But the spray helps, although I do not know how that affects the plants & water. • Nothing • The dust!!! You can't keep the windows or screens clean because of the dirt. Before the road is sprayed in the spring, you have to keep the windows, it's so bad. • It breaks up in some areas in the spring. • Mud and dust! • There are too many trees hanging onto the roads making it dark. • Not in front of 16123 Pilar Rd. 1 • The dust, mud & gravel. • People drive too fast. • There are few country roads, such as Pilar, where we can enjoy the true quietness of the"country". • During spring thaw a portion I travel gets a washboard effect and deep pot holes at the corner of Pilar & 95 • We are on gravel now—seems like it always needs to be graded • Washboard & dusty • Concerned about excessive speed • City/Township brush cutter • They are. Changing (paving)the roads would increase traffic & traffic speed which I wouldn't like. It would also negatively impact trees. • Least is traffic—the high volume of traffic now using roads—Pilar especially as a shortcut—driving too fast— seeming to respect no value as a scenic road? 3. Are you aware of any problematic drainage issues in the project area (standing water in the roadways, ditch, culverts, or front yards)? If so please explain what the problem is, and where it is: • No! There are a few places where the small ditches that were put in 3-4 years ago are now getting filled back in by road grading but they do not back up drainage so that goes over the road. • No • Culvert across road in front of 15740. Culvert drains into telephone pole & junction box before entering seasonal pond. • Standing water, from snow melt, on the sharp corner. • No • No • Corner on Paris Ave N floods in the spring when the snow melts. • None that I can see. • Soft spot on hill by Westermeiers. Water pools at bottom of Perkins. Road too narrow at Doolittles, Kees, Froberg. • No • No • 1) The North East corner of Pilar and Paris has a large landscape hill and when they fly over the road hill going west toward Olinda and your sitting on Paris you can't see them due to the landscape hill. I can't tell you how many times I have almost been hit there. I know nothing can be done about the road hill but if we could move back the landscape hill we could see better....2) When Olinda Trail project was done land was given as easement to the South of Pilar so that the road could be straightened out and it would be easier to enter Olinda from Pilar. That was the only reason the land was give,but now several years later the electric pole is sitting 1 foot off the road as the grader has been slowly moving the road bed back to the north? If you want to slowly widen and move the road let move it to the South where most of the easement lies. Small trees need to be cut 2 down in that ditch growing right on the edge of the road. That corner really needs some attention now,just for the graders sake. As the grader has widen that road to the North now the North side washes out in a good rain. It did not do that before the widening. 3) The first straight away area on Paris needs to be shifted to the East as it is not sitting center of its easement at this time.... And has ponds on both sides that are part way in the easement area with a culvert running between them. 4) There is a cement cow passing culvert that needs to be dealt with under Paris 5) There is a sharp 90 degree bend on Paris that no one can see around and it's hill on one side with trees that will need to be landscaped back. The bend also needs to be shifted back to the east into its easement. The grader has pushed this corner over the fence to the west of the road.... There are lots for sale down there and more traffic will come from there in the future. • No • We live on Penfield Ave N there are only 3 homes on this road and it gets little maintenance. Plus it is a hill and drainage and erosion are problems—when it rains heavily there is a lot of erosion. • No • No • Erosion is a problem now and we think it could become worse with blacktopping (asphalt). We believe the whole idea of black-topping the entire township was flawed from the beginning and was then probably based on a pro-development model and not in any way on preserving the rural qualities or the environment. Unfortunately, it is now a fait accompli! 4. Are you aware of any issues in the project area that become problematic seasonally, such as during the spring thaw, during winter travel, after a rainfall event? If so please explain what the problem is, and where it is: • Since the road (Pilar) was improved a few years ago there seems to be very few problem areas. Any frost boils are minor. • Drainage used to be a problem but that resolved with culvert improvements some years ago. • 1/31d mile from 95 on Pilar Rd is a culvert from swamp across to farmland (40 acres). The 100' of roadway is always bad wet, thaw. All curves are problems slippery, wet, thaw on entire road. • Answer to question 3 (Standing water, from snow melt, on the sharp corner.) • The east half of the road tends to break up more in the spring. • There is one prominent frost boil in the right lane traveling west on the hill approaching Olinda. Washouts everywhere. • Paris Ave N becomes really muddy and soft during the spring thaw. • NO NEED in front of 16123 Pilar • Heavy rains cause big ruts alongside any hills. Kees driveway washes out onto road. • No 3 • No • See # 1 above (The rural feel of the road with all the curves and bends. The trees, the wild flowers) • Heavy rains this spring have resulted in a lot of erosion on Pilar Ave • Washout in a few places,problem is fixed quickly • The first corner from County Road 3 on Pilar is dangerous. (Needs banking) • Some soft spots due to clay boil up in the spring thaw. Generally occurs in inclined portions of the road. Pothole formation in certain flat portions due to poor water drainage. • None • We do not think anyone really knows the effect of"dust reduction"measures employed on roads or its consequences to the environment? The roads seem to take a long time to dry out after a rain event and in winter the roadways seem to be holding more water. This becomes problematic and could be an expensive problem under blacktop with erosion, washouts etc, when saturated? 5. The City may be able to reduce tree impacts by constructing curb and storm sewer,but this may increase costs as compared to past paving projects. Should the City use curb and storm sewer to reduce tree impacts? Would you be willing to pay higher special assessments to reduce impacts to trees? • No! I'm not interested in higher anything. I'm retired and do not have any way to increase my income. I don't see how curbs would even apply to this road and I have more trees then I need. • I think Pilar& its adjoining roads should be left unpaved. It would be a hardship to pay any assessments for what we do not consider improvements. • No • No • Yes. No. Dig out road bed in the problem areas. Put regrinds (?) on the whole road. It will be more durable than gravel and maintain character while saving much money that is wasted on tar. • I do not believe so. I am willing to pay any reasonable assessment to expedite the paving. • I myself would like to see curb and storm sewer. However it would not be necessary if it costs too much. • Yes • (special assessments) NO. (curb & storm sewer) NO or just in impossibly narrow areas. • Do a shape and pave with curb only where absolutely necessary. • No • I don't want to count on this as no trees are on our side of roadway • No— curbs not necessary • Installing curb and gutter in such a rural area is not feasible. Let's look for a more natural way to handle runoff—rain gardens? And, please consider ribbon curbs — 4 much better alternative for our area. Consider trap rock for road sides and areas prone to erosion. • Yes • No—No • I fail to see how curb and storm sewer would reduce tree impacts. Just the opposite effect is likely. Just pave the existing road surface and destroy the rural character of the area in a word addressing the last question—NO! • Please, no curbs or storm sewers! Keep the rural character. • The idea of suggesting curb and storm sewer does not seem practical, is the wrong question for this area, and may have little or no effect on tree impacts? It is not even environmentally sound. For example, Pilar road has a unique bog complex— a sphagnum-tamarack circular bog that is the only one like it in N. Wash. Co. — threatened species— Blanding's turtle, bog copper butterfly, rose pogonia orchid, and other rare aquatic plants and animals, etc. Curbs alone could be an insurmountable death trap for Blanding's turtle and other wildlife. This bog needs special protection by the City and is the MNDNR biological survey. The MNDNR may also need to be involved in this project. 6. The City may need to acquire additional permanent and temporary easements for road construction. Paying for easements will increase the cost of the project and could delay the start of the project. -Are you willing to work with the City in good faith to provide easements and to reduce overall project costs? • Sure I would think the value of the easements would probably equal the cost of the road work. • I'm not sure what this would mean. Perkins right of way/easements are the City's already. I would hate to see them widened more, or to see Pilar widened as it would change its character completely. I moved here because of the incredible beauty of Pilar Rd. • No only if in good faith you don't charge me to put the stupid road in. (Ha-Ha) • No • NO, I DON'T WANT IT PAVED!!! • Yes • Yes, I will work good with the City of Scandia • N/A • No • Yes • Not necessarily as I don't want to see the road paved. I like it the way it is. Want the rural nature of the road to remain as is. i.e. curves, w/o shoulders. • Yes—we'd be willing to discuss it. • Yes • No • The easements of Penfield Road are not in accordance with the property lines. This issue needs resolution before any road improvement projects are initiated. 5 • I think there are already easements on our property. • The answer is no to the question at this time. First of all, the City needs to demonstrate that it too will operate in good faith be deeds, not just words. We believe that City needs to recognize the uniqueness of these remaining un- blacktopped roads. We strongly recommend that the City designate these roads as "scenic"with the full protection that the term implies. These roads are right at the apex to the City's "Wind in the Pines" and the MNDNR's Fall's Creek Scientific and Natural Area(SNA) which has been described as one of the last remaining intact example of the original St. Croix white pinery. The whole area is also part of their natural drainage system. Furthermore, the Green Corridor project has included the area in its target corridor because of its high quality, natural habitat values. If the City is really serious about preserving"rural values"this would be a great opportunity to actually demonstrate it. We would work with the City only if it seriously demonstrates a commitment to environmental stewardship. 7. Please provide additional feedback with other concerns you may have regarding this City improvement project. • Filar Road is a very scenic road—narrow and winding—if 15 feet ditches were put in on each side it would not only require major trees removal and earth moving but it would also destroy the nature of the road. I feel it is necessary to use some type of modified approach to retain a small scenic road and a smaller ditch system. All these road fit this category. • See last 2 comments (6&7). Although we don't live on Old Marine Trail, we feel the same about it. It is lovely to walk or bike these roads, and just fine to drive them. I cannot imagine how paving them will "improve"them. Instead we will lose trees, endanger wildlife, change ground water access, and encourage speeding on these lovely rural spaces. If paving was request by most others living on these roads, couldn't it be done ala Wisconsin where the asphalt is laid over the existing road bed and additional damage (widening, trees removal could be avoided? Are notices sent out with estimates of costs to residents? Would these include choices (no widening vs. widening) & their different costs?? • I don't want the progressive improvements. Keep country style. Money problems don't do it. Tell the City folk to move back to the city if they want all those horrific benefits. • The cost of this project will far exceed any savings of grading weekly for many years. By that time it will have to be resurfaced and extend the payback time even farther. You need a grader for snowplowing anyway and it is better to run it once a week than to let it sit all summer just because someone decided to have all street years ago doesn't mean it has to be done. • Every year that this project is delayed the cost is increasing. Also we are paying for the dust control which is needed. However, this is a band aid on a broken leg and money that should go to permanent corrections. 6 • The sharp corner on Paris Ave N has poor visibility and should be looked into. The hill and trees on the south side of the road could be removed to fix the problem. • Please keep roadbed to a minimal width. Don't try to straighten out any curves as that slows the traffic, plus makes the road more picturesque. There is no shortage of trees on Pilar, cut what you have too but seek resident feedback before cutting. • Too many to mention! • I feel if Pilar is paved, cars are going to be speeding down the road using it as a thru road. I love the feel of this unpaved rural country road. Paving Pilar is definitely going to take away from our rural atmosphere. I also feel that if Pilar is paved, they will straighten out all the"S" is, thus taking away the rich name Snake Road. • Please try to reduce impacts to the"natural" feel of our area (Pilar & Penfield). The winding nature of these roads, along with the trees, is one of the things that attracted us to this area. The winding nature of the road also reduces speed on these roads. • I've been waiting for our road to be paved for 10 years. I am very excited about this project to happen, cannot wait! • Prefer the road the way it is!! Concerned about excessive traffic, speeding, theft and vandalism and noise. • Paving Pilar Road will result in excessive speeds and a major safety risk for school age children and pedestrians that walk the road for exercise. Are speed bumps going to be installed on the entire length of Pilar?? What about wetlands preservation on several segments of Pilar Road. • I like the wooded meandering character of the roads. I would hate to see them widened or straightened or to see trees cut down. • It is time for the City to actually step us to the plate on"preserving rural values" beyond just works and focus groups. This means such things as keeping these roads narrow, and designating them as scenic. The City plan for the project should include the use of rain gardens, swales, and other environmentally sound containment devices and strategies to control runoff, as well as the restoration of road ditches with native plantings or seeding where appropriate—not curbs and storm sewers! The Watershed should also be involved. It is also possible that the age of only petroleum-based solutions may well be over, is coming to a close, or may become cost prohibitive for certain projects? Sometimes a simple solution may be the best and most cost effective as well as provide employment for our own local citizens. 7 City of Scandia Survey Paris Avenue, Perkins Avenue, Penfield Avenue, and Pilar Road UPDATED—SURVEYS RECEIVED THROUGH JUNE 17, 2008 1. What is the single characteristic you like the most about the existing roadways? • The small scenic feel of the road. • Its rural character, the trees & grasses growing close its ability to allow rain/snow/moisture to settle into the soil. • Not a lot of through traffic, Cty Rd 3 - Hwy 95 • None • It's a gravel road, don't pave it and ruin the last rural character road in Scandia. • The unique beauty of the hills and curves in this countryside. • I do not really like anything special at all. I will be happy to have the roads paved. • It is well maintained summer& winter. • Picturesque, overhanging trees. • It is a gravel road. • What we have now are great, but please don't change the true country roads!!! • The rural feel of the road with all the curves and bends. The trees, the wild flowers. • Many are rural and winding—it forces you to slow down and enjoy the beauty of our area. • Dirt road has a nice "country" feel. • Rural country setting—view is beautiful reduces excessive speeds and traffic. • Gravel surface on a meandering roadway through a heavily wooded area. • Their natural character. I prefer that the roads stay as they are and not be paved. • That the roads are rural, (not blacktopped), narrow, scenic, and about what the "City" is supposed to be preserving—rural qualities, not suburbia. • Light traffic/slower traffic. I love Pilar Road. • The juxtaposition of trees to the roadway creating an archway of foliage. Pilar Road should become a designated scenic road w/trees remaining to road edge & pave the existing base. • We like the fact that our road is not paved. • Not used as a through road—unsurfaced & lots of curves. • Gravel surface on a meandering roadway through a heavily wooded area. • Rustic charm with trees galore. 2. What is the single characteristic you like the least about the existing roadways? • Only thing I can think of is the trees (branches) take out the electric wires when it gets windy. 1 • The dust, when it has been dry for a long time. But the spray helps, although I do not know how that affects the plants & water. • Nothing • The dust!!! You can't keep the windows or screens clean because of the dirt. Before the road is sprayed in the spring, you have to keep the windows, it's so bad. • It breaks up in some areas in the spring. • Mud and dust! • There are too many trees hanging onto the roads making it dark. • Not in front of 16123 Pilar Rd. • The dust, mud & gravel. • People drive too fast. • There are few country roads, such as Pilar, where we can enjoy the true quietness of the"country". • During spring thaw a portion I travel gets a washboard effect and deep pot holes at the corner of Pilar & 95 • We are on gravel now— seems like it always needs to be graded • Washboard & dusty • Concerned about excessive speed • City/Township brush cutter • They are. Changing (paving) the roads would increase traffic & traffic speed which I wouldn't like. It would also negatively impact trees. • Least is traffic—the high volume of traffic now using roads—Pilar especially as a shortcut—driving too fast— seeming to respect no value as a scenic road? • Some people not obeying speed • Dust & washboard effect. But that defines a rural road & Pilar Road is one of the best maintained in America. • Maintenance of the roadside often leaves a mess in its wake— shredded shrubs and mangled trees—that diminishes the scenic quality of the road. • Washing in certain areas when it rains. • City/township brush cutter. • Beer cans & dust 3. Are you aware of any problematic drainage issues in the project area (standing water in the roadways, ditch, culverts, or front yards)? If so please explain what the problem is, and where it is: • No! There are a few places where the small ditches that were put in 3-4 years ago are now getting filled back in by road grading but they do not back up drainage so that goes over the road. • No • Culvert across road in front of 15740. Culvert drains into telephone pole & junction box before entering seasonal pond. • Standing water, from snow melt, on the sharp corner. • No 2 when the snow melts N floods to the spring bottom of P did-as. Road too • No Paris Ave Water pools at Corner on • e that 1 can see' estermejers. W • lion spot on hill by W Froberg. • Soft w at Doolittles,Ke d when e , narrow a large landscape hill o Paris you • No Paris has sitting No of pilar and Olinda - n,�,v times l have ' The north East corner Ding west toward ,t tell you bow road hill but if we , • 1) the road hill g e hill. 1 can about Trail they fly been due r the landscape can be done 2)When h ll but i the road can't see them o�,,�nothing see better''�� °f pilar so that hit there. a d e hill we could the South pilar• almost been back the landscape easement to enter Olinda from land was given as e easier to later the could move done several years Ong the project was straightened out and it would but now been slowly o be sthe the land was give' grader has move the road let could only reason as the widen and be cut That was the l foot off the road to slowly all trees need to needs electric pole is sitting ' If you want easement lies. Sin nee really to the north• easem That co bed back most of the edge o f the road• widen that road road South where right on the As the grader has that move it to the S owing graders sake. It did not do down in that ditch growing for the gn good raiPas needs to be shifted now,J side washes out in a g on And has ponds some attention w the North t away area s time.••. st to the North The first straight easement at this running widening. 3) center of its easem with a culvert ru be dealt before theit is not sitting the easement area that needs East as culvert no one can se to the E part way in passing s that sides that are cement cow p degree bend on pan landscaped back. with both s There is a sharp 90 degr to be lan between them. ) There is a will need easement. The grad one side with trees that into itsbe There are lots benundd Paris. Son back to the easto f the road....around a needs to be shifted to the west e in the future. The bend also n corner over the fence this corn e from then has pushed more traffic will coin down there and this road and it gets sale only 3 homes on wli No there are and erosion are problems • We live on Penfield Ave hill and drainage • maintenance. Plus it is lot o f erosion• rains heavily there is a • No worse with bl • No• now and we think it could becom the entire tow, problem whole idea of black-topping de Erosion is W e believe theYobablS based On a pro- de asphalt). the beginning and was then he rural qualities or Y��_ flawed from on preserving model and not in ann way a fait accompli! Unfortunately, impervious surfaces w None When one builds & creates imp • the homeowner should be enco • Not recently• tars excessive watter o down pouts to holding runoff via gut None on our stretch of the road. • 3 • Sometimes of ourdrivewaeroras the thaw Y happens we have a 1 4. Are during you aware o f of ofstanding H2O at the end problem is, and where'tdunng winter tn the ravel, project area that co • s: vel, after a rainfall event?problematic seasonally, problem Since the road(Piles) w If so please explain such as • areas. � as what the Drainageused to Y Est in1 Pr V e a few years ago years ago. be a problem but that minor. �e seems to be vet • mile� resolved with culvert • Y few acres). The from 95°n Pilar slippery.m 1 of road Rd is a culvert improvementsd (40 •• Answer question on entireroad. ways bad wet om thaw p All cur across to far some • ThereThe at half°f the onr3oad tanding water, from All curves are Problems is one prominent ends to breakp snow melt, • approaching on elfin frost boil in the right more in the s the sharp confer. Paris Ave N b a. Washouts nght lane spring. ) No NEED in firncomes really muddy here' traveling west on the hill • • Heavy rains cause big rutsnt of Pilar and soft during the spring Pring thaw. • No alongside any hills. Kees drivewa • No driveway washes out • See# 1 onto above • Nev wild flowers) owe s e viral feel of the road with Y rains this all the cury the • Washout in spring have result es and bends. • The first c a few places resulted in a lot of The trees, Some s corner from problem is fired quickly erosion on Pilar Ave • first spots d County Road 3 o Y inclined due to clay boil n Pilar is dangerous. deeds Poor water drainage ad. Pothole formation thaw. banking) • None nnation in Generally occurs in • certain flat portions We do not think due to nk an take loa go g roads or its consequences knows the effect of time to dry out aft "dust reduction" be holding ences to the environment? n measures g more water. nnierit? The oa roads problem under This a rain event and in blacktop becomes problematic winter the road seem to matic and loW P with erosion, washouts could be an expensive seem to _ %XtktIDs�ow-Palls—plowin is etc • 1''o`recently, , when saturated? • Some g etc. pirated? stretches of the road become di to the west of our • When it ra��certa n warm winter days. Property(about a areas tomile away) drain onto road&it washes. 4 • Some soft spots due to clay boil up in the spring thaw. Generally occurs in inclined portions of the road. Pothole formation in certain flat portions due to poor water drainage. 5. The City may be able to reduce tree impacts by constructing curb and storm sewer, but this may increase costs as compared to past paving projects. Should the City use curb and storm sewer to reduce tree impacts? Would you be willing to pay higher special assessments to reduce impacts to trees? • No! I'm not interested in higher anything. I'm retired and do not have any way to increase my income. I don't see how curbs would even apply to this road and I have more trees then I need. • I think Pilar& its adjoining roads should be left unpaved. It would be a hardship to pay any assessments for what we do not consider improvements. • No • No • Yes. No. Dig out road bed in the problem areas. Put regrinds (?) on the whole road. It will be more durable than gravel and maintain character while saving much money that is wasted on tar. • I do not believe so. I am willing to pay any reasonable assessment to expedite the paving. • I myself would like to see curb and storm sewer. However it would not be necessary if it costs too much. • Yes • (special assessments) NO. (curb & storm sewer) NO or just in impossibly narrow areas. • Do a shape and pave with curb only where absolutely necessary. • No • I don't want to count on this as no trees are on our side of roadway • No—curbs not necessary • Installing curb and gutter in such a rural area is not feasible. Let's look for a more natural way to handle runoff—rain gardens? And, please consider ribbon curbs— much better alternative for our area. Consider trap rock for road sides and areas prone to erosion. • Yes • No—No • I fail to see how curb and storm sewer would reduce tree impacts. Just the opposite effect is likely. Just pave the existing road surface and destroy the rural character of the area in a word addressing the last question—NO! • Please, no curbs or storm sewers! Keep the rural character. • The idea of suggesting curb and storm sewer does not seem practical, is the wrong question for this area, and may have little or no effect on tree impacts? It is not even environmentally sound. For example, Pilar road has a unique bog complex— a sphagnum-tamarack circular bog that is the only one like it in N. Wash. Co. — 5 threatened species— Blanding's turtle, bog copper butterfly, rose pogonia orchid, and other rare aquatic plants and animals, etc. Curbs alone could be an insurmountable death trap for Blanding's turtle and other wildlife. This bog needs special protection by the City and is the MNDNR biological survey. The MNDNR may also need to be involved in this project. • Totally against the paving & any improvements on Pilar Road. The road is for the tenants. Paving will make a current shortcut from 3 to Hwy 95, or vice versa, more attractive. This will increase traffic, speed & danger. • I think the converse would be true— especially w/storm sewer. Simply pave the base which is in place. Absolutely no clear cutting as on 220`h. Trees must stay &not be impacted by paving. • No the higher assessments! The city must communicate its plans for each stretch of frontage with that homeowner, and send an engineer or planner to discuss the issues. Curbs would destroy the scenic quality of the roadway, as would the destruction of trees. There must be mechanisms in place to help homeowners and the city find alternate solutions. • Depends upon how much more & where. Minimize impact of tree removal on homeowners —only use if homeowners are greatly impacted. Investigate use of ditches & culverts. Study current drainage patterns. • I fail to see how curb and storm sewer would reduce tree impacts. Just the opposite effect is likely. Just pave the existing road surface and destroy the rural character of the area. In a word addressing the last question—No! 6. The City may need to acquire additional permanent and temporary easements for road construction. Paying for easements will increase the cost of the project and could delay the start of the project. -Are you willing to work with the City in good faith to provide easements and to reduce overall project costs? • Sure I would think the value of the easements would probably equal the cost of the road work. • I'm not sure what this would mean. Perkins right of way/easements are the City's already. I would hate to see them widened more, or to see Pilar widened as it would change its character completely. I moved here because of the incredible beauty of Pilar Rd. • No only if in good faith you don't charge me to put the stupid road in. (Ha-Ha) • No • NO, I DON'T WANT IT PAVED!!! • Yes • Yes, I will work good with the City of Scandia • N/A • No • Yes • Not necessarily as I don't want to see the road paved. I like it the way it is. Want the rural nature of the road to remain as is. i.e. curves, w/o shoulders. 6 • Yes—we'd be willing to discuss it. • Yes • No • The easements of Penfield Road are not in accordance with the property lines. This issue needs resolution before any road improvement projects are initiated. • I think there are already easements on our property. • The answer is no to the question at this time. First of all, the City needs to demonstrate that it too will operate in good faith be deeds, not just words. We believe that City needs to recognize the uniqueness of these remaining un- blacktopped roads. We strongly recommend that the City designate these roads as "scenic"with the full protection that the term implies. These roads are right at the apex to the City's "Wind in the Pines" and the MNDNR's Fall's Creek Scientific and Natural Area (SNA) which has been described as one of the last remaining intact example of the original St. Croix white pinery. The whole area is also part of their natural drainage system. Furthermore, the Green Corridor project has included the area in its target corridor because of its high quality,natural habitat values. If the City is really serious about preserving"rural values"this would be a great opportunity to actually demonstrate it. We would work with the City only if it seriously demonstrates a commitment to environmental stewardship. • This is a backwoods road filled with quietude & silence conducive to a magnitude of wildlife. Also accompanying this are wonderful resourceful neighbors. Wishes not to give or sell easement for paying project. • Yes, we are willing to work, in good faith, with the City. • Only within reason. Given that the pavement of this roadway is for the City's convenience, and given that we (and many others on the road)prefer that it not be done, I would be reluctant to provide easements I considered unreasonable. • I understood already have easements. • The easements on Penfield Road are not in accordance with the property lines. This issue needs resolution before any road improvement projects are initiated. • Perhaps; it would be on a case by case basis. 7. Please provide additional feedback with other concerns you may have regarding this City improvement project. • Pilar Road is a very scenic road—narrow and winding—if 15 feet ditches were put in on each side it would not only require major trees removal and earth moving but it would also destroy the nature of the road. I feel it is necessary to use some type of modified approach to retain a small scenic road and a smaller ditch system. All these road fit this category. • See last 2 comments (6&7). Although we don't live on Old Marine Trail, we feel the same about it. It is lovely to walk or bike these roads, and just fine to drive them. I cannot imagine how paving them will "improve" them. Instead we will lose trees, endanger wildlife, change ground water access, and encourage speeding on these lovely rural spaces. If paving was request by most others living on these roads, couldn't it be done ala Wisconsin where the asphalt is laid over 7 the existing road bed and additional damage(widening, trees removal could be avoided? Are notices sent out with estimates of costs to residents? Would these include choices (no widening vs. widening) & their different costs?? • I don't want the progressive improvements. Keep country style. Money problems don't do it. Tell the City folk to move back to the city if they want all those horrific benefits. • The cost of this project will far exceed any savings of grading weekly for many years. By that time it will have to be resurfaced and extend the payback time even farther. You need a grader for snowplowing anyway and it is better to run it once a week than to let it sit all summer just because someone decided to have all street years ago doesn't mean it has to be done. • Every year that this project is delayed the cost is increasing. Also we are paying for the dust control which is needed. However, this is a band aid on a broken leg and money that should go to permanent corrections. • The sharp corner on Paris Ave N has poor visibility and should be looked into. The hill and trees on the south side of the road could be removed to fix the problem. • Please keep roadbed to a minimal width. Don't try to straighten out any curves as that slows the traffic, plus makes the road more picturesque. There is no shortage of trees on Pilar, cut what you have too but seek resident feedback before cutting. • Too many to mention! • I feel if Pilar is paved, cars are going to be speeding down the road using it as a thru road. I love the feel of this unpaved rural country road. Paving Pilar is definitely going to take away from our rural atmosphere. I also feel that if Pilar is paved, they will straighten out all the"S" is, thus taking away the rich name Snake Road. • Please try to reduce impacts to the"natural" feel of our area(Pilar& Penfield). The winding nature of these roads, along with the trees, is one of the things that attracted us to this area. The winding nature of the road also reduces speed on these roads. • I've been waiting for our road to be paved for 10 years. I am very excited about this project to happen, cannot wait! • Prefer the road the way it is!! Concerned about excessive traffic, speeding, theft and vandalism and noise. • Paving Pilar Road will result in excessive speeds and a major safety risk for school age children and pedestrians that walk the road for exercise. Are speed bumps going to be installed on the entire length of Pilar?? What about wetlands preservation on several segments of Pilar Road. • I like the wooded meandering character of the roads. I would hate to see them widened or straightened or to see trees cut down. • It is time for the City to actually step us to the plate on "preserving rural values" beyond just works and focus groups. This means such things as keeping these roads narrow, and designating them as scenic. The City plan for the project should include the use of rain gardens, swales, and other environmentally sound containment devices and strategies to control runoff, as well as the restoration of road ditches with native plantings or seeding where appropriate—not curbs and 8 storm sewers! The Watershed should also be involved. It is also possible that the age of only petroleum-based solutions may well be over, is coming to a close, or may become cost prohibitive for certain projects? Sometimes a simple solution may be the best and most cost effective as well as provide employment for our own local citizens. • Pilar Road is a lonesome road & currently not subject to a great deal of crime. Road improvements will lead to greater accessibility& in the end increase crime. • Pilar Road should become a scenic road with trees & foliage intact. There is an abundance of wildflowers along the existing roadway. Seed collectors/organic preservationists often procure seeds for various agencies. Please pave the existing road as it functions well & is aesthetically pleasing. An 18' road would suffice. Many major & minor paved roads in New England are very narrow—many minor roads less than 18' W. This reduces traffic speed when a road is widened & paved it increases both traffic flow & speed. Less is more. Less road to pave the greater the savings. • We purchased this property in part because it was on a gravel road. We are now expected to pay thousands of dollars for something we don't want. Given how property taxes are spiraling upward (our Scandia portion went up 24% last year) it seems to me that responsibility for keeping costs down belongs to the City—not to homeowners. The City also owes it to homeowners to preserve the scenic quality of this roadway. To do otherwise would adversely impact property values, which are already plummeting. • Road should continue to have 30 MPH speed. Do not improve to increase speed limit. • Paving Pilar Road will result in excessive speeds and a major safety risk for school age children and pedestrians that walk the road for exercise. Are speed bumps going to be installed on the entire length of Pilar?? What about wetlands preservation on several segments of Pilar Road?? • My preference is to leave this as a rustic road; which is treated in spring for dust. No trees should be felled for a road paving project. 9 Council Report May 2008 Steve Thorp Scandia Code Official Building information: • #permits issued: May 2008 = 17 • #new residential units: 1 • Totals for 2008 a) Valuation=$531,568.00 YTD=$856,148.00 b) Permit Fees=$4,444.00 YTD=$7,833.00 c) Plan Review Fees=$2,301.33 YTD=$3,563.75 Code enforcement/zoning actions: • TOTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS: 51 1. court action: 0 2. actively pursuing: 22 3. closed cases: 29 • new cases: 4 for the month of May; • 13 Exterior Storage violations, 2 Shoreland Regulation infractions, 5 Farm Animal violations, 1 development issues, 1 unlicensed car Planning: No activity. Zoning issues: • Mining CUP's: 1. Mining Cup's passed by Council. • Wind generator installation. Daily Activities: • Building inspections; • Zoning inspection; • Resident interaction including phone calls, emails and in person regarding zoning, planning and building issues; City of Scandia Building Permits May-08 Permit# Date Address Owner Work Valuation 8-024 5/5/2008 20161 Manning Tr Cynthia Boerum reroof $ 5,000.00 8-025 5/8/2008 15779 240th St N Doran O'Brien siding $ 12,000.00 8-026 5/8/2008 20959 Manning Tr John Remington reroof $ 9,500.00 8-027 5/8/2008 15879 220th St D.SandersoniW.Charisen garage $ 18,500.00 8-028 5/8/2008 15199 209th St P&L Crum 2 story addition/deck $109,030 8-029 5/9/2008 18260 Manning Tr T and B Dunning furnace replacement $ 2,000.00 8-030 5/15/2008 143690 Scandia Tr John Guslander reroof $ 4,466.00 8-031 5/15/2008 23490 Oldfield Ave Eric Anderson reroof $ 5,866.00 8-032 5/15/2008 12055 238th St Georgette Hage reroof $ 10,000.00 8-033 5/15/2008 13840 236th St Frank Stetler reroof $ 10,000.00 8-034 5/15/2008 21203 Lofton Ave Richard Lund new home construction $ 271,800.00 8-035 5/20/2008 10982 218th St T.&K.Fitzmorris reroof $ 14,000.00 8-036 5/20/2008 22210 Peabody Tr N A.Atchison reroof $ 8,500.00 8-037 5/23/2008 21460 Oland Ave N Susan Brombilla window replacement $ 20,766.00 8-038 5/23/2008 21300 Olinda Tr N D,&W.Holmberg garage and house addition $ 14,840.00 8-039 5/27/2008 23497 Meadowbrook Ave Jim Dreher reroof $ 10,800.00 8-040 5/27/2008 123789 228th St James Jackson reroof $ 4,500.00 $ 531,568.00 FEES Permit# Permit Fee Plan Review Fee Total 8-024 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-025 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-026 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-027 $ 293.50 $ 190.75 $ 484.25 8-028 $ 1,044.15 $ 678.70 $ 1,722.85 8-029 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-030 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-031 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-032 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-033 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-034 $ 1,951.35 $ 1,268.38 $ 3,219.73 8-035 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-036 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-037 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-038 $ 251.50 $ 163.50 $ 415.00 8-039 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 8-040 $ 69.50 $ 69.50 $ 4,444.00 $ 2,301.33 $ 6,745.33 Letters of Credit Name Purpose Date issued Initial amount Current balance Expiration Nature's Walk landscape 10/20/04 $ 25,000.00 $ 7,500.00 6/15/08 Sanctuar y final project 7/19/2005 $ 96,000.00 $ 12,375.00 90 days after final Tii Gavo grading 10/1/06 $ 250,000.00 $ - Expired Tii Gavo construction 6/28/07 $ 1,514,344.00 $ 564,344.00 6/28/08 Tii Gavo landscape 6/28/07 $ 177,687.00 $ 177,687.00 6/28/07 Wild Bush Acres landscape 10/20/05 $ 350,000.00 $ 60,000.00 10/2/08 Childers variance 12/6/05 $ 30,000.00 $ 5,000.00 6/6/11 permit spreadsheet May 08 6/9/2008 9:54 AM Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Set meetings for discussion and adoption of 2009 preliminary budget and tax levy. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The city is required to adopt a preliminary budget and certify a maximum property tax levy for 2009 no later than September 15, 2008. • The Council will probably need two work sessions to review recommendations from the Capital Improvements Committee and discuss draft budgets prepared by staff. It is likely that final information on levy limits and other factors critical to the 2009 budget will not be available in time for the Council to consider the budget and levy at a regular meeting. A special meeting will probably be needed in early September to adopt the levy. • The following meeting dates are suggested: Tuesday, August 12 (CIP) Tuesday, August 26 Wednesday, September 10 (adopt budget/maximum levy) Recommendation: The Council should set the meeting dates as suggested or choose other dates that will fit your schedules. Attachments/ • Calendar, July, August and September 2008 Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (budget meetings) Page 1 of 1 06/10/08 s July 2008 Sundry 1Monday I Tuesday..-_ I---- Wednesday Thursday I dry I _ Salmdry j 1 2 3 4 /5 -- _- - 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Parks 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 August 2008 Sunday Monday .--- Tuesday Wednesday Thursday friday Salurday 1 2 3 a - - - b 6 7 8 — - - 9 --- Pet v kS ,y 10 II 12 � C�' ' 14 15 16 70l17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I I4 25 2 28 29 30 j 31 I I 'I j September 2008 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wedday I T uisday 1---idday Saheday1 l 2 3 • nes 4 15 6 TaLb 7 8 9 70 12 13 5pec4'al P� o.9 r t 4w -- �laec.1110N Bvd(et-? 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Dead)of l GG. C Iakt ? 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: ? City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209`1' St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Review draft purchasing policy and give staff direction for any changes. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The city currently lacks a written purchasing policy. Informal direction has been given and practices have developed, but a specific policy would be useful for all staff involved with purchasing goods and services for the city. • The draft policy, attached, was prepared after reviewing policies from other cities and from the League of Minnesota Cities. Some of the features of the policy include: Staff would have authority to make small purchases that are within the approved departmental operating budgets. Council approval would be required for items over $2.000 and any purchases from the Capital Improvement. Equipment Replacement and Parks Capital Improvement funds would require pre-approval by the Council. At least 2 written quotes would be required for purchases over $10.000 and less than $50,000. The Administrator would have discretion whether or not to require quotes for smaller purchases. For purchases over $50,000, the policy reflects state law requirements for public bidding, and includes criteria for determining whether a bidder is "responsible." The policy authorizes emergency purchases by staff, and the use of cooperative purchasing. Policy on use of credit cards adopted by the Town Board has been incorporated and updated. Language on documenting purchases and payment of claims is included. Authority to pay certain claims prior to approval at a council meeting is specifically given to staff,. Page 1 of 2 06/12/08 formalizing existing practices. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council review the policy and give feedback and direction for changes. Before it is finalized, the draft would be shared with additional staff, and the city's auditor and attorney, for any additional recommendations. The final policy would then be brought back to the Council for adoption by resolution at a later date. Attachments/ • Draft Policy dated June 11, 2008 Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt. Administrator (draft purchasing policy) Page 2 of 2 06/12/08 City of Scandia Purchasing Policy Approved by the City Council , 2008 I. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES The purchasing policy for the City of Scandia is established by the City Council to provide guidance to staff involved in the purchasing process. Council grants staff the authority to purchase materials, equipment and services, within the budget'previously approved by the Council, consistent with this policy. The objectives of the policy are: a) To obtain supplies, equipment, and services as economically as possible. b) To ensure that all purchases are best suited to,the specific needs of the city. c) To ensure adherence to the budget approved by the City Council. d) To provide for the most efficient use of staff and City Council time and resources. e) To ensure compliance with all applicable policies, statutes, and regulations of the City, • the State, and the Federal Government. f) To ensure that qualified and responsible bidders are selected for city projects. II. PURCHASING STANDARDS AID METHODS a) Small Purchases Less than $2,006 Purchase of budgeted items or services costing less than$2,000 may be authorized by the City Administrator or department head(Fire Chief, Building Official and Maintenance Supervisor.) Such small items may be charged on account, on a city-authorized credit card or purchased with petty cash as may be appropriate or most convenient for the particular purchase. The staff member making the purchase shall endeavor to obtain the best prices available on the open market. b) Purchases Greater than $2,000 and less than $10,000 Purchase of items or services costing more than $2,000 and less than $10,000 may be authorized by the City Administrator. The Administrator may require the department to obtain two or more quotes to ensure that the price is competitive. Prior review of the purchase by the City'Council is required in the following cases: 1) if the purchase would cause an individual line item in the departmental budget to be exceeded by$1,000, or cause the departmental budget to be exceeded by any amount for that year, or 2) if the purchase is budgeted within the Capital Improvement, Equipment Replacement or Park Capital Improvement Fund budgets. c) Purchases Greater than $10,000 and less than $50,000 All purchases costing more than $10,000 and less than $50,000 must be pre-authorized by the City Council. At least two quotes shall be obtained and reviewed by the City Administrator prior to submission to the City Council. The quotes shall be kept on file for one year. d) Purchases greater than $50,000 Sealed bids shall be solicited when and in the manner provided by state law for all purchases over$50,000. Prior to solicitation of bids, the department shall prepare specifications to be reviewed by the City Administrator and approved by the City Council. The specifications shall reserve the city's right to reject any and all bids and waive informalities or irregularities. After bids are received and tabulated, the successful bid will be presented to the City Council for approval by resolution. The bid will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, represents the best combination of quality, service and price. The determination of whether or not the bidder is responsible will be made by the City Council based on Section IX of this policy. e) Consultants and Professional Services The city hires a variety of consultants and purchases professional services on an on-going basis (such as City Engineer, City Planner, City Attorney, etc.) as well as on a project-by- project basis. Competitive bidding is not required for professional services. For new on- going services, and for projects or assignments exceeding$2,000 in cost, the City Council shall review and approve a request for proposals prior to its issuance. The Council shall also determine the procedure to be used to select the consultant or contractor. III.EMERGENCY PURCHASES Emergency purchases not meeting the requirements of this policy may be made by staff where an immediate purchase is necessary to correct a situation which would adversely affect the life, the health and safety of people, personnel and/or to protect the environment. To the greatest extent possible, this policy should be followed, and every effort shall be made to notify the department head and City Administrator as soon as possible when the need for an emergency purchase arises. Such emergency purchase shall be explained to the City Administrator on the next working day, and to the City Council at their next regular meeting. IV.COOPERATIVE PURCHASING Where a purchase contract has been awarded in compliance with applicable state statutes, and where it is legally permissible for the city to participate in that contract, the City Administrator or appropriate Department Head may purchase supplies named in that contract, without obtaining quotes or fulfilling the competitive bidding requirements. V. CITY CREDIT CARD ACCOUNTS The City Council authorizes city credit cards to be issued in the names of the City Administrator, Treasurer, Fire Chief and Maintenance Supervisor. Credit cards may be used for small purchases less than $2,000 as authorized by this policy. No cash advances or checks for transfers shall be permitted. Any purchase directed by or made by an employee 2 using a city credit card that is not approved by the Council shall be the responsibility of the employee. VI.DOCUMENTATION OF PURCHASES As soon as practical following any purchase, the responsible staff person shall submit documentation including receipts and quotes to the department head, who shall initial them signifying approval before forwarding them to the City Administrator's office. Credit card statements alone will not qualify as adequate documentation. The City Administrator shall ensure that proper documentation has been provided before submitting claims to the City Council for approval. All receipts and quotes shall be retained as required by the city's retention policy. VII. PAYMENT OF CLAIMS The City Administrator/Clerk shall present a list of all claims to be paid to the City Council for approval at its regular monthly meeting. The Council delegates authority to staff to pay the following type of claims prior to Council approval: a) Payroll and related expenses (such as taxes, employee benefits, etc.) b) Principal and interest payments on obligations of the city. c) Claims that would result in payment of late charges or interest if payment is deferred until the next regular Council meeting. d) Electronic funds transfers to the State of Minnesota for permit surcharges. e) Payments for postage to the U.S. Post Office or for refilling a postage meter, if credit card payments are not accepted or timely Council approval is not practical. VIII. DISPOSITION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY Surplus, salvage, obsolete and unneeded materials or equipment belonging to the city may be disposed of by the City Administrator, or by a department head upon the approval of the Administrator. Disposal of any item valued at $100 or more shall require prior authorization by the City Council. The method of disposition shall be appropriate to the type of item and shall be approved by the Council at the time they determine that the item may be disposed of. The method of disposal shall comply with all requirements of state law, including all restrictions on the sale of city-owned property to a city officer or employee. IX.RESPONSIBLE BIDDER POLICY The City Council will review the qualifications and experiences of bidders for construction, alteration, repair, or maintenance of real or personal property after bids are opened and before a contract is awarded, to determine if the bidder is "responsible". A "responsible" bidder is a bidder qualified to do the work. This will be determined by assessing the bidder's skill, resources, experience, successful performance or similar contracts (on time and on budget), and all other matters bearing upon the likelihood that the contract will be successfully completed. In all cases where a bidder is unknown or where there are any 3 questions about the qualifications of the bidder, the following information will be required of the apparent low bidder in the form of a questionnaire, as follows: You are required to complete and return this questionnaire before the Scandia City Council considers awarding you the contract. 1. Identify all similar public projects in which you were the contractor. If you have had more than five such contracts, list only the last five contracts, and as to each contract identified provide the following information: Project Description: Date: Contact Person at City/County/State: Were change orders in excess of 5%requested? If yes, explain the circumstances. Were liquidated damages assessed? If yes, explain the circumstances. Was the project completed on schedule? If no, explain the circumstances. 2. Describe all construction arbitration claims and any construction or project litigation in which you have been a party in the last five years. 3. Identify all public projects you have had with the City of Scandia or New Scandia Township in the last 5 years. 4. In the last five years has a bonding company ever refused to issue you a performance bond? If yes, explain the circumstances. 5. In the last five years have any claims been filed against a performance or payment bond that you have provided a public entity? If yes, explain the circumstances. 6. In the last five years, has your firm or any of its owners or employees been fined by a federal or state agency for a contract or workplace matter(such as wage or hour or 4 safety violations), or debarred under Part 29, Title 49 CFR or any other law from submitting bids on public projects? If yes, explain the circumstances. 7. In the last five years, has your firm or any of its owners or employees been charged or convicted of a crime involving the awarding,bidding or performance of a government contract? If yes, provide full details. 5 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: f) 3) City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Review draft fixed assets policy and give staff direction for any changes. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • The city currently lacks a fixed assets policy. The city's auditors have identified the lack of detailed capital asset records and policies on depreciation of those assets as a weakness in the city's financial management. Capital expenditures should be capitalized and depreciated over their estimated useful lives to conform with accepted accounting principles. • The draft policy, attached, was prepared by Treasurer Colleen Firkus after reviewing policies from other cities and with advice from the auditors. The policy has guidelines for establishing the value of existing and new capital asset purchases, their useful lives for depreciation purposes, and procedures for keeping the inventory up to date in the future. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council review the policy and give feedback and direction for changes. The final policy would then be brought back to the Council for adoption by resolution at a later date. Attachments/ • Draft Policy dated June 11, 2008 Materials provided: Contact(s): Colleen Firkus, Treasurer Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (draft fixed assets policy) Page 1 of 1 06/12/08 City of Scandia Fixed Assets Policy Approved by the City Council on , 2008 I. PURPOSE These procedures are intended to provide a standard system of control for all fixed assets owned by the City of Scandia. These procedures also give directions to City staff regarding the operation and maintenance of the Fixed Asset Control System(FACS). IL DEFINITIONS Ancillary Costs Costs, in addition to purchase or construction costs,related to placing a capital asset into its intended use or state of operations. Asset Life This is the standard estimated useful life of an item. To be considered a fixed asset, an item must have a useful life greater than one year. Asset Value This is the value of an item. The value will be based on the invoice plus ancillary costs. Buildings A building is a structure that is permanently attached to the land,has a roof,is partially or completely enclosed by walls, and is not intended to be transportable or movable. Certain buildings or structures that are part of infrastructure networks such as pumping stations may be reported as infrastructure rather than buildings. Building Improvements Capitalized costs that materially extend the useful life of a building or increase the value, or both, beyond one year. Building improvements should not include maintenance and repairs done in the normal course of business. Capital Assets Under the requirements of GASB 34, capital assets include land, improvements to land, easements, buildings, building improvements, vehicles, machinery, equipment, works of art and historical treasures, infrastructure and all other tangible or intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period (one year). 1 Capitalization Threshold The dollar value at which a government elects to capitalize tangible or intangible assets that are used in operations and that have initial useful lives extending beyond a single reporting period of one year. Depreciation The process of allocating the cost of assets over a period of time, rather than deducting the cost as an expense in the year of acquisition. Depreciation Method The method used to calculate the allocation (depreciation)of the cost of a capital asset over its estimated useful life. The most commonly used method is straight-line depreciation, which allocates the cost evenly over the life of the asset. Estimated Useful Life An accounting estimate of time period that an asset will be able to be used for the purpose for which it was purchased or constructed. Fixed Asset An item obtained by the city with a value greater than$5,000 and an estimated useful life greater than one year. A Fixed Asset may'or may not be a Capital Asset under the requirements of GASB 34. Full Month Convention Under a full month convention,property placed in service at any time during a given month is treated as if it had been placed in service on the first day of that month. This allows depreciation to be taken for the entire month in which the asset is placed in service. If the property is disposed of before the end of the estimated useful life, no depreciation is allowed for the month of disposition. Infrastructure Assets that are long-lived capital assets that normally are stationary in nature and can be preserved for a significantly greater number of years than most capital assets. They are permanent installations. Examples include water/sewer mains, roads,bridges, tunnels, drainage systems, etc. Infrastructure Infrastructure improvements are capital costs that Improvements materially extend the useful life or increase the value of the infrastructure, or both. Land Any parcel of land that is city owned whether developed or undeveloped. Include costs for initial acquisition, professional fees, demolition, interest, taxes, commissions, etc. 2 Land Improvement Grading,roads and parking lots on city owned land that will be capitalized. Inexhaustible—Expenditures for improvements that do not require maintenance or replacement, expenditures to bring land into condition to commence erection of structures, expenditures for improvements not identified with structures, and expenditures for land improvements that do not deteriorate with use or passage of time are additions to the cost of land and are generally not exhaustible and therefore are not depreciable. Exhaustible—Other improvements that are part of a site, such as parking lots, landscaping,wells, septic systems, walkways, driveways, fences and other man-made improvements are usually exhaustible and are therefore depreciable. Depreciation of site improvements is necessary if the improvement is exhaustible. Machinery& Equipment Includes motorized and non-motorized equipment that has a primary function or use for a city street,park, ice arena, fire fighting or utility maintenance, etc. It includes items such as tractors,mowers, and snow plows.This item does not include licensed, motorized vehicles. Other Improvements Other improvements not included in other definitions. Park Improvements Improvements made to a city park that will be capitalized. This category would include items such as playground equipment,back stops,bleachers, flagpoles, etc. Vehicles Motorized vehicles owned by the city such as trucks. III. CAPITAL ASSETS AND CAPITALIZATION THRESHOLDS A capital asset is real or personal property that has a value equal to or greater than the capitalization threshold for the particular classification of the asset and has an estimated useful life greater than one year. The city reports capital assets in the follow categories: Land/Land Improvements Buildings/Building Improvements Machinery and Equipment Vehicles Infrastructure Other Improvements 3 For financial statement purposes only, a capitalization threshold is established for each capital asset category as follows: Land/Land Improvements $10,000 Buildings/Building Improvements $25,000 Machinery and Equipment $5,000 Vehicles $5,000 Infrastructure $20,000 Roadways-Orig. Constr/Reconstr $50,000 Resurfacing/Re-ditching $20,000 Curbing $20,000 Road Under-drain $30,000 Sidewalks $20,000 Sewer Lines-New/Original $40,000 Pipe Lining $35,000 Corrugated Pipe $20,000 Services $20,000 Water Lines-New/Original $40,000 Hydrants(Lake) $20,000 Traffic Signals & Street Lights $20,000 Bridges-New/Original $50,000 Bridge Deck Replacement $25,000 Other Improvements $25,000 Other assets $5,000 Capital asset improvement costs should be capitalized if the costs exceed the capitalization threshold and either the value of the asset or estimated life is increased by 25% of the original cost,or the cost results in an increase in the capacity of the asset, or the efficiency of the asset is increased by more than 10%. IV. FIXED ASSET INVENTORY VALUATION AND CAPITALIZATION CRITERIA Capital assets should be recorded and reported at their historical costs, which include the vendor's invoice (plus the value of any trade-in or allowance, if reflected on the invoice) plus sales tax, initial installation cost (excluding in-house labor),modifications, attachments, accessories or apparatus necessary to make the asset usable and render into service. Historical costs also include ancillary charges such as freight and transportation charges, site preparation costs, and professional fees. For Fixed Assets that are purchased, the cost will be based on the invoice plus ancillary costs of preparing the asset for use. Trade-in values will not be used to reduce the carrying cost of the new asset. 4 Assets purchased under a lease or installment method should be valued at the discounted present value of total payments. Additional costs will include those necessary so the asset may be ready for use. Assets acquired by donation, cost will be fair value on date of gift and any costs of preparing asset for use. Property acquired under eminent domain will have a cost determined by the court plus any additional attorney fees, or costs associated with preparing land for intended use. Assets acquired by forfeiture/seizure are based on the fair value on date of forfeiture/seizure and additional costs associated with preparing the asset for intended use. For all fixed assets the ancillary costs of preparing the asset for intended use includes,but is not limited to, the following: 1. Land: Legal fees, appraisal and negotiation fees, surveying fees, site preparations costs, demolition of unwanted structures and damage payments. 2. Buildings & Improvements: Architect fees, legal fees, appraisers, costs of fixtures, damage claims, insurance premiums, interest and related construction costs. 3. Machinery, Equipment& Furniture: Transportation charges, installation costs. 4. Motor Vehicles: Transportation charges,painting and installation of additional equipment. It will be the responsibility of the department head to inform the Treasurer of any additional costs associated with an asset. V. ACQUISITIONS In 2008 asset listings were compiled based on a physical inventory taken by city staff. Enterprise fixed asset listings were reconciled to audit work papers. Values were determined as follows: 1. If traceable to audit work papers, historical cost or fair market value at the time received were used. 2. If not traceable to audit work papers, historical cost from City records, or land will be valued at County assessed value at January 1, 2008 When a department acquires a new asset, the department head is responsible for completing an "Asset Acquisition Form" and providing the Treasurer with the 5 Original. (An example of this form is attached.) Noted on the Asset Acquisition Forms should be the following: 1. Description: The description should clearly describe the asset, keeping in mind that this description will be used to help identify the asset in the future, without being too lengthy. 2. Acquisition Date: This is the date the asset was acquired. 3. Vendor: This is the name of the vendor from whom the asset was purchased. 4. Cost: This is the cost of the item. Cost will be based on the invoice plus additional costs of'preparing the asset for use. Trade-in values will not be used to reduce the carrying cost of the new asset. 5. Model Number: This is the model number assigned to the asset by the manufacturer, if applicable. 6. Estimated Useful Life: This is the standard useful life of the item. See recommended schedule in Appendix. 7. Physical Location: This is the intended location in which the asset will be used or stored. 8. Serial or VIN Number: This is the serial or VIN number assigned to the asset by the manufacturer,if applicable. 9. Expenditure Account: This is the expenditure account that the invoice for the asset is coded:to. This code will be assigned by the Treasurer and may be left blank by the purchaser. 10. Acquisition Code: This is the code which describes the funding source of the asset. This code will be assigned by the Treasurer and may be left blank by the purchaser. 11. Function Code: This describes the function of the department that owns the asset. Examples include general government, public safety, public works and parks and recreation. This will be assigned by the Treasurer and may be left blank by the purchaser. The acquisition form should be signed by the department head. The Treasurer shall add the new asset to the database. 6 The Treasurer is responsible for recording completed construction projects in the year completed. VI. RETIREMENTS When a department retires an asset or transfers it to another department, the department head is responsible for completion of an"Asset Retirement/Transfer Form". The Treasurer must receive the original. (An example of this form is in the Appendix.) The Fixed Asset Retirement/Transfer form should include the following information: 1. Asset Description: The description should be detailed and should include the year, model, model number, color,make,type and other pertinent information relating to the asset. 2. Department: This line refers to the department retiring or otherwise changing the asset. 3. Date of Change: This is the date the change took place. 4. Type of Change: The department head should state whether the asset was sold, transferred,destroyed or traded in. If SOLD the amount of the sale and copy of receipt of cash should be attached. If TRANSFERRED the name of the department receiving the asset and its new location. If TRADE IN the amount of the trade in allowance received on a new item. Description of new item that trade was applied towards. If DESTROYED the amount of compensation received from insurance, if the asset was destroyed as a result of an accident. A copy of the cash receipt should be attached. If the asset was destroyed please note how it was destroyed, examples would include junked, totaled in an accident, stolen, etc. The Asset Retirement/Transfer Form should be signed by the department head. The Treasurer shall update the database. Trade in value will be coded as a credit to the account; the gross cost will be coded as a debit to the account. By January 31 St of each year, the Treasurer will supply department heads with a preliminary worksheet of assets as of December 31 St of the prior year. Department heads will conduct a physical inventory of all assets. Each department will notify the Treasurer of any additions, 7 deletions, modifications or leases or property that have not been previously reported or are not reflected on the preliminary list. The City Administrator will review the results of the inventories and reconcile it with the appropriate accounting ledgers. VII. SALE OF ASSETS No assets owned by the city shall be sold to an officer or employee of the city unless the sale conforms to Minnesota Statue 15.054. Property, except real property, may be sold to an employee after reasonable public notice at a public auction or by sealed bid, if the employee is the highest bidder and is not directly involved in the auction sealed bid process. VII. DEPRECIATION Depreciation will be calculated using the straight line method over the estimated useful lives of assets. The full-month convention will be used to record the dates an asset in placed in service or disposed of(unless the asset is fully depreciated). The total amount depreciated can never exceed the asset's historic cost less salvage value. At the end of the asset's estimated life, the salvage value will remain. The following guideline will be used to estimate the useful life of an asset. See Appendix for recommended schedule. 8 APPENDIX DEPRECIATION SCHEDULE Buildings 15-75 years Buildings Foundation/Frame/Structure 40 years Buildings-Temporary 25 years HVAC Systems (a/c heating) 20 years Roof 20 years Electrical 30 years Plumbing 30 years Sprinkler System 20 years Security/Fire Alarm System 10 years Cabling 10 years Floor Covering(other than carpet) 15 years Carpeting 7 years Interior Construction 15 years Interior Renovation 10 years Fire Alarm System 10 years Telephone Equipment 10 years Machinery, Equipment, Radio 3-15 years Water Meters 20 years Business/Office Equipment 7-10 years Athletic Equipment 10 years Audio Visual Equipment 7 years Computers(monitors, CPU,printers) 5 years Radio Communications 10 years Fire Department Equipment 10 years Furniture 15 years Grounds Equipment—Mowers 10 years 9 Kitchen Equipment - Appliances 10-12 years Outdoor Equipment—Playgrounds 15 years Custodial Equipment 10 years Photocopiers 5 years Mounted Equip w/Truck Chassis 8 years Plazas and Pavilions 60 years Vehicles 3-12 years Cars & Light Trucks 3-8 years Heavy trucks (more than 13,0001bs) 8-10 years Fire Trucks 15 years Heavy Equipment-Loaders, Graders 5-50 years Boat 10 years Land Not Depreciable Infrastructure 20-50 years Sewer Mains, Lift Stations 50 years Water Mains 50 years Street Lights 30 years Wells & Pump Houses 25 years Roads & Highways 20-50 years (includes curb & gutter) Paved 30 years Asphalt (Rural) 40 years Asphalt (Urban) 20 years Non-Paved 50 years Public Parking Lots 15 years Sidewalks 16-20 years Sewer System (Storm & Sanitary) 20-40 years Water System 20-40 years Bridges (Pedestrian) 30 years Land Improvements 5-30 years Fencing, Gates 20 Years Landscaping, Ball Park 10-30 years Parking Lots 15 years Outside Sprinkler Systems 20 years Athletic Fields, Bleachers 10-15 years Paths and Trails 20 years Tennis & Basketball Courts 20 years Retaining Walls 20 years Outdoor Lighting 20 years Outdoor Equipment 20 years Benches, Swings, Slides 5 years Boat Facility, Piers, Ramps 25 years 10 FIXED ASSET ACQUISITION FORM Asset Description: Acquisition Date: Acquisition Cost: Vendor Name: Model No. Estimated Useful Life: Physical Location: Serial or VIN No. (if applicable) For Finance Dept Use Only Asset No. Asset Class: Expenditure Acct: Acquisition Code (D: Function Code (G, PW, PK, PS, RB, SR): Entered in FAC System? Yes No Notes: 1l FIXED ASSET RETIREMENT/TRANSFER FORM Asset Description: Department: Date of Change: Type of Change: Sold Transferred Destroyed Traded In If Sold, Amount of Sale: If Transferred, New Department: New Location: If Destroyed, Insurance Compensation: Description of Destruction: For Finance Dept. Use Only Entered in FAC System? Yes No Notes: 12 FIXED ASSET POLICY CODES Asset Class Land Buildings Machinery& Equipment Motor Vehicles Infrastructure Roads & Highways Land Improvements Other Improvements Function Code G = Gen. Govt. PW=Public Works RB =Road & Bridge PS = Public Safety PK = Parks SR = Sewer (or PW) Acquisition Code GF =General Fund CIP = Capital Improvement Fund PIF = Park Improvement Fund ERF = Equipment Replacement Fund GO = General Obligation Bond REV = Revenue Bond GOREV = General Obligation Revenue Bond EQ = Equipment Certificate LEASE = Lease-Purchasing Financing DON =Donations or Grants MN =Minnesota State Aid Fund UT= Utility Fund 13 Meeting Date: 6/17/2008 Agenda Item: a) City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Designate Paul Hornby as City Engineer to replace Tom Peterson. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: • Bonetroo, the city's engineering firm, has informed the City that Tom Peterson has resigned from the firm effective June 13, 2008. • They have proposed Paul Hornby replace him as our client services representative and City Engineer. • Their 2007 rates would continue to be in effect for the remainder of 2008. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council adopt the resolution designating Paul Hornby as City Engineer. Attachments/ • Letter dated June 9. 2008 from Mark Hanson, Bonestroo Materials provided: • Draft Resolution Contact(s): Paul Hornby, Bonestroo (651) 967-4625 Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (designate city engineer) Page 1 of 1 06/12/08 CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. 06-17-08-03 APPOINTING A CITY ENGINEER WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes require that cities make appointments to certain positions; and WHEREAS, on January 15, 2008 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 01-15-08-01, appointing an Acting Mayor and other city officials, including the appointment of Tom Peterson of Bonestroo as City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City has been informed that Tom Peterson has resigned from Bonestroo to take employment in another state; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does appoint Paul T. Hornby, P.E.Bonestroo to serveas Scandia City Engineer. Adopted by the Scandia City Council this 17th day of June,2008. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk/Administrator 2335 Highway 36 W St.Paul,MN 55113 Tel 651-636-4600 Fax 651-636-1311 www.bonestroo.com June 9, 2008 43° Bonestroo Ms. Anne Hurlburt City Administrator City of Scandia 14727 209th Street Scandia, Minnesota 55073-0128 Re: 2008 Engineering Services Dear Anne: Tom Peterson, who has served as Scandia City Engineer for the last several years, has taken employment in Sacramento, California. We are very excited for Tom as he begins his transition. Tom will leave Bonestroo on June 13, 2008. To continue our services to the City of Scandia as your engineers, Bonestroo proposes to transition your general City Engineering from Tom Peterson to Paul Hornby. Paul Hornby has worked with several communities in Washington County, most recently as the City Engineer for Forest Lake, prior to the annexation of the former Township. We are committed to provide the City of Scandia with a high level of service and believe Paul brings the experience needed to meet your expectations. Similar to previous years we will perform an annual review at the end of 2008 to discuss the past year and how we can improve services for the incoming year. As part of the transition,we propose to maintain the 2007 rate schedules through the year 2008. We look forward to the opportunity to continue providing consulting services for your community, staff and Council and appreciate your time to discuss our consulting services relationship. If you have questions or comments regarding our proposed transition in Client Manager and City Engineer, please do not hesitate to contact me at(651) 604-4838. Sincerely, BONEST 00 Mark Hanlon, P.E. Vice President copy: Paul Hornby St.Paul St,Cloud Rochester Milwaukee Chicago Engineering Planning Innovation Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Act upon Citizen's Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Tiller Corporation Mining Project. Deadline/ Timeline: July 9, 2008 Background: • A citizen's petition was submitted to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB)by Scandia resident John Lindell, requesting that a new EAW be prepared for the Tiller mining operation. • The EQB determined on May 27, 2008 that the City of Scandia is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The City has 30 working days to make its decision, and then 5 working days to notify the petitioner and project proposer. • The City Planner(Sherri Buss of TKDA)has reviewed the petition and recommends that the City find the project to be exempt from further environmental review. The findings have been incorporated into a draft resolution for Council action. • Tiller Corporation has also provided an analysis of the petition from their attorney. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council adopt Resolution 06-17-08-04, exempting Tiller Corporation's mining operation from additional environmental review for operations proposed in the 2008 Conditional Use Permit. Attachments/ • Draft Resolution 06-17-08-04 Materials provided: • TKDA staff report dated June 11, 2008 • May 27, 2008 letter from Mn Environmental Quality Board • EAW Petition and supporting documentation • Excerpt of EQB Rules (Section 4410.1100)regarding petition process • Letter dated June 10, 2008 from Gregory E. Korstad, Larkin Hoffman Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (EAW Petition Tiller Mining Operation) Page 1 of 1 06/11/08 CITY OF SCANDIA RESOLUTION NO. 06-17-08-04 RESOLUTION EXEMPTING TILLER CORPORATION MINING OPERATION IN SCANDIA FROM ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR OPERATIONS PROPOSED IN 2008 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, Tiller Corporation operates a sand and gravel mining and processing operation and hot-mix asphalt plant located on approximately 395 acres at 22303 Maiming Avenue North, on property legally described as: The Southeast % of Section 7, in Township 32 North, of Range 20 West; and that part of the Southwest 'A of the Southwest 'A of Section 8, in Township 32 North, of Range 20 West, described as follows: Commencing at a point in the North line of said Southwest % of the Southwest % of said Section 8, 22 rods East of the Northwest corner thereof,thence West along said North line to the Northwest corner of said Southwest '/ of the Southwest '''A,thence South along the West line of said Southwest ''A of Southwest % to the Southwest corner thereof,thence East along the South line of said Southwest ''A of the Southwest % a distance of 42 rods to a point,thence Northwesterly in a straight line to the point of beginning; and also a strip of land 2 rods wide on the North side of said Southwest % of the Southwest %,commencing 22 rods East of the Northwest corner thereof and extending to the Northeast corner thereof. That part of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 7,Township 32 North,Range 20 West,Washington County,Minnesota,described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said South Half, thence Easterly along the North line of said South Half a distance of 1223.40 feet to the point of beginning;thence Southerly,parallel with the West line of said South Half,a distance of 1319.60 feet to the South line of said South Half; thence Easterly along said South line a distance of 1423.65 feet to the Southeast corner of said South Half; thence Northerly along the East line of said South Half a distance of 1317.76 feet to the Northeast corner of said South Half; thence Westerly along the North Line of said South Half a distance of 1422.96 feet to the point of beginning. Subject to 228th Street North along North line. That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter and of the South Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 7,Township 32,Range 20,Washington County, Minnesota lying easterly of the centerline of County Road 15A as said centerline is described in Book 312 of Deeds on pages 19 and 20. Resolution No.: 06-17-08-04 Page 2 of 4 Subject to County Road 15A. Subject to easements of record. The North One-Half of the Southwest Quarter(N 'A of SW 'A) and the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter(SE '/ of NW '/) all in Section 8, Township 32, Range 20. Except: All that part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter(NE ' of SW %)of Section 8,Township 32,Range 20,Washington County,Minnesota lying East of the centerline of County State Aid Highway No. 1 (Lofton Avenue). That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter(SE '/ of SW '/) of Section 8, Township 32, Range 20 lying West of the public highway as the same now runs over and across said tract, except the North 2 rods thereof; and that part of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter (SW '/ of SW %) of Section 8, Township 32, Range 20 described as follows, to wit: Beginning 22 rods East of the Northwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter (SW % of SW %);thence Southeasterly in a straight line to a point 42 rods East of the Southwest corner of said Southwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter(SW % of SW ''%);thence East to the Southeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter(SW % of SW ''%),thence North to the Northeast corner of said Southwest Quarter of Southwest Quarter(SW '/ of SW ''%),thence West to the point of beginning,except the North 2 rods thereof,said tract. Except: That part of the North 320.00 feet of the South 620.00 of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8,Township 32,Range 20,Washington County,Minnesota,lying Westerly of the center line of County State Aid Highway No. 1,as the same is now laid out and traveled,said center line is described as follows; Beginning at a point on the South line thereof distant 37.30 feet Westerly of the Southeast corner thereof(for the purposes of this description,the South line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter is assumed to bear South 89 degrees 38 minutes 18 seconds West); thence Northerly along a curve concave to the West,having a radius of 2864.81 feet and a central angle of 7 degrees 12 minutes 48 seconds,a distance of 360.67 feet,the chord of said curve bears North 14 degrees 39 minutes 10 seconds West;thence North 18 degrees 15 minutes 34 seconds West, tangent to said curve,a distance of 282.59 feet;thence Northerly along a tangential curve,concave to the East,having a radius of 1980.97 feet and a central angle of 20 degrees 29 minutes 54 seconds,a distance of 708.72 feet to the North line of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter,and there terminating. And lying Easterly of the following described line: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 8;thence Easterly along the South line of said Section 8,a distance of 1714.61 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence Northeasterly,deflecting to the left 83 degrees 54 minutes 52 seconds,a distance of 623.51 feet to the North line of the South 620.00 feet of said Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter, and there terminating. Also except: That part of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8,Township 32 N,Range 20 W,described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Section 8, thence Easterly along the South line of Section 8 a distance of 1714.61 feet which is the point of beginning of this description; thence Northeasterly deflecting to the left 83 degrees 54 minutes 52 Resolution No.: 06-17-08-04 Page 3 of 4 seconds a distance of 301.70 feet to the North line of the South 100 feet of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 8;thence Easterly along said North line a distance of 757 feet, more or less,to the center line of County State Aid Highway No. 1;thence Southeasterly along said center line a distance of 305 feet,more or less,to the South line of Section 8,thence Westerly along said South line a distance of 862 feet,more or less, to the point of beginning,according to the United States Government Survey thereof and situated in Washington County,Minnesota. WHEREAS, the site has been actively mined since 1966, and has operated under Conditional Use Permits granted by Washington County dated April 25, 1989, September 27, 1994, and March 28, 2000, when the County exercised land use authority within New Scandia Township. Permitted activities include the mining and processing of aggregate, the production of hot-mix asphalt, and the recycling of concrete and asphalt products; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) was prepared for this mining facility in 1987, and a second EAW was completed in 1999 for a proposed expansion of the facility; and WHEREAS, Washington County, the RGU for the 1987 and 1999 EAW's, made a negative declaration for each review stating that there was no need for an EIS, which declaration meets the requirements of Minnesota Rules 4410.1700; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) received a Citizen's Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Tiller Corporation Mining project; and WHEREAS, the EQB determined that the City of Scandia is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW; and WHEREAS, the City has carefully reviewed the rationale identified in the petition for additional environmental review; and has reviewed the Tiller CUP Application and supplemental materials describing the proposed operations, the 1987 and 1999 EAW's, related technical reports, and records of decision; and WHEREAS, the City has reviewed the mandatory and exemption requirements for environmental review listed in Minnesota Rules 4410.1000, subpart 5, 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600; and WHEREAS, the City has found that the nature, size, and depths of the proposed mining operations, including operations to mine into the groundwater and thereby create the proposed lake, are consistent with those analyzed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's; and WHEREAS, the City has found that the timing of mining operations, including the proposed mining into the groundwater and creation of the proposed lake are consistent with the phasing plan proposed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's; and Resolution No.: 06-17-08-04 Page 4 of 4 WHEREAS, the City has found that no substantial change is proposed in the mining or asphalt plant operations from those reviewed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not identified or addressed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's; and WHEREAS, existing groundwater studies for the Tiller Mine conclude that the impacts of mining into the groundwater will have a negligible effect on ground water tables and lake levels in the area; and that the potential impacts were evaluated in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's; WHEREAS the Tiller Mine operates under the required federal, state and local permits, and is required to meet these standards and maintain the permits under the Conditional Use Permit approved by the Scandia City Council in May, 2008; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SCANDIA, WASHINGTON COUNTY, MINNESOTA, that it should and hereby does find that the Tiller Corporation Mining Operations as proposed in its 2008 Conditional Use Application to the City, are exempt from further environmental review. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City will notify the petitioners' representative and the EQB of its decision within five working days of the adoption of this resolution. Adopted by the Scandia City Council this 17th day of June, 2008. Dennis D. Seefeldt, Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk/ Administrator Su TKDA Saot Cedar lStN 1500 Saint Paul,MN 55101-2140 ENGINEERS•ARCHITECTS•PLANNERS (651)292-4400 (651)292-0083 Fax www.tkda.com MEMORANDUM To: Scandia City Council and Reference: Tiller Corporation - Conditional Use Anne Hurlburt, Administrator Permit Application for a Mining and Processing Operation Copies To: Mike Caron, Tiller Corp. John Lindell, Scandia resident Proj. No.: 14059.001 From: Sherri Buss, R.L.A. Routing: Date: June 11, 2008 SUBJECT: Citizens' Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Tiller Corporation Mining Project MEETING DATE: June 17, 2008 LOCATION: Sections 7 and 8, Township 32 North, Range 20 West APPLICANT: Citizen Petition 30-DAY PERIOD: July 9, 2008 ZONING: Agricultural District, Shoreland Overlay District ITEMS REVIEWED: EQB transmittal letter, Citizens' petition and cover letter; Minnesota Minnesota Rules Chapter 4410 and EQB Guidance Documents for Environmental Review Environmental Assessment Worksheets 1987 and 1999 and related Groundwater Studies by Barr(1987) and Phannkuch (1989) Watershed District comment letters Tiller CUP Application and Updates (2008) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST: The Petitioners are requesting that the City of Scandia conduct an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Tiller Corporation's proposal to excavate below the water table at its mining operation near Lofton and 228th Street in Scandia. The petition was sent to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB), as required by Minnesota Rules. EAW's were completed for the mining operation in 1987 and 1999. Both resulted in a negative declaration (i.e., determined that an EIS not needed for the project). An Employee Owned Company Promoting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Scandia City Council Page 2 June 11, 2008 Tiller Corporation, Petition for EAW The EQB indicated that the City of Scandia is the appropriate governmental unit to determine whether another EAW is need for the proposed project at this time. Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410 govern the requirements and process for environmental review. The EQB is the clearinghouse for all petitions,but does not make any recommendations about the need for review. The City has up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) to make its decision regarding the need for environmental review. The City must notify the petitioners' representative and the EQB within five working days of making its decision. PROCEDURES FOR MAKING THE DECISION REGARDING THE NEED FOR AN EAW The procedures the City must follow in making the decision on whether an EAW is required for the proposed mining operations are set forth in Minnesota Rules 4410.1100. Key portions of the rules are as follows: • No final governmental approvals may be given to the project described in the petition until the need for an EAW has been determined. This would include approval of the Annual Operating Permit (AOP) for the mining operation. • A first step in making the decision is to compare the project to the mandatory categories and exempt categories for environmental review listed in the rules. If the project falls under any of these categories, it is automatically either required or prohibited. • Minnesota Rules part 4410.4600 exempts projects for which environmental review has already been completed from review. An except includes the following: Minnesota Rules part 4410.1000, subpart 5, addresses the circumstances under which a new EAW is required when an EAW has been previously prepared. It indicates that"If, after a negative declaration has been issued,but before the proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented, the RGU determine that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project or has occurred in the RGU's circumstances, which change may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not addressed in the existing EAW, a new EAW is required." • If the preparation of an EAW is not mandatory or exempted, the City would have the option to prepare a discretionary EAW,based on standards included in the rules. • The key issue for the Scandia Council is whether there is a substantial change in the proposed project that may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not addressed in the existing EAW's completed for the Tiller Mining Operations. The petitioners have identified what they believe to be the changes in the proposal and potential significant environmental effects. ISSUES IDENTIFIED BY THE PETITION The Citizens' Petition suggests that an EAW should be completed for Tiller Corporation's proposed mining operations for the following reasons: 1. Tiller Corporation has accelerated its mining timetable and is proposing to begin mining into the ground water during the next five-year permit. The petitioners assert that Tiller's current plan to excavate into groundwater now is a substantial change from its earlier proposal that was reviewed in its applications for County permits. • Scandia City Council Page 3 June 11, 2008 Tiller Corporation, Petition for EAW 2. The proposal to mine into the ground water immediately will expose local ground water and drinking water supplies to 20 to 30 years of mining and asphalt operations. The environmental concerns related to this exposure include the following: • The close proximity of the asphalt plant to the proposed lake. The asphalt plant includes fuel tanks and chemicals that could pollute groundwater. • Contamination from other sources is possible, such as fuel tanks and refueling from trucking operations or illegal dumping of hazardous materials • Mining could cause lowering of the groundwater that would affect nearby private wells and a German Lake. Past environmental studies have indicated that there could be impacts on the lake level ANALYSIS OF ISSUES RAISED BY THE PETITIONERS 1. Tiller Corporation has accelerated its mining timetable and is proposing to begin mining into the ground water during the next five-year permit. The petitioners assert that Tiller's current plan to excavate into groundwater now is a substantial change from its earlier proposal that was reviewed in it's applications for County permits. • The EAW completed in 1987 described Tiller's proposed timetable for mining operations, and indicated the following; o The Second Phase of mining would occur in 10-25 years (1997 through 2012) o The Third Phase of mining would occur in 25-35 years (2012 through 2022) o The timetable could vary, as the amount of material to be removed each year and overall in each phase would depend on market demand o The operations that included mining into the ground water and creation of the proposed lake were part of the phasing plan identified in the EAW. These activities were proposed to occur simultaneously--the mining activity within the groundwater would expand the pit and create the lake. The proposed mining into the ground water and creation of the lake were identified within the area proposed for mining in the Second and Third Phases of the mining operation, proposed to occur between1997-2012 and 2012-2022. The 2008 CUP permit application and CUP fall within these proposed time periods. o The EAW analysis of potential impacts of mining into the groundwater and creation of the proposed lake was based on the phasing plan described in the EAW. The Barr and Phannkuch analyses of potential groundwater impacts that supplemented the EAW were also based on the phases identified in the EAW. o The City's Hydrogeologist (LBG), other consultants and staff have reviewed the 2008 Tiller mining application and the 1987 and 1999 EAW's, and have not found any changes in the timing, nature or extent of the proposed mining activities and creation of the lake that would affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects, beyond those analyzed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's. Leggette, Brashears, & Graham, Inc. (LBG) noted the following in its review of Tiller's 2008 CUP application, "LBG has reviewed the sections of the EAWs that pertain to ground water, the other information provided to date, and the proposed monitoring plan that will be implemented as part of the CUP Application. With respect to ground-water, LBG agrees with the 1987 and 1999 EAWs regulatory findings and the negative declarations for an EIS." Scandia City Council Page 4 June 11, 2008 Tiller Corporation, Petition for EAW • The Petitioners' letter notes timetables for mining that were proposed in Tiller's previous permit applications to Washington County. However, timetables discussed in the County permits are not relevant to consideration of the need for a new EAW. The mining operations and timetables of concern are those that were included and analyzed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's. Conclusion: • The nature, size and depths proposed for mining operations into the groundwater in Tiller's 2008 CUP Application are consistent with those analyzed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's. • The timing of mining operations and creation of the lake proposed in Tiller's 2008 CUP are consistent with the phasing plan proposed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's. 2. The proposal to mine into the ground water immediately will expose local ground water and drinking water supplies to 20 to 30 years of mining and asphalt operations. The environmental concerns related to this exposure include the following: a. The close proximity of the asphalt plant to the proposed lake. The asphalt plant includes fuel tanks, refueling operations and chemicals that could pollute groundwater. • The asphalt plant operations and potential impacts were described and included in the 1987 and 1999 EAW analyses and the negative declarations. The 2008 CUP Application includes no substantial change related to these operations from what was analyzed in the EAW's. • The asphalt plant operates under MPCA permits. Tiller Corporation is required to store all fuels and chemicals in accordance with federal and state standards, and provide secondary containment for the asphalt plant. • Tiller Corporation is required to maintain existing permits and meet County, State and Federal standards under the CUP recently approved by the City of Scandia. • The 2008 CUP for the Tiller mine requires the asphalt plant to be located 100 feet from the shoreline of the proposed lake. This setback meets the requirements of the City's Shoreland Ordinance for structure setbacks from a Natural Environment lake, and Watershed District requirements for structure setbacks from high quality wetlands. Conclusion: • No substantial change is proposed in asphalt plant operations from those reviewed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's. Permits and safeguards required by local, state and federal regulations have not changed, and Tiller is in compliance with these permits and safeguards. The 2008 CUP requires that Tiller remain in compliance. b. Contamination from other sources is possible, such as fuel tanks from trucking operations or illegal dumping of hazardous materials. "The asphalt plant has fuel and asphalt mixing chemicals stored in 120,000 gallon tanks next to the plant. " Scandia City Council Page 5 June 11, 2008 Tiller Corporation, Petition for EAW • Trucking operations on the site were described and included in the EAW analyses. Operations proposed in the 2008 CUP applications do not differ in magnitude or proposed impacts from those evaluated in the EAW's • The potential for illegal dumping of hazardous materials on the site has not changed since the 1987 and 1999 EAW's were completed. • Tiller Corporation provides security on the site to prevent unauthorized or illegal activities, including the following: both entries are gated and locked after hours, and motion detectors are deployed in the plant area when personnel are not at the site. Staffing and security at the Tiller site is more regular and extensive than at other mining sites referenced by the Petitioners, where unauthorized dumping of bentonite is reported to have occurred. Tiller has also a completed an approved Spill Prevention Plan for the site. • The Petitioners' letter suggests that Tiller Corporation has fuel and asphalt mixing chemicals stored in 120,000 gallon tanks next to the plant. This assertion is incorrect. Tank sizes near the plant include 2-40,000 gallon tanks for asphalt cement; 1-20,000 gallon tank for asphalt cement; 1-20,000 gallon tank for recycled oil, and a 1,000 gallon diesel fuel tank. Tiller Corporation indicates that it fills the tanks to a maximum 90 percent of capacity. The secondary containment capacity exceeds the minimum requirements established by the MPCA. Conclusion : • The activities proposed in the 2008 CUP Application include no substantial change to site operations or change in potential for significant impacts from trucking or potential for illegal dumping of hazardous materials from those reviewed in the EAW's. c. Mining could cause lowering of the groundwater that would affect nearby private wells and German Lake. Past environmental studies have indicated that there could be impacts on the lake level • In 2006, Barr Engineering summarized earlier detailed analysis and reports on potential groundwater impacts of the proposed lake. The conclusions are as follows: "In 1987, it was assumed that over the 30-year duration of the pit expansion, a 50-acre lake would be created with a maximum depth of 45 feet. The report (Barr, 1987) concluded that an equivalent groundwater pumping rate caused by the withdrawal of gravel from below the water table would have a negligible long-term effect on the water table." "Calculations done in 1987 predicted that the maximum drawdown would be 1.3 feet at the nearest residential well and .5 feet at German Lake. The maximum increase in water table levels were predicted to be 0.04 feet at German Lake and 0.05 feet at the nearest residential well. In 2006, Barr also noted that the 1987 peak groundwater pumping rate (233 gallons per minute), used to develop the estimates above, was likely high, because it included the assumption that the gravel material would not drain substantially as it is removed from the pit. It suggested the actual pumping rate is much lower (about 25 gpm), and Scandia City Council Page 6 June 11, 2008 Tiller Corporation, Petition for EAW therefore the potential drawdown impacts are likely to be lower than predicted in 1987. • LBG provided the following analysis related to impacts of mining on groundwater in the review of the 2008 Tiller CUP application, "LBG has reviewed the available information from Barr Engineering, Emmons & Olivier Resources, and Sunde in regards to German Lake and the potential impact to this lake as a result of mining below the water table. LBG agrees with the conclusions presented in these documents that withdrawl of gravel below the water table will have a negligible long-term effect on the water table and German Lake. This conclusion is based on the hydrogeology of German Lake and the surrounding area. This lake and other shallow wetlands in the area are created by surface water runoff and shallow ground water that remain suspended or perched above the regional water table aquifer. Clay layers above the water are typically responsible for creating these perched features, which are not hydraulically connected to underlying water table aquifer. Tiller has a proposed a monitoring plan that be able to address any potential impact to the water table and German Lake. Conclusion: • Existing groundwater studies for the Tiller Mine conclude that the impacts of mining into the groundwater will have a negligible effect on ground water tables in the area and on lake levels. The potential impacts were evaluated in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's were identified, and no new impacts were identified when the research was reviewed in 2006. • The 2008 CUP includes requirements for creation and implementation of a ground water monitoring plan. Implementation of this plan will provide ongoing information related to the impacts of the mining operation on groundwater resources in the area. The results of the monitoring will be available to the City when it reviews the Annual Operating Permit for the Tiller Mine. • Braun Intertec has installed the four new monitoring wells, two at the Tiller site and two at the Dresel site, as required in the 2008 CUPs approved by the City. Braun also completed two soil borings at the Tiller site. Readings from the new monitoring wells and borings confirm the depth and direction of groundwater flow described in the Phannkuch and Barr reports that were part of the 1987 EAW analysis and further defines groundwater relationships to German Lake. STAFF FINDINGS Staff reviewed the issues raised by the Petitioners, the 1987 and 1999 EAWs, associated research reports, and the 2008 Tiller CUP application. The Staff find that the phasing plan for the mining operation and creation of the pond, as well as the nature and extent of the related operations on the site, have not changed from those reviewed in the EAW's. Staff find that no substantial change has been made in the proposed project or has occurred in the RGU's circumstances, which would affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not addressed in the existing EAW." Therefore, staff recommend that the project is exempt from further environmental review, based on Minnesota Rules 4410. Scandia City Council Page 7 June 11, 2008 Tiller Corporation, Petition for EAW ACTION REQUESTED: Staff request that the Council review the petition, this report, and take action on the proposed resolution finding that the project is exempt from further environmental review. The City will notify the petitioner's representative and the EQB within five working days of the Council decision. `^�NNESOT 0%12 RECEIVED MAY 2 8 2008 Environmental Quality Beard CITY OF SCANDIA 658 CEDAR STREET ST PAUL, MN 55155 PHONE: 65 1-297-1 257 FAX 65 I-296-3698 r May 27, 2008 rr: 800-627-3529 WWW.EOB.STATE.MN.US Ms. Anne Hurlburt, Administrator City of Scandia 14727 209th Street North Scandia, Minnesota 55073 RE: Citizens' Petition for an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Tiller Corporation Mining project Dear Ms. Hurlburt: The Environmental Quality Board (EQB)has received a petition requesting that an EAW be prepared on the project described in the petition, and has determined that the City of Scandia is the appropriate governmental unit to decide the need for an EAW. The requirements for environmental review, including the preparation of an EAW, can be found in the Minnesota Rules, chapter 4410. These rules and various guidance documents are available at our website, www.eqb.state.mn.us. The procedures to be followed in making the EAW decision are set forth in part 4410.1100. Key points in the procedures include: 1. No final government approvals may be given to the project described in the petition, nor may construction on the project be started until the need for an EAW has been determined. Project construction includes any activities which directly affect the environment, including preparation of land. If the decision is to prepare an EAW, approval must be withheld until either a Negative Declaration is issued or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is completed (see part 4410.3100, subpart 1.) 2. A first step in making the decision regarding the need for an EAW would be to compare the project to the mandatory EAW, EIS and Exemption categories listed in parts 4410.4300, 4410.4400, and 4410.4600, respectively. If the project should fall under any of these categories, environmental review is automatically required or prohibited. If this should be the case, proceed accordingly. In this case, please also see part 4410.1000, subpart 5, which addresses the circumstances ' under which a new EAW is required when an EAW has previously been prepared. kynai roes 3. If preparation of an EAW is neither mandatory nor exempted, the City has the option to prepare an EAW. The standard to be used to decide if an EAW should be done is given in part 4410.1100, subp. 6. Note that this requires that a record of decision including specific findings of fact be maintained. 4. You are allowed up to 30 working days (Saturdays, Sundays and holidays do not count) for your decision if it will be made by a council, board, or other body which meets only periodically, or 15 working days if it will be made by a single individual. You may request an extra 15 days from EQB if the decision will be made by an individual. 5. You must notify, in writing, the petitioners' representative and the EQB of your decision within five working days. I would appreciate your sending a copy of your record of decision on the petition along with notification of your decision for our records. This is not required, however. 6. If for any reason you are unable to act on the petition at this time (e.g., no application has yet been filed or the application has been withdrawn), the petition will remain in effect for a period of one year, and must be acted upon prior to any final decision concerning the project identified in the petition. Notice of the petition and its assignment to your unit of government will be published in the EQB Monitor on June 2, 2008. If you have any questions or need any assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 651/ 201-2476. Sincerely, Gregg Downing Environmental Review Coordinator cc: John Lindell, petitioners' representative May 20, 2008 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Room 300 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Citizen's Petition for Environmental Review - Tiller Mining Dear Members of the Board and Staff, With this letter I am requesting that the EQB evaluate this petition and recommend to the City of Scandia to conduct an environmental review of a proposal by Tiller Corporation (Tiller) to mine into the groundwater next to an operating asphalt plant. In accordance with the EQB's instructions for submitting a citizen's petition for environmental review, I am providing a project description, and the project's potential environmental effects. I also submit additional historical background and discussion of Scandia's Authority. History Tiller has been operating a mining operation in Scandia, Minnesota since before 1987. The operation has been mining sand and gravel for commercial purposes and also has an asphalt plant operating within the mine. Prior to January 1, 2007, Washington County was the RGU and primary regulator of the Scandia mining and asphalt operation. As of January 1, 2007, Scandia became a City and assumed the role of primary oversight including permitting of the mining and asphalt operation. While Washington County had jurisdiction over the Tiller operation, Tiller would obtain 5-year operating permits. Since 1987, Tiller had submitted its mining plan for the next five years and also noted that it planned to mine into the ground water at the end of the mine's useful life - currently projected to be 20 to 30 years from today. In approximately 2005, at the time of Tiller's required 5-year renewal of its permit, Tiller proposed to begin mining into the ground water during the next five year operating permit. Washington County studied this proposal for one and a half years and never authorized the groundwater mining. Scandia was incorporated in January 2007. A new mining ordinance was not established until September 2007. Tiller and other mining operators operated with no permits or authorization in Scandia because there were no ordinances governing their operation in 2007. Tiller has proposed now, to mine into the groundwater rather than wait until the end of the mining period. Scandia has been advised by Tiller that there is no obligation to conduct any further environmental review because there has been EAW's conducted in 1987 and again in 1999 when the mine expanded by more than 40 acres. There has never been an environmental evaluation of the current proposal to mine into the groundwater immediately and expose Scandia's drinking water supply for the next 20 to 30 years of mining and asphalt operations. Project Description The project proposal of concern, based on Tiller's mining proposal to Scandia, is to begin mining sand and gravel below the groundwater table in 2008 and continue to do so over the next 20 - 30 years. Tiller would use a dragline to excavate below the groundwater table and extract sand and gravel and pile it up above the ground water to allow for it to drain the water out before processing it further. Tiller proposes that it will create a 50 acre lake within its 400 acre mining property. The lake is proposed to be approximately 40 feet deep. Project's Potential Environmental Effects There are three primary environmental concerns associated with the groundwater mining in Scandia. First, there is the concern of exposing the groundwater and residents drinking water to contamination due to the close proximity of the asphalt plant. Tiller has not stated the distance it would set back the asphalt plant from the shore of the created lake. Further, drainage from heavy rains would naturally flow down into the lake from the asphalt plant. In previous years of heavy rain, the mine floor was largely covered by water and had to be pumped up to a holding pond to allow continued excavation. The asphalt plant has fuel and asphalt mixing chemicals stored in 120,000 gallon tanks next to the plant. Other fuel tanks are also located within the mining area. Second, contamination from other sources besides the asphalt plant are possible. Private companies truck away asphalt, sand and gravel that are not owned by Tiller and will have access to the mining area. Refueling of vehicles such as bulldozers, draglines, and trucks are also conducted within the mine. Hauling of fuel and possible overfilling of tanks near exposed groundwater, as has been reported at other Tiller operations, would expose the groundwater to contamination. Possible illegal dumping of hazardous waste could also happen in or near the new lake. Illegal waste dumping occurred in an adjacent mine in 2006 despite there being a locked gate to access the property. Third, possible lowering of the groundwater level could affect nearby private wells and a nearby shallow lake (German Lake) that is approximately one-half mile from the propose groundwater excavation. Environmental studies in the past, that were reported to Washington County, have indicated that there could be an impact on the water level of the nearby lake. Scandia Authority For Environmental Review According to the EQB the authority to require an environmental review is determined by the local government's procedures/ordinances not by State environmental review rules. See citation from page 6 of the EQB's document titled: Reviewing Petitions:A Procedural Guide for Local Government RGUs The authority for making environmental review decisions is determined by the local government's procedures/ordinances, not by state environmental review rules, and anyone making environmental review decisions other than the governing body must have a delegated authority to do so. Scandia's mining ordinance 103, Section 5.4 states: 5.4 A mandatory Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be required for development of a facility for the extraction or mining of sand, gravel, stone or other nonmetallic minerals which will excavate 40 or more acres of land to a mean depth of 10 feet or more during its existence. An Environmental Assessment Worksheet shall be required for any operation in which mining is proposed below the groundwater level. The City shall be the responsible governmental unit for the preparation of an Environmental Assessment Worksheet. (Chapter M.S. 4410.4300 Subpart 12.) In accordance with Scandia's ordinances, an environmental review is required for Tiller's proposal to mine below the water table despite Tiller's disingenuous statements that it has no legal obligation to do so because an EAW has already been conducted. Further, Tiller's current plan to excavate into groundwater now rather than at the end of the mine's life is a substantial change from its earlier proposal that was reviewed under an EAW. For these reasons, the Petitioners strongly urge that the EQB make a determination that Scandia should conduct further environmental review to fully evaluate the threats to groundwater contamination. Unfortunately, there is history in Washington County, Minnesota, and across the country of governments and businesses failing to protect the valuable water resources that citizens must use. Exposing the groundwater now and over the next 20 30 years rather than at the end of the mines operating life creates significant potential for contamination and risks the health and safety of residents who use the groundwater for drinking and other uses. Included with this letter is the Citizen Petition for Environmental Review. I can be reached at 651-296-6393 (w) or 651-433-2755 (h). Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Petitioners, John Lindell 11240 - 218th Street N. Scandia, MN 55073 May 23, 2008 Minnesota Environmental Quality Board Room 300 658 Cedar Street St. Paul, MN 55155 Re: Citizen's Petition for Environmental Review - Tiller Mining Dear Members of the Board and Staff, This is a supplement to the May 20, 2008 Letter that I am submitting, requesting that the EQB recommend to the City of Scandia to conduct an environmental review of a proposal by Tiller Corporation to mine into the groundwater next to an operating asphalt plant. I would like to highlight the additional basis for requiring environmental review of Tiller's proposal to mine into the groundwater. Tiller, in two previous environmental reviews as required in accordance with EQB rules, had proposed to mine into the groundwater in the final phase, or at the end of its mining operations in Scandia. Tiller, in its November 2007 application for a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Scandia, projects that the mine will continue to operate for another 20 to 30 years. Enclosed with this letter are the cover page and selected pages from Tiller's previous applications for mining with Washington County and the City of Scandia. The February 2000 Application which was prepared in conjunction with the 1999 EAW, clearly states Tiller's previous plan to mine into the ground water during the final phase of mining at the site. The subsequent Application in 2005, which was never approved, and the November 2007 Conditional Use Permit Application demonstrate that Tiller has changed its plans to now begin mining into the groundwater. Tiller is proposing to begin mining into the groundwater beginning this year - 2008, rather than waiting until approximately 2030 to expose the groundwater and create a lake. This accelerated schedule to mine into the groundwater will expose the groundwater to potential contamination during the active mining and asphalt operations for the next 20 to 30 years. The additional 20 to 30 years of exposure to groundwater contamination from groundwater mining and asphalt operations 100 feet from the lake shore is a substantial change from its previous plans. In accordance with Minn. Rule 4410,1000, subp. 5, an EAW can be required notwithstanding a previous negative declaration of environmental review. Subp, 5. Change in proposed project; new EAW. If, after a negative declaration has been issued but before the proposed project has received all approvals or been implemented, the RGU determines that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project or has occurred in the RGU's circumstances, which change may affect the potential for significant adverse environmental effects that were not addressed in the existing EAW, a new EAW is required. Given the potential for accidental contamination and illegal dumping of waste, which occurred in an adjoining pit in 2006, further environmental review is warranted in light of the change in proposal to expose the groundwater now rather than 20 to 30 years from now. The Petitioners request a determination that a substantial change has been made in the proposed project and that a new EAW be required. Respectfully submitted on behalf of Petitioners, zze7- n, i cy John Lindell Petition for Environmental Review of Tiller Corporation Mining Into the Groundwater Tiller is seeking authorization from the City of Scandia to excavate below the water table at its mining location along Lofton and 228th Street in Scandia beginning in 2008. The following Petitioners request that the City of Scandia - the Responsible Governmental Unit to conduct an environmental review of this proposal by Tiller Corporation. NAME ADDRESS (-. 124..LL (.6/ 11.1)442CI it 9Fli_ /2-/VIA Si 5riii\LDO\ AAN/ rjr,t7 5 -1 fitc oc tt-c(1. i2/T , JCA 5 12 ( /7'7�A A-t../ ' C /k .. 5'e) 7 3 nJ o ,ar. c9(cOc( Lc - 7OP /IU l'- N' ScJGcc, (.1%c'- GVW c56 )3 0....-- 0 e .2t 5 ol i„ -Ffi Ali. Ni Sca.Kd�d MN 55' T3 t , 14-IL /Sby z ft,. Ave n1 i 5c.,Adi-diMN 550 if-Ai)}i Lrr -1 4231 6,6,(.- Gc,).` J)`-1/46 .�;N 3 ,41 afy` frt iv ).SG -, -.':', (r: . ("'- . e)5 ,216,60 L4,440,,, eve .r_4;r,c1 if//,' ,5o'23 i e)'.'‘,1A(' S.',.-4.---C<_(,) \ 1-2__L-i 0 - - �. swingy Ai iv 55 073 -4,A--- , g20 41 AA/a,— 1, - T A) c _5,-,--yoys_(!) /(11/:(4 ` 0?_ ` 7 - / j Is ;it!:ir', ) �`� _ ' L '-ls--t „%<.;77--1 %�zzz/7/ !4' 7i-t" -�'''s,cozy , r Petition for Environmental Review of Tiller Corporation Mining Into the Groundwater Tiller is seeking authorization from the City of Scandia to excavate below the water table at its mining location along Lofton and 228th Street in Scandia beginning in 2008. The following Petitioners request that the City of Scandia - the Responsible Governmental Unit to conduct an environmental review of this proposal by Tiller Corporation. NAME ADDRESS �� `` :Jail , .x t�y._ : 3 r l c ialliyi.c-.,n.r' h i EI.JU - _. ., .r r ,, ;., ` 7 1 z lrie,4,. �L ;�... - -1' //y y 3 3-)/ 4 iI C ( L I ; '1, , .,,) _ - f j 2 �4 i ? IL) ) / �' 72 i ,..,/,/ / i / __ _ , .4'4 /4-7`!--)ZILZ /&.-1 r Z.. q i 5 71 A SieA-.),-,/,, ,7,,) -.) ' ''7:-.-r- J , •\., /.0 , II\j A I( ( 6 , ...hikaett-- /- fi: hee.-)Z 2/,),,-,30 oxkio 2a-,-, , (.1)i _ , vReti 53-6 v7 Wtildt,i ettey(.114Q/363 Ott/ hl`d- / S(( CL, M 5667_2 /111110A PA <-(- L-./\,)/ 7,-, ft((.) . -9-)7-: I f� -:' IF1 P3 r''k i 109 (7Z 1 02- g'7!X. 577`: -52,44444:// -Lf(1- 55 --? / .. 1 ( ? , 1 H' e--r--- • 1 i 3)1 a i ph s± N- scc►ryk, Miu s OTC May 16, 2008 • Mike Caron Tiller Corporation P.O. Box 1480 7200 Hemlock Lane Maple Grove, Minnesota 55311 Re: Environmental Review of Mining Operation in Scandia Mr. Caron: This letter is to inform you that I will be submitting a petition for environmental review of Tiller's proposal to mine into the ground water at Tiller's mining operation in Scandia, Minnesota. The petition will be submitted to the Environmental Quality Board in accordance with their rules. Regards, John Lindell cc: City of Scandia { February, 2000 111 TILLER CORPORATION N APPLICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY PERMIT REISSUANCE FOR MINING AND PROCESSING NEW SCANDIA TOWNSHIP U. 111 1111 '— SUNDE ,• . 111 ENGINEERING, INC. 6 - - 7 D5 4200 West Old Shakopee Road, Suite 230 r ; Bloomington, MN 55437-2967 1, (612) 881-3344 • 111 -2_ 00D , 1111 storm water management ponds, as well as a variety of erosion control techniques. Ground Water Use: The site has a 16 inch well used to support the current operations. The well i$ 98 feet deep and is finished at an elevation of approximately 870. A Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriations Permit has been issued for the well. The well will be used to supply wash water to a portable washplant. Washing operations will require water use within the current appropriation levels which are 600 gpm and up to 20 million gallons per year. The washplant will discharge water into a series of sedimentation ponds. No chemicals will be used in the washing process. The ponds will be cleaned to maintain sedimentation efficiency. 15. Cross Sections A series of three cross sections are included as Sheets 4 5 and 6 The ,--- 111 cross sections depict the existing elevation, overburden final eleva ,extent of deposit, and the elevation of the ground water table. Thr e so 1 borings were drilled as part of the original permitting process. The •n borings were used in developing the site cross sections. 111 16. Processing areas: Processing areas are identified on the Site Plan, Sheet 2. 17. Access roads: Access Roads to the processing and mining areas are indicated on the Site Plan, Sheet 2. 18. Phasing: There are,essentially five phases remaining at the site. Each phase represents approximately five years of mining activity depending upon 6 aggregate quality and market demand. Mining into the ground water table �� is contemplated as the final phase of site activity. The sequence of v ;?-„ operations showing the approximate areas involved in the various phases of the operation are indicated on the Phasing Plan Sheet 3. r 19. Screening berms: The location of screening berms and overburden stockpile areas are indicated on t e asing Plan, Sheet 3. 8 i -1. APRIL, 2005 TILLER CORPORATION APPLICATION TO WASHINGTON COUNTY PERMIT REISSUANCE FOR MINING AND PROCESSING NEW SCANDIA TOWNSHIP Consulting Civil Engineers 1 I Sunde Engineering,PLLC. 4200 West Old Shakopee Road • Suite 230• Bloomington, Minnesota 55437-2967 Phone: (952) 881-3344 • Fax: (952) 881-1913 • E-mail: info@sundecivil.com i /4- .1- • On-site sedimentation pond • Regular maintenance of all site equipment. • Routine site inspections Proposed operations: Mining into groundwater Removal of aggregate into the groundwater is proposed as a part of this permit renewal. The creation of a groundwater lake was part of the overall plan for the site when it was initially permitted by the County in 1989. Mining into the groundwater will take place for three to five months per year. The material is stockpiled and allowed to dry for a period before it is blended with the material above the groundwater and processed. An area of three to four acres in size will be mined into the groundwater each year. The original EAW for the site prepared in 1987 examined the potential for significant-eenvironmental effects which may occur as a result of the creation of a groundwater lake. During this process, the County hired Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to perform a hydrogeologic investigation of the impacts of mining into the groundwater. One of the components of the hydrogeologic study was to determine the immediate and long-term impacts of development of p 50 acre surface water feature on the surficial aquifer and specifically on German Lake. The report indicated that the analysis used extreme values for proposed withdrawal rates. The analysis was based on an average dragline extraction rate of 200 cy/hour. Under ideal conditions, dragline production rates are predicted to be 150 cy/hour at this site. Extraction into the groundwater will occur for only three to five months per year. The Barr analysis also did not account for periods of disuse at night and during weekends or during the winter months when water levels are allowed to • rebound, further reducing the minimal impacts. Barr's analysis, using the extreme values, predicted a drawdown of 0.2 feet on the lake levels of German Lake. Evaluation of long term effects for both extremely dry years and extremely wet years of a 50 acre lake resulted in a range of fluctuations of the water levels at German Lake of-0.5 to +0.04 feet respectively. The study concluded that "the long term pumping rate will be far less than the peak rate analyzed above and that long-term effects of the pit • pYnanCinn will hp npnlinihlp_"I Protective measures, in addition to those outlined in the preceding section, have been or will be adopted at the time of extraction into the groundwater. These include: October 9, 1987. Study and Report on the Effects of the Expanded Development of the Barton Sand and Gravel Pit New Scandia Township, Minnesota, Barr Engineering, Co. Minneapolis, MN 's� November 2007 ifILLER ;a CORPORATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO THE CITY OF SCANDIA FOR MINING AND RELATED ACTIVITIES I astsramaim RECEIVED NOV 2 6 2007 41, Consulting Civil Engineers CITY OF SCANDIA 0, Sunde Engineering,PLLC. 10830 Nesbitt Avenue South • Bloomington,Minnesota 55437-3100 Phone: (952) 881-3344 • Fax: (952) 881-1913 • E-mail: info@sundecivil.com ,-; C L O. A plan for groundwater quality protection to include a minimum of three soil borings showing depth to groundwater. Protection of the quantity and quality of groundwater resources is vital. Groundwater is a valuable resource that is used as the source of drinking water to area residents. Additionally, groundwater interacts with, and plays an important role in sustaining, several high value surface water resources within s \the region. , Removal of aggregate into the groundwater and the creation of v, G ) b a groundwater lake was part of the overall plan for the site when � . it was initially permitted. Mining into the groundwater will take c) Ot place for three to five months per year. The material is __ stockpiled and allowed to dry for a period before it is blended J ' f f with the material above the groundwater and processed. An r — 1- area of three to four acres in size will be mined into the '`_�' groundwater each year. Environmental review evaluating the potential for significant environmental impacts as a result of mining into the ` , groundwater and creating the lake has been completed for e rr y �`'� site. Two Environmental Assessment Worksheets for the 10``Yi project which included mining into the groundwater table have been completed. The EAW's for the site examined the potential for significant environmental effects. This included effects from mining that result in the creation of a groundwater lake. During this process, Washington County hired Barr Engineering Co. (Barr) to perform a hydrogeologic investigation of the impacts of mining into the groundwater. One of the components of the hydrogeologic study was to determine the immediate and long-term impacts of development of a 50 acre surface water feature on the surficial aquifer and on German Lake. The,report indicated that the analysis used conservative values and neglected the water present in the soil voids. Estimated peak rate removal rates of 233 gallons per minute resulted in a predicted drawdown of 0.2 feet at German Lake. The report indicates that actual drawdowns would probably be less since excavation is not expected to occur constantly. The Barr report further determined that "the average withdrawal rate over a period of thirty years is equivalent to a pump removing 1.7 gallons per minute. Even if the entire pond area IN 8 • bYCcrpf /IN. 6/�iil�d ► �� 1 REVISOR 4410.1100 4410.1100 PETITION PROCESS. Subpart 1. Petition. Any person may request the preparation of an EAW on a project by filing a petition that contains the signatures and mailing addresses of at least 25 individuals. Subp. 2. Content. The petition shall also include: A. a description of the proposed project; B. the proposer of the project; C. the name, address, and telephone number of the representative of the petitioners; D. a brief description of the potential environmental effects which may result from the project; and E. material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. Subp. 3. Filing of petition. The petition shall be filed with the EQB for a determination of the RGU. Subp. 4. Notice to proposer. The petitioners shall notify the proposer in writing at the time they file a petition with the EQB. Subp. 5. Determination of RGU. The EQB's chair or designee shall determine whether the petition complies with the requirements of subparts 1 and 2. If the petition complies, the chair or designee shall designate an RGU pursuant to part 4410.0500 and forward the petition to the RGU within five days of receipt of the petition. Subp. 6. EAW decision. The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. In considering the evidence, the RGU must take into account the factors listed in part 4410.1700, subpart 7. The RGU shall maintain, either as a separate document or contained within the records of the RGU, a record, including specific findings of fact, of its decision on the need for an EAW. Subp. 7. Time limits. The RGU has 15 days from the date of the receipt of the petition to decide on the need for an EAW. If the decision must be made by a board, council, or other body which meets only on a periodic basis, the time period may be extended by the RGU for an additional 15 days. Copyright©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. • 2 REVISOR 4410.1100 For all other RGU's, the EQB's chair shall extend the 15-day period by not more than 15 additional days upon request of the RGU. Subp. 8. Notice of decision. Within five days of its decision the RGU shall notify, in writing, the proposer, the EQB staff, and the petitioner's representative of its decision. The EQB staff shall publish notice of the RGU's decision concerning the petition in the EQB Monitor. Subp. 9. Duration of effect of petition. If an RGU cannot act on a petition because no permit application has been filed, the application has been withdrawn, or the application has been denied, the petition remains in effect for no more than one year from the date on. which it was filed with the EQB. While the petition remains in effect, part 4410.3100, subparts 1 and 2, applies to any proposed project for which the nature and location is substantially similar to the project identified in the petition. Statutory Authority: MS s 116D.04; 116D.045 History: 13 SR 1437; 31 SR 539 Posted: August 21, 2007 Copyright©2008 by the Revisor of Statutes,State of Minnesota, All Rights Reserved. Larkin Hodfrnan Larkin Hoffman Daly&Lindgren Ltd. ./ ATTORNEYS RECEIVED 1500 Wells Fargo Plaza 7900 Xerxes Avenue South JUN , i 2008 Minneapolis,Minnesota 55431-1194 ([NEpAL 952-835-3800 CITY OF SCANDIA 952-896-3333 www.larkinhoffman.com June 10, 2008 The Honorable Dennis Seefeldt, Mayor City Council Members City of Scandia 14727 209th Street Scandia, MN 55073-0128 Re: Citizen Petition for Environmental Review Dear Mayor and City Council: This letter is written on behalf of Tiller Corporation, the project proposer for the Tiller Corporation Scandia gravel pit and asphalt plant (the "Project"). This letter provides comments on the Petition for Environmental Review of Tiller Corporation Mining into the Groundwater (the "Citizen Petition"), John Lindell's letter dated May 20, 2008 and John Lindell's letter dated May 23, 2008. Comments on behalf of Tiller Corporation support three conclusions with respect to the foregoing documents: 1. The Citizen Petition is deficient. 2. The Project is exempt from further environmental review as requested in the Citizen Petition. 3. The Citizen Petition and accompanying correspondence do not present a basis for requiring further environmental review of the Project. For these reasons, Tiller Corporation requests that the City of Scandia deny the Citizen Petition and direct that no further environmental review be performed. It is our request that the city dismiss the Citizen Petition and adopt findings and an order supporting that action as required by EQB Environmental Review Rules. The Citizen Petition is Deficient Minnesota Rules Pt. 4410.1100 imposes certain Content Requirements for a valid petition. This rule requires that a petition include all of the following items: 1. A description of the proposed project. 2. The proposer of the project. 3. The name, address and telephone number of the representative of the petitioners. The Honorable Dennis Seefeldt, Mayor City Council Members June 10, 2008 Page 2 4. A brief description of the environmental effects which may result from the project. 5. Material evidence indicating, that because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects. In addition to the Content Requirements, the EQB Rules also impose a Notice Requirement on petitioners. Minnesota Rules Pt. 4410.1100, subp. 4 requires that"The petitioners shall notify the proposer in writing at the time they file a petition with the EQB." The Petition Does Not Meet Content Requirements. In the petition you are now asked to consider,the Citizen Petition as presented reads as follows: "Tiller is seeking authorization from the City of Scandia to excavate below the water table at its mining location along Lofton and 228th Street in Scandia beginning in 2008. The following petitioners request the City of Scandia—the Responsible Governmental Unit to conduct an environmental review of this proposal by Tiller Corporation." This document arguably satisfies items 1 and 2 above, but fails to identify a petitioners' representative and presents neither material evidence nor even a brief description of alleged environmental effects. Accordingly, the Citizen Petition as presented could be dismissed because it does meet the Content Requirements described above. Petitioners Have Not Met Notice Requirements. John Lindell provided a notice to Tiller Corporation on May 16, 2008 that a petition will be filed with the EQB. Representatives of Tiller Corporation contacted the EQB repeatedly seeking to determine whether a petition had been submitted, but as of May 20, 2008 no petition had been filed. It appears that the Citizen Petition was not sent to the City until May 27, 2008. Accordingly, it is clear, that the notice of the Citizen Petition was not submitted at the time that petitioners filed their petition with the EQB. This could also be a basis for dismissal of the Citizens Petition. The Citizen Petition and Accompanying Correspondence do not Present a Basis for Requiring Further Environmental Review of the Project. Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1100 subpart 2 requires that the petition include "material evidence indicating that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, there may be potential for significant environmental effects." If a project is not otherwise exempt from further environmental review, it is this material evidence and any other material presented that would be considered by the Council in determining whether the standards of the environmental review rules are met. These standards are set forth in Minnesota Rules Pt. 4410.1100 subp. 6: The Honorable Dennis Seefeldt, Mayor City Council Members June 10, 2008 Page 3 Subp. 6. EAW decision. The RGU shall order the preparation of an EAW if the evidence presented by the petitioners, proposers, and other persons or otherwise known to the RGU demonstrates that, because of the nature or location of the proposed project, the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. The RGU shall deny the petition if the evidence presented fails to demonstrate the project may have the potential for significant environmental effects. In considering the evidence, the RGU must take into account the factors listed in Pt. 4410.1700, subpart 7. The RGU shall maintain, either as a separate document or contained within the records of the RGU, a record, including specific findings of fact, of its decision on the need for an EAW. The Petition Does Not Present Any Evidence of the Potential For Significant Environmental Effects From the Project As quoted above, the Citizens Petition of itself presents no allegations of environmental effects nor evidence that any environmental effect from the Project would be significant. Because of this significant shortcoming, if the Project was subject to environmental review the Council would need to look beyond the petition itself to determine whether the petition standard has been met. The information in Mr. Lindell's May 20 and May 23 letters would be the type of information that would be considered. The May 20, 2008 Letter Does Not Present Material Evidence of the Potential For Significant Environmental Effects From the Project Beyond What has Already Been Considered in Previous EAWs. The May 20 letter identifies environmental concerns, but does not present evidence that these concerns rise to the level of a potential significant environmental effect. Thus even if the Project were subject to further environmental review, that letter does not present information sufficient to support preparing an EAW. That letter raises various items of concern which have been extensively reviewed by the previous environmental assessment worksheets prepared for this project and for which the RGU has previously concluded there were no potential significant effects: 1. Potential effects to groundwater quality were specifically addressed in the 1987 and 1999 EAWs. The 1999 EAW (Section 19b) highlighted the specific activities Tiller would be conducting to mitigate the potential for impacts to groundwater from site activities including secondary containment for storage of fuel. The presence of the asphalt cement used in the Project was specifically discussed. The exposure of the on site fuel storage and the asphalt plant to stormwater was evaluated in the 1999 EAW. (Section 20). Even earlier in the regulatory process, the 1987 EAW also identified stormwater considerations and stated that all runoff would eventually reach groundwater. Thus the issue of stormwater contact with site operations has been evaluated in both of the previous EAWs for this Project. 2. The presence of fuel tanks and fueling operations as well as the possibility of fueling accidents within the mining area was evaluated in the 1999 EAW including the discussion of specific mitigation measures relating to equipment maintenance. The Honorable Dennis Seefeldt, Mayor City Council Members June 10, 2008 Page 4 3. Use of third party contract haulers with access to the mining area was identified as a concern without elaboration, however it is clear from the permitting process that Tiller Corporation is responsible for on site operations regardless of who is the provider. 4. The possibility of illegal dumping is raised, however not information is presented that demonstrates that such an event is any more likely at the Project site. Such an event is not related to the Project, but may occur at virtually any location in the City. 5. Groundwater levels at nearby wells and German Lake have been extensively evaluated and the conclusion of these studies has been that there will be a negligible long term effect on the water table and German Lake. The May 20 letter leaves a false impression that previous environmental studies have concluded that the facility may have an impact on the water level of German Lake notwithstanding that the previous environmental reviews conducted for this very Project have reached a contrary conclusion. 6. Alleged revisions of the mining plan to accelerate excavation below groundwater elevations however the timing issue was fully discussed in both of the previous EAWs for the Project. It is important to note that the petitioners and Mr. Lindell's May 20 and May 23 letters have both failed to describe any potential significant effect from the timing of the mine sequence. The May 23, 2008 Letter Does Not Present Evidence of the Potential For Significant Environmental Effects From the Project The May 23, 2008 letter is wrong in its assertion that the 1999 EAW included a February 2000 application. Similarly, that letter does not provide any material evidence to support the unfounded allegations of environmental effects. The 1999 EAW describes mining in the groundwater as a component of the Project and discusses mitigation activities to be implemented. No information is presented in the Petition or Mr. Lindell's letters to support the conclusion that the potential for environmental effects is in any way related to timing or duration of the mining activity. No Substantial Change has occurred in the Project. The 1987 EAW describes the area of the project where the water body would be created as encompassing all three phases of mining. Thus the length of time of exposure of groundwater to the asphalt plant as considered in the 1987 EAW is more extensive than what is being considered now. The 1999 EAW described the mining limits as currently used and as intended in the current application as approved by the City. This EAW also described the proposed water body as essentially the same then as it is planned to be now. The Honorable Dennis Seefeldt, Mayor City Council Members June 10, 2008 Page 5 The Project is Exempt. Minnesota Rules, Pt. 4410.4600, subp. 2 provides the circumstances in which a Project is exempted from further environmental review. These include: 1. Projects for which all governmental decisions have been made. 2. Projects for which a substantial portion of the project has been completed and an EIS would not influence remaining construction. 3. Projects for which environmental review has already been completed. Each of these three exemptions is applicable to the current Project. The Tiller mining facility was begun in the 1960s and continues to present. It has been permitted by Washington County and New Scandia Township since the mid-1980s. It has undergone environmental review in 1987 and again in 1999. It has also undergone two separate groundwater evaluations, one conducted by Dr. Olaf Pfannkuch, and the other by Barr Engineering Company. The Project, including mining into the groundwater, was reviewed in both the 1987 and 1999 EAWs which reached a conclusion similar to that found in the EIS documents prepared for similar projects. Accordingly, environmental review has been conducted for the Project described in Mr. Lindell's May 20 and May 23 letters. Conclusion. The City s i ould deny the itizen Petition and determine that further environmental review will not aid 1• permitf g pro ess nor will it add any additional public information not already kno plating t•/t - Project. V: y tray , ou"Of ,/ ref. , E. 4 r ad, or li Hoff. 'an Dal & Lindgren Ltd. Direct Dial: 952-896-3292 Direct tax: 952-842-1722 Email: gkorstad(larkinhoffinan.com Enclosure 1204498.1 ti June 13, 2008 Ms. Anne Hurlburt City Council City of Scandia 14727 209th Street North Scandia, MN 55073 Re: Citizen's Petition for Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for Tiller Corporation Ms. Hurlburt and Scandia City Counsel: This is further information for your consideration regarding the agenda item on June 17, 2008 for consideration of the above referenced Citizen's Petition. First, is a response to the Larkin Hoffman Letter dated June 10, 2008 on behalf of Tiller Corporation to the Scandia City Council. This Letter fails to provide any new information regarding your decision on the Citizen's Petition (Petition). It attempts to discredit and fails to offer any substantive arguments for denying the Citizen's Petition. The review and acceptance of the Petition by the Environmental Quality Board (EQB) substantiates the validity and lawfulness of the Citizen's Petition. The EQB determined that there was sufficient evidence to support the Citizen's Petition and that it was lawfully submitted. Mr. Korstad of Larkin Hoffman attempts to discredit the validity of the Petition and suggest that the City of Scandia should make a ruling to that effect. Mr. Korstad's arguments are misplaced. Any issues of lawfulness of the Petition should have been presented to the EQB, not Scandia. The EQB, found the Petition to be lawful and not deficient as to form or content and therefore the Petition is validly before the City of Scandia for a determination to rule on the arguments and recommendation for an EAW in the Petition. Further, the EQB has made a preliminary determination that there has been a substantial change in the proposed project in accordance with Minn. Rule 4410.1000, subp. 5 otherwise it would not have forwarded the Petition to Scandia. Second, both the Larkin Letter and the analysis of issues by TKDA are incorrect in stating that the current proposal in Tiller's CUP are consistent with previous EAWs conducted for the Scandia mining and asphalt site. A major change has occurred in that the timing of the excavation below the water table to begin in 2008 rather than in 20 to 30 years. If the excavation into the groundwater is approved now, during the next 20 to 30 years, the groundwater will be openly exposed to asphalt and mining operations, illegal hazardous waste dumping, and any other waste that may be washed down the slopes and into the lake on the Scandia site. TKDA concludes at page 4 of its Report that the timing of the creation of a lake in the 2008 CUP are consistent with the phasing plan proposed in the 1987 and 1999 EAW's. This is completely false. A 20 - 30 year difference in the timing of the excavation can hardly be considered consistent and would allow 20 - 30 years of exposure to contamination of the ground water with active asphalt and mining operations occurring all around the exposed groundwater. Third, there may be a misperception that the work of the Hydrologist that Scandia authorized has accomplished the results that an EAW would accomplish. If that were the case then Tiller would not have been so vehemently opposed to an EAW. An EAW provides a far more thorough analysis and consideration of the potential for significant adverse environmental effects than the simple review of Tiller's proposed CUP and the previous EAW's conducted for this site. An EAW would formally alert other State and County agencies that this proposal was being made and they are offered the formal opportunity make their concerns known. Primarily, the Dept. of Health, the DNR and the MPCA are put on formal notice through the publishing in the EQB Monitor that a proposed project may have harmful environmental effects and they can bring their expertise to the table to provide guidance to Scandia as the RGU. The Hydrologist inappropriately stated in his earlier presentation that his discussion with a MPCA Staff person did not raise any concerns regarding Tiller's proposal. Such a discussion should carry no weight in consideration of this matter because a MPCA Staff person's opinion is not the official opinion of the MPCA. Another benefit of the EAW process is that citizens and any other concerned entity can ask questions, such as those I submitted to Tiller's representative in March 2008. An EAW would require that all questions be answered not ignored as has been done thus far. Finally, I would advise the City of Scandia that Tiller, which has represented that it has taken exceptional precautions to protect the environment, has failed in that respect at its site in Maple Grove. Along with this letter I am submitting an MPCA report that identifies a spill of 400 gallons that occurred on Tiller's site in Maple Grove in April 2007. This demonstrates one thing - that despite all the good intentions of a company or person to be careful, accidents do happen. A spill in the Scandia mine near or in the exposed groundwater could have a significant harmful environmental impact on Scandia's valuable water resources. For the foregoing reasons the recommendations of TKDA and Larkin should be rejected. The Citizens recommend that an EAW be required to consider the potential harmful environmental impacts from excavating into the groundwater in Scandia. Respectively submitted, John Lindell Apr 30 2007 10 01AM BCA No 6740 P 1/2 Department of Pubic safety••Division of Emergency Management STATE OF MINNESOTA 444 Cedar St. Salle St.Paul.MN Ss101 MINNESOTA DUTY OFFICER Report it: 88504 Report Date;4/30/2007 Report Time: 9 08 DO#: 33 ! , CALLER INFORMATION 1 Contact: Paul Schultz Company:Tiller Corp Address: 7200 Hemlock Lane City Maple Grove State: MN Zip 55311- Phone• (763)315-6010 Ext: Alt phone:(612) 554-9299 Ext: Have local police and/or fire been notified? NARRATIVE I Caller reporting spill that occurred over the weekend;encountered spill at 7:00 this morning. Not sure if vandals came in and dislodge plug on fuel tank or if it got dislodged when the subcontractors were power washing equipment over the weekend. They are excavating and stockpiling spill and will do a confirmation sampling. INCIDENT REPORT: SPILLS RESPONSIBLE PARTY/PROPERTY OWNER Contact: Paul Schultz Company: Tiller Corp. Address: 7200 Hemlock Lane City: Maple Grove . State: MN Zip 55311- Phone: (763) 315-6010 Ext: . Alt phone: (612)554-9299 Ext: i SPILL INFORMATION Material: DIESEL FUEL Quantity. est. 400 gallons Incident date: - Time: Is the spill ongoing SPILL LOCATION Name: Pit 711- Gravel Pit Address: City MAPLE GROVE County: HENNEPIN Township: Released to: Soil Spill area: Industrial Have any sewers been impacted? no Surface waters impacted? no If A S.T. is involved, is there secondary containment around the tank Type: ' Kind of spill: SPILURELEASE Has the material escaped the location property? No Has the released material been contained? Yes' Is this a SARA Title,Section 304 release No Is a CAT/ERT being requested? No ANY QUESTIONS • PLEASE CONTACT THE MN DUTY OFFICER AT 651-649-545/ OR 800-422-0798 Apr 30 2007 10 O1AM gCA No 6740 P. 2/2 in Out. Link Date Time Agency: County' Method of Cont ❑ 0 0 4/30/2007 9.39 MPCA Region 3 Fax Narrative' In Out Link Date: Time• Agency' County. Method of Cont ❑ ® ❑ 4/302007 9 39 MPCA Metro Fax Narrative In: Out: Link: Date: Time: Agency County: Method of Cont D 0 0 4/30/2007 9.39 HENNEPIN Fax Narrative. 1 I{ ' , 1 I � � 1 ' 1 i ANY QUESTIONS- PLEASE CONTACT THE MN DUTY OFFICER AT 651-649-5451 OR 800-422-0798 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: rC r City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Discussion of issues concerning Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) (requested at June 3, 2008 meeting.) CMSCWD District Administrator will be present to answer questions. Deadline/ Timeline: N/A Background: "WMO"versus "WSD" • Minnesota state law (Mn. Stat. 103B.231) requires watershed planning in the 7-county Metropolitan Area (originally adopted in 1982 as part of the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act.) The law allowed three options: the county could prepare the plan, or it could be prepared by a "minor watershed unit"that could take the form a joint powers organization (often referred to as a "WMO") or a watershed district ("WSD".) • Key differences between a WMO and a WSD: > WMOs require a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) of the Local Governmental Units (LGUs) for operating authority. > WSDs are separate units of local government, with authority established by state law and no accountability to the LGUs. > WMO board members are appointed by the LGUs so local elected officials have control over both the budget and the appointees. > WSD board members are appointed by the county board but the county has no authority over their budget and tax levy. > Taxes funding WMO operations are levied by the LGU are spread across the entire LGU and not just the benefited area. This "tax" is a line item in the LGU's budget and it doesn't show up as a line item on property tax statements. > Taxes funding WSD operations are separate tax levies that show up on property tax statements as special taxing Page 1 of 3 06/11/08 districts. • Property owners in the area added to the CMSCWD in 2007 saw the WSD levy on their tax bills for the first time in 2008. This and has precipitated several questions to Council members about where this "new tax" came from. • There was a bill introduced in the last legislative session by Senator Vandeveer to give commissioners some oversight on the watersheds activities but it didn't get a hearing. History of Water Management Organizations in Scandia • Until about ten years ago New Scandia Township was divided into three different primary organizations charged with managing water. They were: Carnelian-Marine Watershed District, Marine Water Management Organization (MWMO) and the Forest Lake Water Management Organization (FLWMO). Car-Mar covered roughly the SW part of the township with MWMO the SE part and FLWMO the north half(see attached map.) (A small area in the southwest corner of the city near White Rock Lake was and still is included in the Rice Creek Watershed District.) • An area in the northeast corner of New Scandia Township was not included in any of the water management organizations that were organized in the early 1980's. This was the"orphan area" recently incorporated in the CMSCWD. • The FLWMO was dissolved in 1999 and replaced by the Comfort Lake Forest Lake Watershed District which covered the NW part of the Township. • In the early 2000's Washington County proposed creating one watershed district for the whole county. New Scandia opposed this as not being in the best interests of our citizens as there was a high probability that we would not have a representative on the board and the probability of our tax money being spent in our area was not very high. Instead we proposed creating a new watershed district comprised of Car-Mar, MWMO and the "orphan area". • Washington County then proposed two watersheds in the county, one roughly north of Highway 36 and the other south of Highway 36. New Scandia again opposed this, and proposed the merger suggested in the above paragraph. • The two-watershed proposal was dropped and there was discussion among the four governmental units in the MWMO organization about dissolving the organization. This eventually came to fruition and Washington County petitioned the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) to merge Car-Mar, the MWMO and the "orphan area". BWSR approved the merger to create the new CMSCWD in 2007. Recommendation: N/A Page 2 of 3 06/11/08 Attachments/ • "What is a Watershed District?", Minnesota Association of Materials provided: Watershed Districts (MAWD) • Background on watershed districts from Washington County web site • CMSCWD contact information from Washington County web site • CMSCWD 2008 budget • Map of watershed districts in Minnesota(from MAWD) • Map of Former WSD/WMO boundaries in northern Washington County • Roster, CMSCWD Board of Managers Contact(s): Prepared by: Dennis Seefeldt, Mayor Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (CMSCWD background for discussion) Page 3 of 3 06/11/08 MAWD -- What is a Watershed District? Page 1 of 2 MAWD Minnesota_ iodation of t3'tiers fed Districts Home What is a Watershed District? What is MAWD? Watershed districts are local units of government that work to solve and prevent water- What's Happening related problems.The boundaries of the districts follow those of a natural watershed,and with MAWD? the districts are usually named after that watershed. What is a Watershed Because water does not follow political boundaries, it makes sense to manage natural District? resources on a watershed basis.This type of management allows for an overall, holistic Legislative Program approach to resource conservation. The MAWD Internet Minnesota's 46 watershed districts are each governed by a board of managers appointed Office by the boards of commissioners of the counties that have land in the district. Chapter 103D of Minnesota Statutes is the enabling statute for watershed districts. Where is my Watershed District? To form a watershed district,local residents,cities or county boards may petition the Board of Soil and Water Resources(BWSR).Watershed districts are formed for reasons Training Opportunities ranging from flood control to water quality protection. Watershed Districts in Watershed Districts are special purpose units of local government whose boundaries Action follow those of a natural watershed(an are of land in whichall water flows to one outlet. Minnesota Drainage All other government units,such as states,counties and cities have political boundaries. Waterlinks But water knows no boundaries-it goes where it wants to. • Watershed Districts are established when water management problems become • greater than one community,city can handle.Water management on a watershed Search basis is important for uniform and effective controls, not only to correct problems but to prevent them. GO • Watershed Districts were authorized by the Legislature in 1955 when it passed the r)Full Site Watershed Act, MSA103D.This legislation sets out the role and responsibilities for C)This section watershed districts in Minnesota. Search Tips • Watershed Districts are formed at the request of local citizens,county boards or Nionommonummommor cities by petitioning the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources(BWSR) Printer-friendly Version under the procedures set forth in the Watershed Act. • Watershed Districts are governed by a Board of Managers appointed by the Boards of County Commissioners.All watershed district meetings are open to the public. Watershed Districts in Minnesota... • utilize a variety of water management tools to meet their goals and purpose of their district • There are 46 watershed districts in Minnesota.They range in size from the Carnelian-Marine District with 43 square miles,to the Red Lake Watershed District with 5990 square miles. • The name of the primary lake or river in the watershed is usually selected as the name of the watershed district. Watershed districts in Minnesota... • Are partners in water planning and management with the state,counties,cities and soil and water conservation districts; • Are partners in wetlands protection and management with the state,counties, cities,and soil and water conservation districts; http://www.mnwatershed.org/index.asp?Type=BBASIC&SEC={1 F 1 ACEE4-3C71-468E-... 6/9/2008 MAWD -- What is a Watershed District? Page 2 of 2 • Conduct water quality surveys of lakes and streams within the district; • Monitor groundwater levels; • Manage draining systems; • Regulate,conserve and control the use of water within the district; • Provide for wildlife and enhance recreational opportunities as benefit of projects to improve water quality and provide flood protection; • Establish,record and maintain hydrological data; • Approve culvert size and placement in all roads of the district;and • Other projects related to meeting the purposes of the district. 540 Diffley Road St Paul,MN 55123 Ph (651)452-8506 Home I What is MAWD?I What's Happening with MAWD? I What is a Watershed District? I Legislative Program I The MAWD Internet Office I Where is my Watershed District? I Training Opportunities I Watershed Districts in Action I Minnesota Drainage I Waterlinks Duwsred b goQ http://www.mnwatershed.org/index.asp?Type=B_BAS1C&SEC={1 F 1 ACEE4-3C71-468E-... 6/9/2008 Washington County, MN - Watershed Districts Page 1 of 2 Washington ` :-�Countyk,. ' y:. 4$ ,. t.ie= t' ice .. �: " v;"� ' 44 asamsommiInfo for Residents Info for Business Things to Do Here Employment Opportunities Your County Watershed Districts Government Links Application for County Mission Appointment Advisory Boards Purpose: -Adjustment and Watershed Districts are established byWatersheds 1 petition to the Information Appeals Water Resources Board, pursuant to State Statute Chapter -Audit Advisory 103D, Watershed Districts. Its purpose is to carry out Pages Committee conservation of the natural resources of the state through -Child Protection land utilization, flood control and other needs based upon -Comm.Corrections sound scientific principles for the protection of the public Advisory health and welfare and provident use of natural resources. -Comm.Dev.Block Grant Watershed districts may be established for any or all of the -Comm Adv so Services following conservation purposes: Control or alleviation of ry damage byflood waters; improvement of stream channels -Family Homeless gP Prevention Advisory for drainage or navigation; reclaiming or filling wet or -Groundwater overflow lands; water supply for irrigation; regulating the Historic Courthouse flow of streams; diverting or changing water courses; Advisory providing and conserving water supply; providing for the -Housing- protection of ground water and regulating groundwater Redevelopment use; to preserve ground water for beneficial use; and other Authority purposes as set forth in state statute. -Library Board -Local Mental Health Watershed Appointment Process: Advisory The appointment process as stated in Minnesota Chapter Service 103D.311 provides that County Commissioners must select Parks-Open Space district managers from a list of nominees "submitted jointly or severally" by the municipalities that are wholly or -Personnel-Bd of Appeals partially in the watershed district. Such a list must be Planning Advisory submitted to the County at least 60 days prior to the expiration of term of office of a manager. If no list is -Pub.Hlth. submitted, the CountyBoard maythen Emergency appoint a manager Preparedness through its open appointment process. -Sentence to Service Advisory No person shall be appointed who is not a voting resident -Veterans Rest Camp of the watershed district and none shall be a public officer Association of the county, state or federal government, provided that a -Waste Management soil and water conservation supervisor may be appointed Plan Group as manager. -Watershed Districts -Workforce A record of all watershed district manager appointments Investment Board shall be filed with the County Auditor, Secretary of the Committee Watershed District Board of Managers, and Board of Water Vacancies and Soil Resources. County Calendar Performance Terms: Measurement-2006 Watershed terms are for three years. Watershed terms Performance begin on the day of the month on which the district was Measurement-2005 established. Residential Survey Results Location of Watershed Districts in Washington Land and Water County: Legacy Program Watershed districts located either partially or wholly within Washington County are as follows: IN Brown's Creek Watershed District (BCWD) II Carnelian Marine Watershed District (CMWD) http://www.co.washington.mn.us/info_for_residents/your_county_government_links/adviso... 6/9/2008 Washington County, MN - Watershed Districts Page 2 of 2 ■Comfort Lake - Forest Lake Watershed District (CLFLWD) ■ Ramsey - Washington Metro Watershed District (RWMWD) I Rice Creek Watershed District (RCWD) ■South Washington Watershed District (SWWD) i Valley Branch Watershed District (VBWD) III Water Management Organizations Home I Info for Residents I Info for Business I Things to Do Here I Employment Opportunities Department&Services Directory A-Z I Your County Government General Information Call:651-430-6000•(TTY:651-430-6246) Directions to Washington County Government Center 14949 62nd Street North•PO Box 6•Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 ©2005 Washington County.Security/Privacy/Accessibility Statement.Contact Washington County. http://www.co.washington.mn.us/info_for_residents/your_county_government_links/advi so... 6/9/2008 Washington County, MN-Carnelian-Marine Watershed Page 1 of 1 Washington ', Info for Residents Info for Business Things to Do Here Employment Opportunities Environment City&Township Watershed Districts and Water Management Organizations Web Page: Clean-up Events Carnelian Marine Composting&Yard Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Watershed District Waste County MN Association of Environmental President: Watershed Districts Charge This web site offers John Bower Environmental additional information Update Business Address: and links to an array of Food Safety 21150 Ozark Avenue N watershed-related sites& Green Purchasing PO Box 188 resources Groundwater and Scandia MN 55073 Surface Water Telephone: 651-430-2793 Hazardous Waste At Administrator: Businesses Jim Shaver Hazardous Waste At Home 21150 Ozark Avenue N Scandia MN 55073 Indoor Air Telephone: 651-433-2150 Lodging Manufactured Home Engineer: Parks Dan Fabian Pool Safety Emmons&Olivier Resources 651 Hale Avenue N Public Health Oakdale MN 55128 Nuisances Telephone: 651-770-8448 Residential Disposal Fax: 651-770-2552 Guide E-mail: dfabian@eorinc.com Septic Solid Waste Legal: (Garbage) Ray Marshall Sustainable Building Lawson, Marshall, McDonald, &Galowitz 3880 Laverne Avenue N Waste Management Lake Elmo MN 55042 Plan 2005-2024 Telephone: 651-777-6960 Watershed Districts -Brown's Creek Meetings: -Carnelian-Marine-St. First Monday of the Month Croix 6:30 p.m. -Comfort-Forest Lake Meeting Location: -Ramsey- Washington Metro Scandia Community and Senior Center Rice Creek 14727 209th Street N -South Washington Scandia MN 55073 -Valley Branch -Water Management Organizations Home I Info for Residents I Info for Business I Things to Do Here I Employment Opportunities Department&Services Directory A-Z I Your County Government General Information Call:651-430-6000•(TTY:651-430-6246) Directions to Washington County Government Center 14949 62nd Street North•PO Box 6•Stillwater, Minnesota 55082-0006 ©2005 Washington County.Security/Privacy/Accessibility Statement.Contact Washington County. http://www.co.washington.mn.us/info for residents/environment/watersheddistricts/camel... 6/9/2008 CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST.CROIX WATERSHED DISTRICT 2008 Budget Available Income Income Total Budget Item Prior Year Grants-Fees Tax Levy Budget Engineering 40,000 40,000 Administrator 80,000 80,000 Manager Expenses 15,000 15,000 Operations 33,000 33,000 Professional Fees 10,000 10,000 Subtotal Operating Budget 178,000 178,000 Carnelian Creek 10,000 10,000 Silver Creek 10,000 10,000 Channel Maintenance 10,000 10,000 Wetland Mgmt Plan 15,000 15,000 Met Council Outlet 4,000 6,000 10,000 Water Monitoring 70,000 70,000 BMP Program (resident cost share) 50,000 50,000 Long Lake Mgmt Plan 7,500 7,500 Sand Lake Mgmt Plan 7,500 7,500 Square Lk BMP 15,000 15,000 Goose Lake Implementation 10,000 10,000 Mill Stream Implementation 20,000 20,000 Rydeen Feed Lot, Lk Bmp 15,000 15,000 Falls Creek Restoration 5,000 5,000 Joint LGU cost share projects 20,000 20,000 Education & Outreach 31,000 31,000 Interest 1,000 1,000 Conservation Easements 10,000 10,000 Rules Update 10,000 10,000 Environmental Analysis 10,000 10,000 Plan Amendment/ Update 25,000 10,000 35,000 Subtotal- Projects 25,000 5,000 342,000 372,000 Total Budget Submitted 25,000 5,000 520,000 550,000 Summary Page 1 of 1 Minnesota Association of Watershed Districts MAWD THE TWO f. JOE RIVERS ROSEAU 1 I. RIVER RIVER jlr11111111111* 4 �MIDDLE-SNAKEIWAR OA )___-s __ , TAMARAC -- RIVERS { ((_ '-5 ( 'I 4-- ems. H—R -D- H SAND RIVE- WILD RICE •-- ;UFFALO-RED 4 THIRTY RIVER io LAKES Metro Area . `_.__. Watershed DistrictsTAP PELICAN -1. 1 7 RIVER 1 � CORMORANT �,,,-, k r 14 LAKES �'�` — 12 B I�DE 1 � SOUTH TWO 1 f � k. SIOpX i� c RIVER I� \, , lit i IL NOR H FORK .w CLEAR ATER Imo" CROW RN R Rry _ -- ` / 4 UPPER MN RIVER Np'� MIDDL jI — FORK 6" �•4147 CROW RIVER r — Imo- i-' ''fl� — 1 �__ j t.Minnehaha Creek 8.South Washington Nib BUFFALO I 2.Riley-Purgatory-Bluff-Creek 9.Valley Branch REEK _ i .Nine Mile Creek 10.Browns Creek .Lower Minnesota River 11.Carnelian Marine rig ____I s-\\,. __ r 4.- .Capitol Region 13.Coon Creek ! MEDICINEIS _� BELLE _ 7.Ramsey-Washington Metro 14.Comfort Lake- _ r,.BIVER 7 . , LAND L_ CREEK) ja Forest Lake KANA 21- T t ._ R VALLEY _```+ LITTLE,ROCK I — �L__ i � .__ ISHHEELL ROCK — — STOCKTON- - 1\ ROLLINGSTONE ;HERON CROOKED TURTLE CREEK MN CITY L . 14 ._ LAKE CREEK Y. OKABE NA- µtl`r� OCHEDA 6A6 �a tergoiI S tile >'d kAl ui d tot C 14 S C wD '-'j VVU1 i j http://www.mnwatershed.org/vertical/Sites/%7B8075FBF0-4136-414E-99AC-FC56C]4C0... 6/9/2008 ''.1. _ ...._,4, , \ t r , , : i I-- -c FORE,r ,==,4 , Iil It 0 --• L =L-4 F I.- 4 I - • 1/4 7 cp, - .' - ,0'--7,0 4t• , -, s----,,,I 't // i -• ! VI f ' t 0 p i -1,-.-r, ••''''r-- -1 , . ' ' In: . ,1/4 ,r ", I 0011,.;: ^! ''' .: 'Fb •,`-1.-"k/rifr NEW SF-8-7- D'(A, .. , / / • le414„ 41(10 %V ''' t ill— IV....A.-- . ,;. 1411 • /- / ,, • . i• WASHINGTON COUNTY ..1. _j_.. ,,,... *A._ • - - , .,•_ ..pumw- , • iv ....-„., itr.Af* in'l /.t4.....r..r... An „.-;../a,•),,7:'cr\fa; s/#r71"7,,,_-I,,,,.. ---I.(sivx'//i.1.,-,,4:1,;1•-',1:1-"•1 61c1.,. .-114--v"v11 10.. I1 lk1' WATERSHED i_ - . ORGANIZATIONS S I REST LAKE „lr a . .....4 v , go. VII / C 51 FLWMO FOREST LAKE W-A-T-ERS-FIED-- till • • ----] ' yi 00,.. - ,--, , ; ., i: 7-z- '..,-:-..4:4:,,,; -v-i L. ' ' :1,4 '' ..lif /,,z4i44" 1_ •. MANAGEMENT-GRGAMZATION \A)c-, vx 0,,....) .1 ....J-"• LI1= • I ,'1. 7 T CROIX o' ' i lir I MWMO MARINE ON ST. CROIX ii , I I 4 !--.. ';'-,..t:h t .-----........N1 o -- WATERSHED MANAGEMENT •:, it , '4) 11 . ORGANIZATION / -,,,,,x. it 1 441 J11.14% •toNi -,... 1;ii.- , m..... i d , — .A\t' ,s, iv . lt,..,, , , - r 1. . 0 . RICE CREEK WATERSHED RCWD . 1 4 r --1- ' •, = DISTRICT \-1_.), i .... --44.-. 2.1% ..I .. v..4 r---)) •••, ..: ... CMWD CARNELIAN-MARINE 21 r' WATERSHED DISTRICT P 4 hidi rii ) BCWMO BROWNS CREEK WATERSHED I, . ..... 7.747---- /I / MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION •,-r--- a.. op ria-p,\ . ::, 1 , , mscwmo MIDDLE ST. CROIX ... 4all• : g ; Tr-116==ll 1 1,41„ ______ . _._ A. , , WATERSHED MANAGEMENT t i ,,,, : s Ni. -‘/ '-', '+ ( -TI LW•11-i ...,- . ORGANIZATION -r 1 ' • . i2 - ,1.4, 0 \ , Fi, i ,0 7./ ..,... ‘•iti VBWD VALLEY BRANCH -7t....-„..__ _ - IVY _ la, 7 ip - ...: • •inh„,, % WATERSHED DISTRICT _"," .ro ,_., _.............„,,y..rt...... : 2 k LI!;'.t--'' ' rst, Viii4 '4</i1 STIL 1 ER -\ „ 1 .. . kPli i RWWD RAMSEY-WASHINGTON v 4,..‘,4.. -7.-- n ir.•-•..,Z:. Vm WATERSHED DISTRICT c4.4:.-e qlr. I 'iv: Ilij, ..../).[__ 4 f 645.• .' [.... I ..i. ----. • . '1.-'' 04141 , • .dr. ft....o - 1411 4111.''ff0,11 CGRWMO COTTAGE GROVE RAVINE --_,-,-.,....,,,, ,,....-.4,,vz3.e=w k-."1,i•x•t) :' -, .-, - - , - ... .-,•,---- , .. ........t....... ,„,, - - - - - .. _ .. FK'n1 /9 7/ Carnelian-Marine-St.Croix Watershed District Manager List John Bower Jason Husveth 12405 Otchipwe Avenue 17085 Olinda Trail N Stillwater, MN 55082 Marine on St. Croix, MN 55047 651-430-2793 651-433-4410 Office 651-303-7032 651-247-0474 Cell carmarwd@aol.com jhusvethaccesinc.com term expires 6-21-10 Term expires 6-21-10 Victoria Dupre Frederick Markwardt 13510 Norell Avenue N. 14775 N. Ostland Trail Stillwater, MN 55082 Marine, MN 55047 651-439-8266 651-439-9664 651-602-1621 rickmrkwrtcl yahoo.com tori.dupre(aimetc.state.mn.us Term expires 6-21-10 term expires 6-21-11 Thomas Polasik Richard Kronmiller 14420 94th Street N 13450 188th St. N. Stillwater, MN 55082 Marine, MN 55047 651-430-0263 651-433-4042 tpolasik(a,gmail.com s.kronmiller(a,frontiernet.net Term expires 6-21-10 term expires 6-21-09 Administrator Richard Caldecott James Shaver 33 Moonlight Bay CMSC Watershed District Stillwater, MN 55082 21150 Ozark Ave. N 651-439-7385 P.O. Box 188 calde004(,tc.umn.edu Scandia, MN 55073 Term expires 6-21-11 651-433-2150 i im shaver(a,croscwd.org Meeting Date: 6/17/2008 Agenda Item: , City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651)433-2274 Action Requested: Receive a status report on the second draft (4-30-08) of the Carnelian- Marine-St. Croix Watershed District(CMSCWD) rules and the responses to the city's comments. Deadline/ Timeline: CMSCWD has requested written comments by June 23 for the July 7, 2008 public hearing. Background: • At the March 18 meeting, the Council approved a letter commenting on the proposed rules, which was submitted to the CMSCWD Board for their public hearing held on April 7, 2008. • City Attorney Hebert made verbal comments at the public hearing, and followed up with a letter dated April 15, 2008, attached. • Some changes were made to the hearing draft in response to comments from Scandia and other agencies prior to the hearing. Following the hearing, a workshop was scheduled for CMSCWD managers and representatives of Scandia and May Township to further discuss the rules. • The workshop meeting was held on April 21. The watershed decided to prepare a revised set of rules and hold another public hearing. • A copy of the letter sent by Scandia in March is attached. It is marked to indicate where the draft rules were changed to address the initial comments, and where additional changes were made by CMSCWD after the workshop meeting. The most significant changes were: • The threshold for erosion control permits (Section 3.1) has been revised to remove the threshold of 50 cubic years and to refine the 5,000 sq.ft. threshold to be for those areas within 1,000 feet of a public water and within the drainage area of a groundwater dependent natural resource. • The access zone for wetlands and public water bodies (Section 4.9.2) ha been changed from 30 feet to 50 feet or half the lot width, whichever is smaller. • City Attorney Hebert's letter is also attached. The revised rules contain no changes in response to his comments, except in one section. Section 8.4.2 has been revised to allow livestock access in wetlands with existing access so long as the quality of the wetland is not degraded. Page 1 of 2 06/11/08 • CMSCWD consultants provided responses to all of the comments. In the case of many of the major issues, such as the concern about the significant expansion of regulatory requirements (such as wetland buffers, mitigation requirements and elimination of de minimis exemptions) and the impact on property owners' use of their land, the response given was generally that the Board had determined that the regulation was necessary to adequately protect the resource and/or that they are following state law. • For some issues (such as the burden to property owners imposed by low permitting thresholds) CMSCWD consultants indicated that discretion would be given to allow staff to ease requirements on a case-by-case basis, or that they would provide the requested information in guidance documents to be prepared in the future. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council receive this update and give any additional direction or comments for the upcoming public hearing. Attachments/ • March 20, 2008 letter to CMSCWD (annotated) Materials provided: • April 15, 2008 letter to CMSCWD from David Hebert • CMSCWD Rules 2nd Review Draft 4-30-08 • CMSCWD Comment Responses Contact(s): Jim Shaver, CMSCWD Administrator(651 433-2150) Prepared by: Anne Hurlburt, Administrator (CMSCWD RULES more comments) Page 2 of 2 06/11/08 �,y lilA March 20, 2008 re Sf D n S e/ /r7 / ......-- cdkcine_ vr.ad e..- Jim Shaver, Administrator Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District ..k - nb irtS-potek e / '4 /7 150 Ozark Ave. N., PO Box 188 I- 7 el Scandia, Minnesota 55073 d Lr1 a U e- Dear Mr. Shaver: , = C-r 1 a'� eS ccd e t4 / 03 u KS h o Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) rules. Please share these written comments from the City of Scandia with the Board at the April 7, 2008 public hearing. In addition to the comments on specific sections of the rules, Scandia has some general /comments. ✓ • First, a general comment regarding administration and enforcement of the rules. usually the first point of contact for property owners planninganytypeo The city is on project. We have overlapping regulations and responsibilities for many of thcone same activities covered by the rules. Coordinating the watershed's procedures with the city's process for development reviews and building permits will be a challenge. There will be opportunities to work together to reduce the time and expense for landowners and for the public. At some point, it may be desirable to develop a "memorandum of understanding" to better define how we will work together. • The rules contain a lot of highly technical terms and jargon that will be difficult for the average citizen and probably even many people in the development industry to understand. Where possible, additional definitions and explanations should be added (for example, "MnRAM.") • The rules are based on a policy to work toward restoration of natural hydrology by limiting peak off-site stormwater flow to pre-settlement rates. The District should consider whether or not this is a reasonable policy, given that it is difficult to determine what pre-settlement conditions were, and whether or not they were truly superior to pre-development conditions. x • Many of the rules (such as wetland buffers, mitigation requirements and elimination of de minimus exemptions) expand regulations beyond what is now required by local ordinances or state law. The board should consider the impact these additional restrictions will have on property owners and their expectations of how they will be able to use their land. March 20,2008 Page 2 of 3 Listed below are Scandia's specific comments on the rules: Page, Lines: Comment: ✓ 5, 42- Sec. 0.0, Definitions. The definition of"subdivision" is overly broad and would appear to 43 apply to land divisions that do not fall under municipal subdivision authority (see Mn. Stat. Sec. 462.385 Subd. 4.b.) Later in the rules, the term "major subdivision" is also used (page 35, Sec. 9.2.2) but it is not defined. The terms major subdivision"and "minor subdivision" / mean different things to different municipalities so should be defined clearly if they are used. 9, 28 Sec. 1.10. The phrase "If the permit is acted upon" commenced." P should be changed to "If work is 10, 20- Section 2.2, Applicability of Stormwater Rules. These thresholds are low. For example, 5% 39 of site area for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot is only 500 feet. Many very small projects would require a permit under this rule, necessitating a large investment in engineering to show that the standards are met. This would be burdensome on the land owner and may be excessive. We recommend that this language be changed to one acre or 5%of a site area, whichever is more. The threshold of 5,000 sq. ft. of land disturbance is also small, ensuring that almost any new home within a shoreland overlay district will require a stormwater permit. This is much less onerous than the rule as originally proposed (250 sq. ft.) but it will still be a significant burden on the landowner. One acre of impervious surface is a common threshold in other watersheds and should be considered. ✓✓ it appears that certain projects may be required to comply with this rule and obtain a watershed permit more than once; when the subdivision is reviewed, and when each home is built. The district should consider issuing its permit for the subdivision and not requiring an individual permit for each home, provided that it complies with permit issued for the subdivision. ✓ 11, 47- Section 2.4.4, Redevelopment. This language modifies the applicability language 51 2.2, and should be moved to that section in order to provide a clear description of whenthe ction rule applies. 16, 18- Section 2.7.6, Residential Subdivision (exceptions to stormwater rule.) This language appears 22 to exempt certain subdivisions from several of the management standards in Sec. 2.4. Itp needs to be read with the applicability language in Sec. 2.2 to be understood. The intent is to exempt certain small subdivisions from some of the management standards. However, if a subdivision meets any of the other criteria (such as land disturbance over one acre, or over 5,000 sq. feet in a shoreland area)the standards would still apply. The exceptions seem to conflict with the other criteria. For example: Sec. 2.7.6 says that some standards do not apply to certain residential subdivisions with less than 10% impervious. However, Sec. 2.2 (b)effectively takes away that exception if there is 5% or more impervious. The exception language also contains an unnecessary reference to Sec. 7.0, which may recommend that section 2.2 (a), "Residential be confusing to the reader. We Residential subdivision" be removed, and the exception language in 2.7.6 also be deleted. The other five criteria would determine which subdivisions fall under the stonnwater management rule. This would eliminate confusion and conflicts the rules. c is in 18, 1-4 Section 3.1 sets the thresholds for erosion control . p A excavating or disturbance of 5,000 sq. ft. or more of land saiea O This is an)1V... di improvement f ng, IA iom March 20, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Page, Lines: Comment: the initial draft of the rules, which would have required a permit for 250 sq. ft. of land disturbance. This threshold is still fairly low, and could be made less onerous for property owners if an erosion control plan could be approved at the subdivision level, rather than for each individual home. 20, 24- Section 4.0, Applicability of Lake, River Stream and Wetland Buffer Requirements. The 34 buffer widths are greater, and the applicability of the buffer requirement is significantly and greater, than what is now required in Scandia. Currently, buffers are required only on Natural 21, 3-8 Environment (NE) lakes (50 feet)and Types 3, 4 and 5 wetlands(50 feet) in the Shoreland Overlay District. The proposed rule requires 75-foot buffers on NE lakes, and 50-foot buffers on Recreational Development lakes. Buffers ranging from 30 to 100 feet are required on all wetlands, whether or not they are in the Shoreland Overlay District. While the buffer widths may be reasonable based on the need to protect the water resources, the new rule could be seen as significant expansion of the requirements and restrictions on landowners. The City would prefer that the wetland buffer requirements to revised to be similar to what is now in place in local regulations. 22,1-9 Section 4.4.2, buffer monuments. The rules provide for two options; flush to the ground or post markers. Post markers have some benefits for education and enforcement. It is easier to determine if a monument has been removed or if mowing or other disturbance has occurred around it. The design of markers should be coordinated with the city so that there is consistency in the community. 24, 19- Section 4.9.2, access zones to wetlands or water bodies. The access zone permitted is smaller -744- 20 than currently allowed by Scandia's shoreland regulations (30 versus 50 feet.) The City would �� prefer that the access zone be revised to 50 feet to be consistent with what has been allowed by current regulations. / 37, 7- Sureties. The district will require sureties in the form of a letter of credit, cash or performance V 23 bond. They may wish to consider eliminating the performance bond as an option. Most cities have ceased accepting performance bonds due to the difficulty of making a claim. Please contact me at 651 433-2274, or by e-mail at a.hurlburt c,ci.scandia.mn.us if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Anne Hurlburt City Administrator cc: Mayor and City Council Dave Hebert, City Attorney HEBERT AND WELCH, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW TOWN SQUARE 20 NORTH LAKE STREET,SUITE 301 FOREST LAKE, MN 55025 Phone: (651)464-3397 Fax: (651) 464-8664 DAVID K.HEBERT MICHAELA.WELCH April 15, 2008 Ms. Anne Hurlburt City Administrator City of Scandia 14727 209th Street North Scandia, MN 55073 Re: CARNELIAN-MARINE-ST. CROIX WATERSHED DISTRICT Dear Ms. Hurlburt: The following are a few of my comments relating to the proposed rules of the Carnelian-Marine- St. Croix Watershed District. Many of the comments have already been furnished by other agencies. The Watershed District has furnished responses to most of those comments. However, I believe that the responses do not adequately address the concerns of the commentators. 1. DEFINITIONS. There should be additional detail given to some of the definitions and definitions provided for certain important terms used in the Rules for which definitions are not supplied. Examples are as follows: a. Distributed CN-value approach. A citation to the official methodology should be included. b. MnRAM. A definition should be included with a reference to the official methodology. c. Reconstruction. This term, if used in the Rules, should take into consideration Minnesota Statutes §462.357 Subd. 1 (e), which allows reconstruction under a number of circumstances. 2. PRE-SETTLEMENT CONDITION. May Township asked for a definition of pre-settlement conditions. The response on page five of the responses states that the term pre-settlement conditions is used in the Rules simply to indicate what the base line soil condition and vegetation condition is to be used for hydrologic modeling. The property does not have to be restored to "pre-settlement" condition under the Rules. The rate and volume of runoff from a property has to be managed to mimic the estimated runoff from a wood/prairie condition. Rule 2.4(a) states that a land altering activity must not increase peak stormwater flow as compared with the pre-settlement condition for various precipitation events. I believe that the standard that has been used and has been applied by the Wetland Conservation Act is the pre-development condition as opposed to the pre-settlement condition. What is the reason for the change? Are there sufficient standards to determine the pre-settlement condition? Pre-Settlement is used in the WCA Rules to designate areas in the State which require replacement at either a one to one ratio or a two to one ratio for non-agricultural lands. It is not used to establish a restoration standard or a runoff standard. 3. DE MINIMIS. Rule 8.6.2 eliminates the WCA exemption in Management Categories 1, 2 and 3. In response to Stillwater Township's comment, the Watershed District states that the De Minimis exception has been eliminated to insure no net loss of wetlands. What legal authority does the Watershed District have to be more restrictive than the Wetland Conservation Act? The Wetland Conservation Act is to be administered by the local government unit which is, in many cases, the local municipality not the local watershed district. Is eliminating the De Minimis exception reasonable in light of the various financial and practical considerations? 4. REPLACEMENT RATIOS. What is the legal authority for requiring six to one replacement for category one wetlands and four to one for replacement of category two wetlands? The rules for the Wetland Conservation Act appoint the local municipality as the local government unit to enforce the WCA Rules. The District's response to a comment on replacement is that the District contains a number of wetlands that are of exceptional quality and require this level of protection to maintain that quality. Similar responses are used to respond to many comments relating to the small thresholds requiring applicability of the Rules. The Board's "feeling" that the impact of small projects is important to consider is not a sufficient basis for establishing a rule. What is the legal basis for requiring both replacement and a contribution into a restoration fund? It seems that if a contribution is to be made to a restoration fund, then the replacement ratio should be reduced. Requiring a payment into a restoration fund at a rate set by the managers without a legally enforceable standard is not appropriate. 5. WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS. Does Rule 6.0 apply to bridges over rivers and streams and culvert crossings? 6. LIVESTOCK ACCESS TO WATER SOURCES. Requiring fencing of all landlocked water bodies may not be legally enforceable in the case of a Kelly Farms situation, especially where such access is specifically allowed under the rules of the Wetland Conservation Act for landlocked basins in agricultural areas. 7. In a number of its responses, the Watershed District has stated that the CMSCWD will be developing guidance documentation. How will the guidance documentation take away the clear burdens established by the Rules? 8. The subparagraphs to section 3.3 of my draft of the Rules are not correctly numbered. The reference to paragraph 3.3.2 in paragraph 3.4.4 is incorrect. 2 9. We all recognize that protection of the District's water sources is very important. However, it is important to recognize the constitutional right of property owners to the reasonable use of their property. Significantly increasing the restrictions on those rights beyond the requirements of the State-wide rules implemented under the Wetland Conservation Act, makes the District Rules susceptible to court challenges and takings claims. Sincerely yours, HEBERT AND WELCH, P. A. David K. Hebert DKH:lp Enclosures cc: Via email- Jim Shaver Via email-Dan Fabian 3 EMMONS Eat & OLIVIER RESOURCES May 7, 2008 RECEIVED Anne Hurlburt MAY --7 2008 City of Scandia 14727 209th St. N. CITY OF SCANDIA Scandia, MN 55073 Dear Anne: The Carnelian-Marine St. Croix Watershed District (CMSCWD) submits the attached proposed Rules for your review and comment. The Board has reviewed and responded to comments received after the formal review period that began February 11, 2008. A number of the comments resulted in changes to the Rules, therefore the Board decided to send the Rules for a second review. A list of the comments received and the Board response is attached for your reference. A Public Hearing was held April 7th. The City of Scandia and May Township attended the hearing to provide more detail regarding their submitted comments. The Board held a workshop with the City of Scandia and May Township to discuss in more detail comments raised by these municipalities at the Public Hearing. Changes made to the Rules based on comments received are shown in underline or strikeout in the attached document. Please provide written comments by June 23, 2008. The District expects to hold another public hearing on the proposed Rules at its July 7th Board Meeting. If you have questions, please contact me at 651-770-8448 or Jim Shaver, District Administrator, at 651-433-2150. Sincerely, Lisa Tilman Water Resources Engineer Making A Difference Through Integrated Resource Management EOR, INC.• 651 Hale Avenue North• Oakdale, MN 55128• Tel: (651) 770-8448• Fax: (651) 770-2552 1 2 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix 3 Watershed District 4 5 6 7 Rules 8 9 10 2nd Review Draft 4-30-08 RECEIVED MAY - 7 2008 CITY OF SCANDIA 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 0.0 DEFINITIONS 1 4 1.0 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 8 5 2.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 10 6 3.0 EROSION CONTROL 19 7 4.0 LAKE, RIVER, STREAM AND WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS 22 8 5.0 SHORELINE & STREAMBANK ALTERATIONS 27 9 6.0 WATERCOURSE AND BASIN CROSSINGS 32 10 7.0 FLOODPLAIN AND DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS 33 11 8.0 WETLAND MANAGEMENT 35 12 9.0 FEES 39 13 10.0 SURETIES 41 14 11.0 VARIANCES 43 15 12.0 ENFORCEMENT 44 16 17 18 INTRODUCTION 19 The Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Administrator is available to assist 20 permit applicants. The District Administrator will work with local governments and 21 Washington County to coordinate permit review and administration. A technical 22 guidance document will be available from the District to assist applicants with design of 23 features required under these Rules. Concept plans can also be submitted for initial 24 review by the District to identify the specific standards and key resources that would 25 apply for a specific project. The District Administrator can be contacted as follows: 26 27 Jim Shaver, District Administrator 28 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District 29 21150 Ozark Ave. 30 P.O. Box 188 31 Scandia, MN 55073 32 (651) 433-2150 33 jimshaver�a,croscwd.org 34 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page i Rules 1 0.0 DEFINITIONS 2 3 "Agricultural activity" means the use of land for the production of agronomic, horticultural 4 or silvicultural crops, including nursery stock, sod, fruits, vegetables, flowers, 5 forages, cover crops, grains, hay fields, aquatic plants, and Christmas trees. 6 Agricultural activity also includes grazing and pasture of livestock such as horses, 7 cattle, sheep and others and the raising of fish and minnows. 8 9 "Basement" means any area of a structure, including crawl spaces, having its floor or 10 base below ground level on all four sides, regardless of the depth of the excavation 11 below ground level. 12 13 "Best Management Practices (BMPs)" means measures taken to control impacts from 14 stormwater runoff on the receiving water or groundwater. BMP specifications for 15 design and construction follow, in order of priority, the Minnesota Stormwater Manual 16 (MPCA, 2005); Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas (MPCA, 2000); and 17 Minnesota Construction Site Erosion and Sediment Control Planning Handbook 18 (BWSR, 1988); as such documents may be amended, revised or supplemented. 19 20 "Better Site Design practices" means development design oriented to conserve natural 21 areas, limit hard cover, use natural pervious areas and integrate stormwater 22 management features to more effectively manage stormwater runoff. 23 24 "Bioengineering" means the use of vegetation and organic and inorganic materials to 25 stabilize shorelines and streambanks. 26 27 "Biofiltration" means a series of biological and physical process that remove particles 28 from water. 29 30 "Bounce" means the difference in water surface elevation between the outlet or normal 31 water elevation and the peak water surface elevation following a rainfall event. 32 33 "Buffer" means an upland area adjacent to a lake, stream or wetland that is maintained 34 in or restored to an acceptable diversity and density of native vegetation as 35 determined by the District. 36 37 "Dewatering" means the removal of water from an excavated or natural depression. 38 39 "Distributed CN-value approach" means an approach that separately assigns a curve 40 number to each land use to more accurately reflect volume and timing of site- 41 generated runoff. Impervious surfaces directly connected to stormwater 42 conveyances may not be grouped together with disconnected impervious and 43 pervious areas for calculation of drainage area curve numbers. 44 45 "District" means the Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District(CMSCWD). 46 47 "Drainageway" means a channel or swale with intermittent, periodic, or occasional flow. 48 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Paae 1 Rules 1 "Facility" means any part of a natural or constructed system contributing under the 2 stormwater management plan to meeting a standard of section 2.4. 3 4 "Feasible" means technically achievable at a cost, in the District's determination, not 5 substantially disproportionate to the stormwater management benefit to be gained. 6 7 "Filtration" means a series of processes that physically removes particles from water. 8 9 "Floodplain" means the area adjoining a watercourse, or a natural or constructed water 10 basin, including the area around lakes, rivers, wetlands, stormwater ponds, 11 depressions, and intermittent and perennial streams, that is inundated by the 100- 12 year 24-hour rainfall event or, for landlocked basins and basins that have no active 13 outlet for the 100-year 24-hour rainfall event, the 100-year 10-day rainfall event. 14 15 "Groundwater-dependent natural resource" (GDNR) means a feature with surface 16 emergence of groundwater at a spring or seepage area, sufficiently mineral rich to 17 support a plant community or aquatic ecosystem listed in the Appendix to these 18 Definitions. A map of currently identified groundwater-dependent natural resources 19 is available from the District. The following lakes are excepted: Big Marine Lake, Big 20 Carnelian Lake, and Square Lake. 21 22 "Hot Spot" means a point source potential pollution generating land use such as gas 23 stations, chemical storage facilities, industrial, etc... 24 25 "Hydrologic Regime" means the seasonal pattern of wetland water level that is like a 26 hydrologic signature of each wetland type. It defines the rise and fall of a wetland's 27 surface and subsurface water. Constancy of seasonal patterns from year to year 28 ensures a reasonable stability for the wetland. 29 30 "Impervious surface" means a surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer 31 of material, or is likely to become compacted from expected use, so that it is highly 32 resistant to infiltration by water. 33 34 "Lake," within the District, means water bodies identified as "Public Waters" under 35 Minnesota Statute 103G.005, Subdivision 15. 36 37 "Land Disturbance" means any change of the land surface, including removing 38 vegetative cover, excavation, fill, grading, stock piling soil, and the construction of 39 any structure that may cause or contribute to erosion or the movement of sediment 40 into waterbodies. The use of land for new and continuing agricultural activity shall 41 not constitute a land-disturbing activity under these rules. 42 43 "Landlocked basin" means a basin or localized depression that does not have a natural 44 outlet at or below the water elevation of the 10-day runoff event with a 100-year 45 return frequency (7.2-inch runoff event), using the 2000 Washington County 46 Topographic Survey for the pre-event elevation. 47 48 "Lowest Floor Elevation" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area including 49 basement. An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, used solely for parking of 50 vehicles, building access, or storage in an area other than a basement area is not 51 considered a building's lowest floor. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Paqe 2 Rules 1 2 "Management Category 1" means High Quality/Highest Priority Wetlands. The 3 CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan includes a map showing the classification of 4 wetlands identified to date. The Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) 5 should be used to classify wetlands that are not included in the current classification. 6 Wetlands classified as High Quality/Highest Priority have at least one of the following 7 characteristics: 8 • Wetlands rated with exceptional vegetative diversity/integrity, which may include 9 wetlands with natural communities not significantly impacted by invasive species 10 or other human-induced alterations, wetlands harboring endangered or 11 threatened plant species, or rare wetland habitats classified as imperiled (S1) or 12 critically imperiled (S2) by the state rankings. 13 • Wetlands that have groundwater dependent plant communities and have a 14 vegetative diversity/integrity rating of medium or higher are also placed in this 15 category. These wetlands may have suffered some degradation from human 16 influences due to their heightened sensitivity. 17 • Wetlands with a high vegetative diversity/integrity rating and a high rating for 18 hydrologic regime. The vegetative community in these wetlands typically has 19 been only slightly affected by humans and still maintains high functioning levels 20 for hydrologic regime, which is critical to wetland sustainability. 21 • Wetlands with a high vegetative diversity/integrity rating and a high rating for 22 wetland water quality; OR wetlands with a high vegetative diversity/integrity 23 rating and a high rating for downstream water quality. The vegetative community 24 in these wetlands typically has been only slightly affected by humans and still 25 maintains high function to maintain water quality, which is critical to wetland 26 sustainability. 27 • Wetlands rated as exceptional for wildlife habitat. These include wetlands known 28 to harbor endangered or threatened animal species, rare communities, or wildlife 29 refuges and fish and wildlife management areas whose purpose is maintaining 30 suitable habitats for wildlife. 31 32 "Management Category 2" means Stream Corridor and Shoreland Wetlands that are not 33 a Management Category 1. The CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan includes a 34 map showing the classification of wetlands identified to date. The Minnesota Routine 35 Assessment Method (MnRAM) should be used to classify wetlands that are not 36 included in the current classification. Wetlands classified as Stream Corridor and 37 Shoreland Wetlands have at least one of the following characteristics: 38 • All Stream Corridor and Shoreland Wetlands not already classified as 39 Management Category 1. 40 • Wetlands rated as high for amphibian habitat. 41 • Wetlands rated as exceptional or high for fish habitat. These wetlands include 42 those specifically managed for fish management; designated trout streams, lakes 43 or adjacent wetlands; and known spawning habitat for game fish. 44 • Wetlands with a medium vegetative diversity/integrity rating and a high rating for 45 hydrologic regime. The vegetative community in these wetlands has only been 46 moderately affected by humans and still maintains high functioning levels for 47 hydrologic regime, which is critical to wetland sustainability. These wetlands 48 would likely benefit from active management. 49 • Wetlands that are highly sensitive to stormwater impacts and have a vegetative 50 diversity/integrity rating of medium or high were also placed in this category. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 3 Rules 1 • Wetlands with a medium vegetative diversity/integrity rating and a high rating for 2 wetland water quality. The vegetative community in these wetlands has only 3 been moderately affected by humans and still maintains high functioning levels 4 for water quality, which is critical to wetland sustainability. 5 6 "Management Category 3" means Isolated Wetlands that are not a Management 7 Category 1. These wetlands include all other isolated wetlands not already classified 8 as Management Category 1 or 2. The CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan 9 includes a map showing the classification of wetlands identified to date. The 10 Minnesota Routine Assessment Method (MnRAM) should be used to classify 11 wetlands that are not included in the current classification. 12 13 "Management Category 4" means Utilized Wetlands. These wetlands include pre- 14 existing basins used heavily as livestock watering wetlands, stormwater ponds dug 15 out from existing wetland, and other severely degraded wetlands (degraded as 16 defined by WCA). The CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan includes a map 17 showing the classification of wetlands identified to date. The Minnesota Routine 18 Assessment Method (MnRAM) should be used to classify wetlands that are not 19 included in the current classification. 20 21 "Mapped natural community" means a natural community identified in "Natural 22 Communities and Rare Species Map for Washington County" (Minnesota 23 Department of Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program, 1990), or in a natural 24 resources inventory using the same protocol as established by the Minnesota 25 Department of Natural Resources. 26 27 "Middle zone" is a vegetative buffer zone that extends from the upland edge of the 28 streamside zone to the interior edge of the outer zone of a watercourse. 29 30 "Multi-family residential" means apartment, townhouse, or twinhome complexes. 31 32 "Natural Environment Lake" means a lake so designated by the Minnesota DNR 33 pursuant to Minn. Rules 6120.3000. 34 35 "NURP standard" means the design criteria developed pursuant to the Nationwide Urban 36 Runoff Program (U.S. EPA, 1983) and published by the Minnesota Pollution Control 37 Agency in "Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas 1991" (sections 4.1-4 through 38 4.1-7), as may be amended. 39 40 "Ordinary high-water level" or "OHWL" means the boundary of a public water or wetland, 41 and is an elevation indicating the highest water level that has been maintained for a 42 sufficient period of time to leave evidence on the landscape, commonly indicated by 43 a change from predominantly aquatic to predominantly terrestrial vegetation. For 44 watercourses, the ordinary high-water level is the elevation of the top of bank of the 45 channel. For basins and flowages, it is the operating elevation of the summer pool. 46 The Minnesota DNR makes all official determinations of ordinary high-water levels. 47 48 "Outer zone" is a vegetative buffer zone that extends from the upland edge of the middle 49 zone of a watercourse to a point specified in these Rules. 50 51 "Pre-settlement" means soil permeability conditions existing before European settlement. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 4 Rules 1 2 "Public water" has the definition at Minnesota Statutes § 103G.005, subd. 15. 3 4 "Pre-development" means soil permeability conditions at the time preceding the 5 proposed creation of impervious surface or substantial change in site hydrology or 6 infiltration by alteration of site vegetation or contour. 7 8 "Receiving water" means the first of the following types of surface waters encountered 9 by stormwater flow from the site: a lake or stream designated as a public water 10 pursuant to Minn. Stat. §103G.005, subd. 15, as amended; or a wetland. 11 12 "Reconstruction" means the rebuilding, repair or alteration of a structure, surface, or 13 facility for which the cost would equal or exceed 50 percent of the replacement cost. 14 15 "Recreational Development Lake" means a lake so designated by the Minnesota DNR 16 pursuant to Minn. Rules 6120.3000. 17 18 "Regional Facility" means a stormwater management facility designed to manage the 19 stormwater runoff from five or more parcels. 20 21 "Revegetation" means the planting of native indigenous species. 22 23 "Seasonally high water table" means the highest groundwater elevation expected on a 24 seasonal basis. 25 26 "Shore impact zone" means land located between the OHWL of a public water and a line 27 parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the structure setback applicable under the 28 governing shoreland ordinance. 29 30 "Steep slope" means land with an average slope exceeding 12 percent over a distance 31 of 50 feet or more upgradient of the water resource, calculated using a reasonably 32 precise topographic surface model. 33 34 "Stream" means watercourses identified as "Public Waters" under Minnesota Statute 35 103G.005, Subdivision 15. 36 37 "Stream buffer zone" means a streamside zone, middle zone or outer zone. 38 39 "Streamside zone" is a vegetative buffer zone that extends from the ordinary high-water 40 mark of a watercourse to the interior edge of the middle zone. 41 42 "Structure" means anything that is constructed or placed on the ground and that is, or is 43 intended, to remain for longer than a brief, temporary period of time. 44 45 "Subdivision" means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of land under single 46 ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, lots, or long-term leasehold interests 47 where the creation of the leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, 48 roads, or alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any 49 combination thereof, except those separations: where all the resulting parcels, tracts, 50 lots, or interests will be 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential 51 uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and industrial uses; creating Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 5 Rules • 1 cemetery lots; resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by the 2 relocation of a common boundary. 3 4 "Subwatershed" means the drainage area of the receiving water for the site. 5 6 "Utility" means a service, or part thereof, that conveys water, wastewater, steam, gas, 7 electricity, telephone, or a similar commodity or service, including but not limited to 8 cable access television and data transmission lines, but excluding stormwater 9 management facilities. 10 11 "Waterbody" means a watercourse or waterbasin. 12 13 "Waterbasin" means an enclosed natural depression with definable banks, capable of 14 retaining water. 15 16 "Watercourse" means a natural channel that has definable beds and banks capable of 17 conducting confined runoff from adjacent land. 18 19 "Wetland" means land transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the 20 water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. 21 A wetland (a) is predominated by hydric soils; (b) is inundated or saturated by 22 surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a 23 prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil 24 conditions; and (c) under normal circumstances, supports a prevalence of 25 hydrophytic vegetation. A wetland is a waterbasin if it meets the definition of that 26 term. 27 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 6 Rules • 2 DEFINITIONS —APPENDIX 3 4 Groundwater-Dependent Natural Resource Types 5 6 (Following Minnesota Land Cover Classification System protocol) 7 Cold water trout stream Wet prairie seepage subtype- Spring creek saturated soils Groundwater-dependent lake Calcareous seepage fen Tamarack swamp seepage subtypeCalcareous seepage fen boreal Tamarack swamp minerotrophic subtype subtype Calcareous seepage fen prairie subtype Tamarack swamp sphagnum subtype Poor fen White cedar swamp seepage subtype Poor fen sedge subtype Black spruce bog Poor fen patterned fen subtype Black spruce bog intermediate Rich fen subtype Rich fen sedge subtype Black spruce bog raised subtype Rich fen floating-mat subtype- Black ash swamp seepage subtypesaturated soils RiMixed hardwood swamp seepages fen patterned fen subtype subtype Open bog Open sphagnum bog Scrub tamarack poor fell schlernke subtype Birch bog,spiraea temporarily Graininoid bog flooded shrubland Wet meadow floating mat subtype Shrub fen Rich fen floating-mat subtype- semupermanently flooded Poor fen shrub subtype Rich fen shrub subtype Rich fen floating-mat subtype- Wet brush-prairie seepage subtype intermittently exposed Shrub swamp seepage subtype Rich fen floating-mat subtype- permanently flooded Alder swamp-saturated soils Talus slope algific subtype Birch bog, spiraea shrubland- Seepage meadow saturated soils Wet cliff Alder swamp Moderate cliff Birch bog,spiraea shrubland- Midwest sedimentary dripping cliff seasonally flooded Birch bog, spiraea shrubland- Saline spring mud flats semnipernianently flooded 8 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 7 Rules 1 1.0 PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 2 3 1.1 Application Required. Any person undertaking any activity for which a permit is 4 required by these Rules shall first submit for review a permit application, engineering 5 design data and such other information to the District as may be required by these Rules 6 to determine whether the improvements are in compliance with the criteria established 7 by these Rules. All permit applications must bear the original signature of the landowner. 8 9 1.2 Forms. Permit applications shall be submitted using forms provided by the District. 10 11 1.3 Action by Board of Managers. The District must, within ten (10) business days of 12 receiving a permit application, provide written notice to the applicant that the application 13 is incomplete, itemizing any missing items. The managers shall act within 60 days of 14 receipt of a completed application and complete set of required exhibits. The Board may 15 extend the review timeline by 60 days. 16 17 1.4 Conformity with Local Requirements. The District will review applications for 18 permits involving land development and land disturbance concurrently with municipal or 19 county review. The permit will be issued only after the applicant demonstrates that the 20 plan has received preliminary approval from each local government in which 21 development is to take place and completion of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) 22 process. The requirement of preliminary approval shall mean: 23 24 (a) Preliminary plat approval if required for the development; or 25 26 (b) If plat approval is not required, issuance of a local government permit for the 27 project. 28 29 The applicant is encouraged to submit a concept plan and supporting documentation for 30 a pre-permit review by the District prior to initiating the formal permit review process. 31 32 1.5 Inter-governmental Coordination. The District will work with municipalities and 33 government agencies on a case-by-case basis to develop a memorandum of 34 understanding to reduce overlapping regulatory authority 35 36 1.6 Notification Process. The District will notify all property owners who reside adjacent 37 to the subject property, and all property owners within 500 feet of the property boundary . 38 of a proposed project for all permit applications, transfers or renewals using a certified 39 list of property owners obtained from Washington County. Additional notification may be 40 required at the discretion of the Board. District staff will send notice of the proposed 41 project to the individuals on the mailing list for the applicant at the applicant's expense. A 42 copy of the list will be retained with the application at the District office. Notification is not 43 required for permits issued administratively. 44 45 1.7 Alternative Notification. Before application is made, the Board, on written request, 46 may approve an alternative notification method or distance for any of the following 47 projects: 48 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 8 Rules 1 (a) A linear project, including but not limited to a road, sidewalk or trail, one-half 2 mile or more in length. 3 4 (b)A project on a parcel or contiguous parcels with an area of 100 acres or more, 5 where no more than five percent of the area will be disturbed, provided the 6 disturbed area does not include a wetland. 7 8 (c)A project where the applicant proposes to combine notification under this Rule 9 with notification required under the approval procedures of another governmental 10 body. 11 12 The applicant must demonstrate that an alternative means of notification will provide 13 adequate notice to residents near the proposed activity. 14 15 1.8 Time for Submittal. A complete permit application which includes all required 16 exhibits shall be received by the District at least 28 full days prior to the scheduled 17 meeting date of the Board of Managers. Late submittals or submittals with incomplete 18 exhibits will be scheduled to a subsequent meeting date pending receipt of a complete 19 submittal. 20 21 1.9 Tabled Permits. If a permit application is tabled at a board meeting due to revisions 22 needed for compliance with District rules, the permit application will be addressed at the 23 next board meeting if the revisions are submitted within three (3) working days of being 24 tabled. Otherwise, permit applications will be treated pursuant to section 1.8 of this Rule. 25 26 1.10 Permit Renewals and Transfers. A permit is valid for a one-year period from the 27 date the applicant is advised in writing that the Board has approved the permit unless it 28 is otherwise suspended or revoked. If the work is commenced within one year from the 29 date of permit issuance, the permit is valid as long as the project is actively progressing 30 toward completion. To renew or transfer a permit, the permittee must notify the District 31 in writing, prior to the permit expiration date, of the reason for the renewal or transfer 32 request. The request will be reviewed by the Board of Managers at the next available 33 board meeting provided all information submitted to the District is current. The Board, in 34 its discretion, may grant a permit of a duration longer than one year if a request to do so 35 is included in the duly-noticed application. In accordance with section 1.6 of these Rules, 36 District staff will send notice of the proposed project to the individuals within 500 feet of 37 the project for the applicant at the applicant's expense. 38 39 1.11 Appellate Procedure and Review. Any person aggrieved by enforcement of these 40 Rules and Regulations or by any Order of the CMSCWD may appeal therefrom in �� 41 accordance with the appellate procedure and review as provided in Minnesota Statutes 42 Chapter 103D. 43 44 1.12 Regular Meetings. Regular meetings of the Board of Managers are held at the 45 Scandia City Hall, 14727 - 209th Street N., Scandia, MN, unless otherwise noticed. 46 Meeting schedules and agendas may be obtained by contacting the District office. 47 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 9 Rules 1 2.0 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT 2 3 2.1 Purposes and Policy. It is the policy of the District to: 4 5 2.1.1 Preserve natural infiltration, groundwater recharge and subsurface flows 6 that support groundwater dependent resources including lakes, streams, 7 wetlands, plant communities and drinking water supplies; 8 9 2.1.2 Work toward restoration of natural hydrology by preventing transfer of 10 surface water runoff across subwatershed boundaries and by limiting peak off- 11 site stormwater flow to pre-settlement rates; 12 13 2.1.3 Limit off-site stormwater flow volume to prevent flooding and thermal 14 impacts to groundwater dependent resources; 15 16 2.1.4 Require management of stormwater flow to limit sediments, phosphorus 17 and other pollutants conveyed to ground and surface waters and promote water 18 quality; and 19 20 2.1.5 Minimize drainage from impervious surfaces to stormwater conveyance 21 systems and preserve the natural hydrology of landlocked basins to minimize 22 basin and downgradient flood risk. 23 24 2.2 Applicability. Subject to an exception in section 2.7, the requirements of this section 25 apply to: 26 27 (a) Residential subdivision of four or more lots; 28 29 (b) Any project (including linear projects such as road, bikeway, sidewalk, etc.) 30 creating impervious surface that, in the aggregate, exceeds either one acre or 31 five percent of a site, whichever is less; 32 33 (c) Land disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more within the surface water 34 contributing area of a groundwater-dependent natural resource or 35 36 (d) Land disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more within 1000 feet of a public 37 water. 38 39 (e) Mining operations. 40 41 (f) Projects requiring a variance from the applicable shoreland or St. Croix 42 Riverway ordinance relating to structure setback from the property line adjacent 43 to the resource or impervious surface percentage. 44 45 (g) Redevelopment activity. If the proposed activity will disturb more than 50 46 percent of existing impervious surface, the criteria of subsection 2.4 will apply to 47 all impervious surface on the project site. Otherwise, the criteria will apply only to 48 net additional impervious surface. Notwithstanding, for road and other linear 49 projects, only net additional surface will be considered. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 10 Rules 1 2 3 2.3 Regulation. Before any activity described at § 2.2 commences, a stormwater 4 management plan shall be submitted to the District in conformity with the requirements 5 of this Rule, and a permit shall be secured from the District. The managers will review a 6 stormwater management plan; however, the permit will be issued only after the 7 applicant demonstrates that the project has received preliminary approval from the local 8 land use authority, in accordance with § 1.4 of these Rules, indicating compliance with 9 existing local requirements and completion of the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) 10 process. The applicant is encouraged to submit a concept plan and supporting 11 documentation for a pre-permit review by the District prior to initiating the formal permit 12 review process. 13 14 2.4 Standards. 15 16 2.4.1 Management Standards. An applicant for a stormwater management permit 17 must demonstrate to the District that the proposed land-altering activity: 18 19 (a) Will not increase peak stormwater flow from the site, as compared 20 with the condition of the site calculated as specified under 2.5.3, for a 24- 21 hour precipitation event with a return frequency of two, 10, and 100 years 22 for all points where discharges leave a site. 23 24 (b) Will not increase stormwater flow volume from the site, as compared 25 with the condition of the site calculated as specified under 2.5.3, for a 24- 26 hour precipitation event with a return frequency of two years, or 10 years 27 within a landlocked basin or a subwatershed draining to a landlocked 28 basin. 29 30 (c)Will provide water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) sized to 31 infiltrate and/or retain the runoff volume generated on the site by the 2 32 year, 24-hour event under the developed condition for all points where 33 discharges leave a site. For that portion of the 2-year, 24-hour event 34 runoff volume that is not required to be infiltrated under Rule 2.4.1(b), 35 water quality BMPs or additional infiltration will be incorporated. The 36 order of preference for water quality BMPs is biofiltration, filtration, 37 wetland treatment system, extended detention, and wet detention in 38 accordance with NURP standards. 39 40 (d) Will not increase the bounce in water level or duration of inundation, 41 for a 24-hour precipitation event with a return frequency of two, 10, and 42 100 years in the subwatershed in which the site is located, for any 43 downstream lake or wetland beyond the limit specified in Appendix 2.1. 44 45 2.4.2 Obligation to Ensure Performance. Before work under the permit is deemed 46 complete, the permittee must submit as-built plans and complete the requested 47 assessment consistent with the standards of the Assessment of Stormwater Best 48 Management Practices Manual demonstrating that at the time of final 49 stabilization, stormwater facilities conform to design specifications. At the 50 discretion of the Board, a final inspection by the District may be accepted in lieu Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 11 Rules 1 of as-built plans. As a specific condition to a permit, the District may impose 2 monitoring, performance evaluation, additional compliance measures or other 3 requirements for the purpose of meeting management standards. 4 5 2.4.3 Assurance of Downgradient Capacity. An applicant may be required to 6 demonstrate that downgradient stormwater conveyance structures and features 7 will be adequate to handle proposed increased peak flow or flow volume from the 8 site. 9 10 2.4.5 Waste Disposal. No refuse, garbage, or noxious materials shall be dumped 11 in any public waters or where surface runoff could directly carry materials to 12 public waters. 13 14 2.5 Management. 15 16 2.5.1 Sequence of Management Methods. To meet the standards of section 2.4, 17 site-based stormwater management methods shall be used in the following 18 sequence. A preferred method shall be used to the degree feasible before a less- 19 preferred method is used. Treatment in a regional facility shall be governed not 20 by this sub-section, but by sub-section 2.7.4. 21 22 (a) Better Site Design practices. 23 (b) On-site infiltration. 24 (c) Off-site regional infiltration. 25 (d) Biofiltration. 26 (e) Filtration. 27 (f) Wetland treatment system. 28 (g) Extended detention basin. 29 (h) Wet detention in accordance with NURP standards. 30 (i) Other methods. 31 32 2.5.2 Better Site Design Practices. Activity creating impervious surface must 33 explicitly address the use of Better Site Design (BSD) techniques as outlined in 34 Chapter 4, "Minnesota Stormwater Manual" (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 35 2006 and subsequent revisions). Better Site Design involves techniques applied 36 early in the design process to reduce impervious cover, conserve natural areas 37 and use pervious areas to more effectively treat stormwater runoff and promote a 38 sequential treatment or "treatment train" approach to runoff management. An 39 applicant must show that BSD techniques were evaluated in developing the 40 design of a proposed project and demonstrate the infeasibility or inapplicability of 41 techniques that were rejected. 42 43 2.5.3 Calculating Off-Site Stormwater Flow. To calculate the off-site flow and 44 volume standard for the site, pre-development condition or the stormwater 45 management scenario proposed for approval, Soil Conservation Service TR- 20 46 method is to be used. Curve numbers (CN-values) used to calculate the off-site 47 flow and volume standard for the site for upland areas will be as follows: 48 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 12 Rules 1 Hydrologic Soil Group Curve Number 2 (see also Appendix 2.2) (pre-settlement based on Marshner map) 3 A 30 4 B 57 5 C 70 6 D 77 7 8 All assumptions for CN-values and impervious surface area estimates must be 9 clearly stated. A distributed CN-value approach shall be used to calculate runoff 10 flows. 11 12 An area of the site to be disturbed during construction shall be assigned a CN- 13 value corresponding to a soil permeability class one step below that of the 14 undisturbed soil unless the plan specifies a District-approved method to restore 15 soil structure. 16 17 2.5.4 Acquisition of Property or Contract Rights. An applicant relying on on- or 18 off-site facilities for complying with the standards of section 2.4 must possess all 19 land access rights necessary for design, construction, and long-term operation 20 and maintenance of the facilities. This sub-section does not apply to treatment in 21 a regional facility pursuant to paragraph 2.7.4(a). 22 23 2.5.5 Infiltration Pretreatment. Flows to infiltration facilities must be pretreated for 24 long-term removal of at least 50 percent of sediment loads. In the event an 25 infiltration facility is constructed in the vicinity downstream of a potential Hot Spot, 26 a skimmer shall be installed to facilitate clean-up. 27 28 2.5.6 Basin in Contributing Area to Groundwater-Dependent Natural Resource. A 29 stormwater basin within the surface contributing area to a groundwater- 30 dependent natural resource must contain and infiltrate the volume generated by 31 a two-year, 24-hour storm event over the disturbed area, if feasible. The basin 32 bottom must be at least three feet above the seasonally high water table, 33 bedrock or other impeding layer. If this infiltration standard is not met, basin 34 outflow must be non-erosive and routed through a subsurface system, flow 35 spreader or other device that discharges water through or across the ground to 36 lower discharge temperature to that of the ambient soil. 37 38 2.5.7 Stormwater Management Facility Maintenance Agreement. If a developer 39 proposes to construct a wet detention basin, infiltration or pretreatment facility, 40 outlet structure, culvert, outfall structure, or other stormwater management facility 41 in order to meet the requirements of this Rule, the developer must submit with 42 the permit application a maintenance instrument. The maintenance instrument 43 shall identify and protect areas of stormwater detention, infiltration, treatment and 44 overflow; specify the methods, schedule, and responsible parties for 45 maintenance; provide for perpetual facility maintenance; and contain at a 46 minimum the requirements in the District's standard maintenance declaration. 47 The executed maintenance instrument shall be recorded with the County before 48 permit issuance or immediately after plat approval and filing, if applicable, and 49 prior to the sale of lots. 50 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 13 Rules 1 2.5.8 Form of Recording. Rights under sub-section 2.5.4, a maintenance 2 instrument under sub-section 2.5.6, and any commitment of indefinite duration 3 that is a condition of a District permit shall be recorded with the County as an 4 easement or declaration in a form acceptable to the District. 5 6 2.5.9 Platting or Easement Documents. Applicant must provide platting or 7 easement documents showing sufficient drainage and ponding/flowage 8 easements over hydrologic features such as floodplains, stormsewers, ponds, 9 ditches, swales, wetlands, and waterways. 10 11 2.5.10 Conformance to Floodplain and Drainage Alteration Requirements. In 12 addition to all other legal requirements that may apply, all land-altering and 13 related stormwater management activity pursuant to Rule 2.0 shall comply with 14 building elevation requirements of Rule 7.0. 15 16 2.5.11 Infiltration Facilities and Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas. Infiltration 17 practices must be designed and placed in accordance with the current version of 18 the Minnesota Department of Health guidance called "Evaluating Proposed 19 Stormwater Infiltration Projects in Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas." 20 21 2.6 Required Exhibits. The following items, submitted in duplicate and certified by a 22 professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota, registered land surveyor, or 23 other appropriate professional shall accompany all permit applications submitted to the 24 District pursuant to Rule 2.0. Required exhibits may be waived at the discretion of the 25 District Administrator if the exhibit in not needed for the evaluation of a specific project. 26 27 2.6.1 Property lines and delineation of lands under applicant's ownership and 28 location of the site with respect to known groundwater dependent natural 29 resources; 30 31 2.6.2 For existing and proposed conditions, topography showing all on- and off- 32 site subwatersheds contributing to surface flows onto or from the site; 33 34 2.6.3 The location, alignment and elevation of proposed and existing stormwater 35 facilities; 36 37 2.6.4 Delineation of existing on-site wetland, shoreland, drain tiling and floodplain 38 areas as defined in the current Federal Emergency Management Agency(FEMA) 39 study; 40 41 2.6.5 Existing and proposed normal and 100-year water elevations on site; 42 43 2.6.6 Existing and proposed site contour elevations at two-foot intervals, related 44 to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), 1929 datum; 45 46 2.6.7 Elevation of the OHWL of each public water on the site, if determined by 47 the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources; 48 49 2.6.8 Construction plans, specifications and a maintenance schedule for all 50 proposed facilities; 51 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Pane 14 Rules 1 2.6.9 Stormwater runoff rate analyses for the two, 10, and 100 year critical 2 events and runoff volume for the two-year event (or 10-year event for a 3 landlocked basin) under off-site flow and volume standard condition and 4 proposed conditions, using Appendix 2.2 to simulate infiltration losses in 5 designed practices; 6 7 2.6.10 All hydrologic, water quality, and hydraulic computations completed to 8 design the proposed facilities, including a demonstration of conformance, in the 9 site aggregate, to water quality requirements of Rule 2.4.1(c); 10 11 2.6.11 Documentation of conformance with an existing local stormwater 12 management plan, or in cases where such a plan does not exist, documentation 13 that the local government has reviewed the project; 14 15 2.6.12 Delineation of any flowage and drainage easements and other property 16 interests dedicated to stormwater management purposes, including, but not 17 limited to, county or judicial ditches; 18 19 2.6.13 Documentation as to the status of a National Pollutant Discharge 20 Elimination System stormwater permit for the project from the Minnesota 21 Pollution Control Agency and provide the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 22 (SWPPP) as it becomes available; 23 24 2.6.14 Geotechnical information including soil maps, borings, site-specific 25 recommendations and other information needed to evaluate the proposed 26 stormwater management design; 27 28 2.6.15 Thermal impact analysis demonstrating compliance with paragraph 2.5.6, 29 if applicable; 30 31 2.6.16 Soil structure restoration plan demonstrating compliance with paragraph 32 2.5.3, if applicable; 33 34 2.6.17 Hydrologic and hydraulic computations completed to determine if a basin 35 is landlocked; and 36 37 2.6.18 Delineation and determination of groundwater dependent natural 38 resources present on the site. 39 40 2.7 Exceptions. 41 42 2.7.1 Infeasibility of On-Site Infiltration. If the District finds that Better Site Design 43 practices and on-site infiltration, applied to the extent feasible, are insufficient to 44 maintain stormwater flow volume off-site at the level specified in paragraph 45 2.4.1(b), the applicant will be excepted from strict compliance with that 46 paragraph. The use of Better Site Design practices, on-site infiltration and off-site 47 regional infiltration shall be required to the extent feasible to reduce flow volume 48 to the level specified in paragraph 2.4.1(b) before discharge into a receiving 49 water. Compliance with paragraph 2.4.1(c) must be specifically demonstrated. 50 Where infiltration is not feasible, water quality treatment sized for the 2-year, 24- 51 hour event must be provided in accordance with the sequencing standards of Rule Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 15 Rules 1 2.5.1. Infiltration is considered not feasible where documented soil contaminants 2 preclude the use of infiltration practices or there is inadequate separation from the 3 water table, bedrock, or other impeding layer. 4 5 2.7.2 Exception to Sequencing. The District may grant an exception to the 6 sequencing requirements of paragraphs 2.5.1(d) through (i) on an applicant's 7 demonstration that an alternative management technology or method would 8 achieve the same levels of performance and reliability as the method specified at 9 paragraph 2.5.1(d). 10 11 2.7.3 Variance. The District may grant a variance to any requirement of Rule 2.0 12 under Rule 10.0. 13 14 2.7.4 Regional Treatment. Management of site stormwater in a regional facility 15 constitutes compliance with Rule 2.0 in any of the following circumstances: 16 17 (a) Management is pursuant to and in accordance with a local water 18 management plan approved by the District under Minnesota Statutes 19 §103B.235. 20 21 (b) An applicant has demonstrated infeasibility of on-site and off-site 22 infiltration under sub-section 2.7.1 and the District, in writing, finds that 23 the proposed method of management would meet all standards of section 24 2.4 except for paragraph 2.4.1(b). 25 26 (c) Management is pursuant to and in accordance with a cooperative 27 agreement with the District that explicitly recognizes alternative 28 compliance with Rule 2.0 under specified conditions. 29 30 2.7.5 Basin Outlet. Rule 2.0 does not apply to a capital project in a watershed 31 management or approved local water management plan intended to create an 32 outlet for a landlocked basin. 33 34 2.8 Groundwater-Dependent Natural Resource Management Plans. Standards 35 established in District approved management plans for individual groundwater 36 dependent natural resources will supersede other District Rules as indicated in the 37 approved management plan. All applicable District Rules not superseded by the 38 approved management plan will still apply to the proposed project. 39 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 16 Rules 1 APPENDIX 2.1 2 Bounce and Inundation Period Standards Management Permitted Bounce Inundation Period for Inundation Period for Classification Two-Year Event 10-Year or Greater Event Preserve wetland Pre-development Existing Existing Manage 1 wetland Pre-development + Existing plus 1 day Existing plus 2 days 0.5 feet Manage 2 wetland Pre-development + Existing plus 2 days Existing plus 14 days 1.0 feet Manage 3 No limit Existing plus 7 days Existing plus 21 days wetland/Lake 3 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 17 Rules 1 APPENDIX 2.2 2 Design Infiltration Rates Hydrologic Corresponding Unified Soil Infiltration Soil Group Soil Textures Classification Rate [inches/hour] GW-Well-graded gravel or well-graded gravel with sand 1.63 Gravel, sand, GP — Poorly graded gravel or poorly sandy gravel, graded gravel with sand A silty gravel, GM - Silty gravel or silty gravel with loamy sand, sand sandy loam SW-Well-graded sand or well-graded 0.8 sand with gravel SP — Poorly graded sand or poorly graded sand with gravel SM - Silty sand or silty sand with gravel 0.6 B Loam, silt loam ML—Silt OL—Organic silt or organic silt with 0.3 sand or gravel or gravelly organic silt GC—Clayey gravel or clayey gravel Sandy clay with sand loam SC— Clayey sand or clayey sand with 0.2 gravel CL— Lean clay or lean clay with sand or gravel or gravelly lean clay Clay, clay loam, CH — Fat clay or fat clay with sand or D silty clay loam, gravel or gravelly fat clay < 0.2 sandy clay, silty OH — Organic clay or organic clay with clay sand or gravel or gravelly organic clay MH — Elastic silt or elastic silt with sand or gravel 3 Source: Minnesota Stormwater Manual (2005) 4 5 *U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005. National Soil 6 Survey Handbook, title 430-VI. (Online)Available: httb://soils.usda.gov/technical/handbook/. 7 8 **ASTM standard D2487-00 Standard Practice for Classification of Soils for Engineering Purposes 9 (Unified Soil Classification System). 10 11 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 18 Rules 1 3.0 EROSION CONTROL 2 3.1 Policy. It is the policy of the Board of Managers to require erosion control for land 3 disturbing activities to prevent the siltation and sedimentation of streams, lakes, wetlands, 4 and groundwater recharge areas in the District. 5 3.2 Applicability. All persons shall submit an erosion control plan to the District, and 6 secure a permit from the District approving the erosion control plan for any grading, filling, 7 or other land disturbing activities which involve: 8 (a) Land disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more within the surface water 9 contributing area of a groundwater-dependent natural resource or 10 11 (b) Land disturbance of 5,000 square feet or more within 1000 feet of a public 12 water. 13 3.3 Regulation. The plan must meet the following standards: 14 3.3.1 An erosion control plan must be prepared by a qualified individual showing 15 proposed methods of retaining waterborne sediments on site during the period of 16 construction and showing how the site will be restored, covered, or revegetated 17 after construction, including a timetable for completion; 18 3.3.2 The erosion control plan shall be consistent with the specifications of the 19 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) manual "Protecting Water Quality in 20 Urban Areas" and its current revisions, and specifically shall conform to manual 21 recommendations on the following subjects, as applicable: 22 (a) Implementation schedule and construction sequencing 23 (b) Critical erosion areas 24 (c) Limits of disturbed areas 25 (d) Stabilizing exposed and soil stockpile areas 26 (e) Stabilizing waterways and outlets (including managing five-year, 24- 27 hour event) 28 (f) Protecting adjacent properties from erosion 29 (g) Storm sewer inlet protection 30 (h) Riprap at culvert outfalls 31 (i) Rock construction entrances 32 (j) BMP construction details 33 (k) Horizontal slope grading 34 (I) Permanent erosion control; 35 3.3.3 Sites with high erosion potential characterized by steep slopes or erodible 36 soils may require the permit applicant to post a surety pursuant to Rule 9.0. 37 3.4 Site Maintenance Practices 38 3.4.1 All erosion and sediment control measures shall be installed, and the 39 District shall be given three business days' notice in writing, before land 40 disturbance commences. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 19 Rules 1 3.4.2 The permittee is responsible at all times for the maintenance and proper 2 operation of all erosion and sediment control facilities. On any property on which 3 land-disturbing activity has occurred pursuant to a permit issued under this Rule, 4 the permittee shall, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed 5 surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization 6 measures every day work is performed on the site, and at least weekly, until land- 7 disturbing activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee shall perform these 8 responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. 9 3.4.3 All exposed soil areas and soil stockpiles within 200 lineal feet of a wetland, 10 a waterbody, a discernable surface drainage feature or a stormwater system 11 inlet, and with a continuous downhill slope to that water feature, must be 12 stabilized with erosion control measures, or temporary or permanent cover, 13 within the indicated time after final grade is established: 14 Slope Time 15 Steeper than 3:1 7 days 16 10:1 to 3:1 14 days 17 Flatter than 10:1 21 days 18 If an area is not permanently stabilized, it shall be managed in accordance with 19 paragraph 3.4.4, below. 20 3.4.4 The weekly inspection requirement of paragraph 3.4.2, above, may be 21 reduced to monthly between November 15 and snowmelt if site management 22 conforms to the following: 23 (a) Exposed soils are stabilized with established vegetation, straw or 24 mulch, matting, rock or other approved product such as rolled erosion 25 control product. Seeding is encouraged, but alone is not sufficient. 26 (b) Temporary and permanent ponds and sediment traps are graded to 27 capacity before spring snowmelt. This does not include infiltration/filtration 28 facilities, which must be kept free of sediment until the site is fully 29 stabilized. 30 (c) Sediment barriers are properly installed at necessary perimeter and 31 sensitive locations. 32 (d) Slopes and grades are properly stabilized with approved methods. 33 Rolled erosion control products must be used on slopes greater than 3:1 34 (Horizontal:Vertical) and where erosion conditions dictate. 35 (e) Stockpiled soils and other materials subject to erosion are protected 36 by established vegetation, anchored straw or mulch, rolled erosion control 37 product or other durable covering; a barrier prevents movement of eroded 38 materials from the location. 39 (f) All construction entrances are properly stabilized. 40 (g) Snow management protects erosion and sediment control measures. 41 3.4.5 If a site is actively worked after November 15, all steep slope measures, 42 downgradient and perimeter sediment controls, stockpile stabilization and sediment 43 control measures, swales, channels, culvert outfalls and storm sewer inlets must 44 be maintained in proper working condition at the end of each work day. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 20 Rules 1 3.4.6 After construction is complete, design contours must be established for 2 permanent wet detention basins used as sediment basins during construction. 3 3.4.7 Erosion control measures such as silt fences and inlet protection shall not 4 be removed until after the project is complete and the District determines that all 5 disturbed areas have been fully stabilized, and shall be removed within 14 days 6 thereafter. 7 3.5 Agricultural Practices. A Rule 3.0 permit is not required for agricultural activity, 8 provided that a grass or natural vegetation buffer zone extending sixteen (16) feet or the 9 width of an applicable shore impact zone, whichever wider, is maintained along any 10 waterbody, wetland or surface drainage conveyance and no fertilizer is used in the zone. 11 Excluding areas constructed specifically for livestock watering, the practice of rearing 12 livestock near streams, lakes and wetlands, and allowing livestock to walk on 13 embankments and enter streams, lakes and wetlands is discouraged. Steep slopes 14 disturbed by livestock access within the buffer zone do not qualify as a buffer under this 15 exemption. 16 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 21 Rules 1 4.0 LAKE, RIVER, STREAM AND WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS 2 The purpose of Rule 4.0 is to afford the greatest possible protection to buffers, and to the 3 water quality and habitat of District water resources, consistent with the interest in avoiding 4 undue disturbance to established public and private activities adjacent to lakes and 5 streams. 6 4.1 Purposes and Policy. Natural vegetation bordering the bed and banks of lakes, 7 streams and wetlands serves a critical role in maintaining the ecological function of and 8 community benefits deriving from those water resources. Purposes served by vegetative 9 buffers include bank and shoreline stabilization; erosion prevention; filtration of nutrients, 10 sediments and other pollutants from storm flows; protection of stream beds and banks and 11 mitigation of downstream flooding through moderation of peak flows both into and within 12 the resource; regulation of in-stream temperatures; preservation of aquatic and terrestrial 13 habitat; protection of scenic resources; and maintenance of property values. 14 4.2 Applicability. 15 4.2.1 Rule 4.0 applies to land; 16 (a) adjacent to a stream designated as a public water pursuant to Minn. 17 Stat. §103G.005, subd. 15, as amended; a recreational development or 18 natural environment lake designated as a public water under Minn. Stat. 19 §103G.005, subd. 15, as amended; a groundwater-dependent natural 20 resource, a wetland, or the St. Croix River; and 21 (b) that has been (i) subdivided; or (ii) subject to a variance from the 22 applicable shoreland ordinance relating to structure setback from the 23 property line adjacent to the resource or impervious surface percentage; on 24 or after [the date of rule adoption]. 25 4.2.2 Rule 4.0 applies in addition to, and not in place of, any local shoreland 26 ordinance. 27 4.3 Zone Widths. 28 4.3.1 Subject to the special provisions in sub-sections 4.3.2 through 4.3.5, buffer 29 zones are as follows as measured from the OHWL, delineated wetland edge, or 30 top of bank as applicable to the resource: 31 (a) Stream/Tributary/St. Croix River 32 (1) Streamside zone: 25 feet 33 (2) Middle zone: 50 feet from upland edge of streamside zone 34 (3) Outer zone: from upland edge of middle zone to structure 35 setback under applicable shoreland ordinance 36 (b) Natural environment lake: 75 feet 37 (c) Recreational development lake: 50 feet 38 (d) Manage 1 wetland: 100 feet 39 (e) Manage 2 wetland: 75 feet 40 (f) Manage 3 wetland: 50 feet 41 (g) Manage 4 wetland: 30 feet Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 22 Rules 1 If a lake or wetland is a groundwater-dependent natural resource, the buffer will be 2 100 feet. If a stream is a groundwater-dependent natural resource, the streamside 3 zone will be 50 feet, and the middle zone 100 feet. 4 4.3.2 Where a mapped natural community is associated with a stream or lake 5 subject to Rule 4.0, the upland edge of the buffer or, for a stream, the middle zone 6 shall be as specified in sub-section 4.3.1 or contiguous with the upland edge of the 7 mapped natural community, whichever is greater. 8 4.3.3 Where a lake or wetland buffer, or a streamside or middle zone of a stream 9 buffer, encompasses all or part of a steep slope, the zone or buffer shall extend to 10 the distance specified in sub-section 4.3.1 or to the top of the slope, whichever is 11 greater. A contour alteration or artificial structure on a steep slope constitutes a 12 break in slope only if it indefinitely will dissipate upgradient velocity and trap 13 upgradient pollutant loadings. 14 4.3.4 Where the 100-year floodplain extends further than the upland edge of the 15 middle zone, the lake buffer or the river buffer specified in subsection 4.3.1, the 16 zone or buffer shall extend to the upland edge of the floodplain. 17 4.3.5 Where a drainageway conveying flow through the buffer extends outside the 18 buffer width specified in subsection 4.3.1, the buffer shall be extended along the 19 drainageway with a width equal to that of the drainageway. 20 4.3.6 Where a lake or wetland of any size is encompassed within or contiguous to 21 a stream to which Rule 4.0 applies, the lake or wetland buffer specified in 22 subsection 4.3.1 or Rule 12.0 shall apply in addition to, and not in place of, the 23 applicable stream or lake buffer. 24 4.3.7 Buffer width may vary where the applicant can clearly demonstrate the 25 need to vary from the District's rule or when there is a potential to provide 26 benefits to the resources of the District, provided that the average width at least 27 equals the applicable width of subsection 4.3.1, the buffer is at least half of that 28 width at all points, and the buffer provides water resource and habitat protection 29 at least equivalent to that of a uniform buffer of the required width. Buffer area 30 calculation will exclude any part of the buffer exceeding twice the width specified 31 in subsection 4.3.1. 32 4.4 Declaration and Delineation of Buffer Zones. 33 4.4.1 Before any disturbance of ground vegetation or contour, or placement of 34 any structure on the ground, a declaration, easement, or other instrument 35 incorporating the applicable requirements of Rule 4.0 shall be recorded with the 36 County in perpetuity on the property title by the property owner. 37 4.4.2 A buffer shall be indicated by either permanent, flush to the ground markers 38 or permanent, 4 ft post markers at the buffer's upland edge, with a design and 39 text approved by District staff in writing. A marker shall be placed at each lot line, 40 with additional markers at an interval of no more than 200 feet. If a District permit 41 is sought for a subdivision, the monumentation requirement will apply to each lot 42 of record to be created. On public land or right-of-way the monumentation 43 requirement may be satisfied by the use of markers flush to the ground, 44 breakaway markers of durable material, or a vegetation maintenance plan 45 approved by District staff in writing. 46 4.5 Limitations in Buffer Zones. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 23 Rules 1 4.5.1 At the time a buffer is created under Rule 4.0, the District may require a 2 planting or landscaping plan and the implementation of that plan to establish 3 adequate native vegetative cover for buffer areas that: 4 (a) Have vegetation composed more than 30 percent of undesirable plant 5 species (including, but not limited to turf grass, reed canary grass, 6 common buckthorn, purple loosestrife, leafy spurge, bull thistle, and other 7 noxious or invasive weeds); or 8 (b) Consist of more than 10 percent of bare or disturbed soil or turf grass. 9 4.5.2 Lake Buffers; Wetland Buffers; Streamside Zone of Stream or River Buffer. 10 The following activities are prohibited within a lake buffer, and within the 11 streamside zone of a stream or river buffer: 12 (a) Creating impervious cover except as allowed by Rule 4.9.2. 13 (b) Excavating fill or placing fill or debris, except for temporary placement of 14 fill or debris pursuant to duly-permitted work in the associated watercourse, 15 in compliance with all conditions of the permit, and in compliance with 16 section 4.7. 17 (c) Altering vegetation, except for (i) vegetative enhancements, as 18 approved in writing by staff; and (ii) the removal of invasive exotic species 19 or of trees for disease control or revegetation. A tree larger than six inches 20 in diameter at a point two feet above the ground may be removed only on 21 written authorization from District staff on a determination that the function 22 of the buffer will not be diminished. 23 (d) Locating roads or utilities, except pursuant to a crossing of the 24 associated watercourse in accordance with section 4.7. Structures and 25 appurtenances associated with the road or utility shall not be located within 26 the streamside zone unless no feasible alternative exists. Outlet, flood 27 control and stormwater treatment facilities may be located within the zone if 28 so approved under Rule 2.0, except that a stormwater basin is not 29 permitted: 30 (i)within the streamside zone of a stream buffer; or 31 (ii) within the buffer of a groundwater-dependent natural resource, 32 unless the basin bottom is at least three feet above the seasonal 33 high water table, bedrock or other impeding layer and the basin and 34 associated facilities are designed and maintained to infiltrate the 35 two-year, 24-hour precipitation event. 36 4.5.3 Middle Zone of Stream Buffer. The streamside zone prohibitions of 37 subsection 4.5.2 apply in the middle zone of a stream buffer, except that dead 38 trees, limbs or branches may be removed from the buffer for any reason and 39 without District approval. 40 4.5.4 Outer Zone of Stream Buffer. The following are prohibited in the outer zone of 41 a stream buffer: 42 (a) Creating impervious cover except as allowed by Rule 4.9.2. 43 (b) Placing fill or excavation, except in accordance with section 4.7 and 44 other applicable law. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 24 Rules 1 (c) Locating roads or utilities that involve the creation of impervious surface 2 within the outer zone, except pursuant to a crossing of the watercourse and 3 in accordance with section 4.7. Structures and appurtenances associated 4 with the road or utility shall not be located within the outer zone unless no 5 feasible alternative exists. Outlet, flood control and stormwater treatment 6 facilities may be located within the zone if so approved under Rule 2.0. 7 4.6 Shoreline and Bank Stabilization. A measure to stabilize a shoreline or bank 8 otherwise regulated under Rule 5.0 must comply with sub-section 4.7.1 but otherwise is 9 excepted from the prohibitions of section 4.4. 10 4.7 Temporary Alterations. 11 4.7.1 Compliance with Rule 3.0 is required, irrespective of the area or volume of 12 earth to be disturbed. 13 4.7.2 Buffer zones and the location and extent of vegetation disturbance shall be 14 delineated on the erosion control plan. 15 4.7.3 Alterations must be designed and conducted to ensure only the smallest 16 amount of disturbed ground is exposed for the shortest time possible. Mulches or 17 similar materials must be used for temporary soil coverage and permanent native 18 vegetation established as soon as possible. 19 4.7.4 Fill or excavated material shall not be placed to create an unstable slope. 20 4.7.5 When construction, land disturbance, fill or excavation activity occurs within 21 the outer zone, the boundary between the outer and middle zones shall be 22 demarcated with siltation or other fencing to prevent disturbance of vegetation 23 within the middle zone. When construction, land disturbance, fill or excavation 24 activity occurs within the middle zone, the boundary between the middle and 25 streamside zones shall be demarcated with siltation or other fencing to prevent 26 disturbance of vegetation within the streamside zone. 27 4.8 Roads and Utilities. 28 4.8.1 A structure, impervious cover or right-of-way maintained permanently in 29 conjunction with a crossing of the waterbody or wetland shall minimize the area of 30 permanent vegetative disturbance to the degree feasible. Minimization includes, 31 but is not limited to, approach roads and rights-of-way that are perpendicular to the 32 crossing and of a minimum width consistent with use and maintenance access 33 needs. 34 4.8.2 All work shall be in accordance with section 4.7. 35 4.9 Exceptions. 36 4.9.1 An impervious surface, road or utility in existence on [the date of adoption of 37 this rule], its maintenance (including mill and overlay), reconstruction, and 38 maintenance of its existing right-of-way are excepted from the operation of Rule 39 4.0 unless the impervious surface area increases. Any increase in area of a 40 surface, road or utility excepted under this sub-section is subject to the Rule. A 41 public road or a utility may be located within a buffer zone on a finding that 42 avoiding the buffer is infeasible and in accordance with the standards of section 43 4.8. Mitigation of impacted buffer area is required where avoidance in infeasible. 44 4.9.2 Access to a waterbody or wetland for a lawful private or public use of the 45 resource may be created and maintained. All access surfaces within the buffer Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 25 Rules 1 zone, other than stairs, lifts, and docks allowed under the applicable shoreland 2 ordinance, must be pervious. Permanent vegetative disturbance shall be limited to 3 that necessary for access in light of the nature and extent of the permitted use. For 4 the purpose of this exception, porous paving systems are not considered a 5 pervious use. No facility, other than a footpath or a facility accessory to a 6 permitted use of the waterbody and required by its nature to be adjacent to the 7 water such as stairs, lifts, and docks allowed under the applicable shoreland 8 ordinance, may be located within the buffer zone. Paved recreational trails must 9 be located outside the buffer zone. The access zone must not exceed 50 feet in 10 width or half the lot width, whichever is less. 11 4.9.3 The District may grant a variance from any requirement of Rule 4.0 pursuant 12 to Rule 10.0 of these Rules. In determining the appropriateness of a variance, the 13 District shall consider, among other factors, the parcel or lot of record as of the 14 date Rule 4.0 was adopted; the common ownership of the property in question and 15 adjacent property; and the availability of clustering, density compensation, 16 variances and other means under applicable land use law that would allow desired 17 uses to be located on portions of the parcel or lot not within buffer zones. An 18 exception shall be limited to the extent necessary to put the property to a 19 reasonable or economically viable use. 20 4.9.4 For properties where the existing primary structure location does not 21 conform to the setback under the applicable shoreland ordinance and the structure 22 location is not required to be brought into conformance with the applicable setback, 23 the buffer width shall be 50% of the existing distance between the structure and the 24 OHWL, delineated wetland edge, or top of bank as applicable to the resource. 25 4.10 Required Exhibits. In addition to the District's standard application form, fees and 26 sureties, the following exhibits shall accompany a permit application (one full-size; one set- 27 reduced to maximum size of 11" x 17"): 28 4.10.1 Complete set of project plans that details project setting in relation to 29 adjacent water body; 30 4.10.2 Plan indicating OHWL or delineated wetland edge of adjacent water body 31 and applicable buffer width; 32 4.10.3 Buffer averaging justification if averaging requested under Rule 4.3.7; 33 4.10.4 Evaluation of existing buffer vegetation and density in compliance with 34 Rule 4.5.1. Planting plan, planting list with species and planting density, and 35 specifications and inspection and maintenance schedule to ensure project 36 success if needed to comply with Rule 4.5.1. 37 38 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 26 Rules 1 5.0 SHORELINE & STREAMBANK ALTERATIONS 2 5.1 Policy. It is the policy of the District to: 3 5.1.1 Limit alteration of a shoreline or streambank under Rule 5.0 to instances 4 where erosion of the shoreline or streambank is occurring or likely to occur. 5 5.1.2 Assure that improvements or alterations of shoreline and streambank areas 6 comply with accepted engineering principles to prevent erosion; and 7 5.1.3 Preserve and, wherever feasible, enhance the ecological integrity and natural 8 appearance of shoreline and streambank areas. 9 5.2 Regulation. No person shall disturb the natural shoreline or streambank partially or 10 wholly below the ordinary high water mark of a waterbody, without first securing a permit 11 from the District and posting a surety. Disturbance of a shoreline or streambank wholly 12 above the ordinary high water mark of a waterbody may require a permit under Rule 7.0. 13 A permit will be issued only on a demonstration that erosion is occurring. Projects may 14 only use riprap if it is demonstrated that bioengineering is infeasible. Construction of 15 retaining walls is only allowed by variance. 16 A permit issued under this rule may be valid for up to 5 years to allow for the completion of 17 regular maintenance of District approved bioengineering, riprap and retaining wall 18 shoreline projects or projects completed prior to [the date of adoption of these rules] if a 19 maintenance plan is submitted and approved by the District. 20 5.3 Criteria for Bioengineering. Bioengineering techniques shall be used for shoreline 21 and streambank restoration unless it is demonstrated that it is infeasible to repair the 22 erosion problem using bioengineering techniques. The following criteria apply to 23 bioengineering projects: 24 5.3.1 The resultant project shall be structurally stable. Special emphasis shall be 25 given to the stability of the toe of slope where traditional engineering techniques 26 may be more appropriate. 27 5.3.2 Native vegetation shall be used in all cases. Preferable species include those 28 that form dense root systems or can be planted from cuttings. 29 5.3.3 Bioengineering projects shall include a long-term maintenance plan which will 30 ensure that small erosion spots are corrected and native plant materials are 31 successful. 32 5.4 Criteria for Rip Rap Placement. Rip rap placement is allowed only when 33 bioengineering has been demonstrated to be infeasible as a solution to the erosion 34 problem. Rip rap placement shall comply with the following criteria: 35 5.4.1 Rip rap material should be durable, natural stone common to the setting and 36 of a gradation that will result in a stable shoreline embankment able to withstand 37 ice and wave action. 38 5.4.2 The finished slope of the rock fragments, boulders and/or cobbles should not 39 be steeper than a ratio of 3 feet horizontal to 1 foot vertical (3:1) under normal 40 conditions. Steeper slopes will generally require larger sized rip rap. The finished 41 slope shall be no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to vertical). Any rock/boulder 42 stabilization project with a proposed finished slope steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to 43 vertical) shall be evaluated in accordance with the conditions for retaining walls. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 27 Rules 1 5.4.3 No rip rap or filter materials shall be placed more than 6 feet waterward of the 2 shoreline measured from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) elevation. 3 5.4.4 A transitional layer consisting of graded gravel, at least 6 inches deep, and 4 an appropriate geotextile filter fabric shall be placed between the soil material of 5 the existing shoreline and the rip rap to prevent erosion of the embankment and to 6 prevent settlement. 7 5.4.5 Rip rap placement shall not be attempted when underlying soils are not 8 capable of supporting resulting loads. In these cases, a professional engineer 9 registered in Minnesota should be consulted. 10 5.4.6 The thickness of the rip rap layers shall be at least 1.25 times the maximum 11 stone diameter, exclusive of toe boulders at least 50 percent buried. 12 5.4.7 The rip rap shall conform with the natural alignment of the shoreline (i.e., 13 maintaining an undulating or meandering shoreline). 14 5.4.8 The design must reflect the engineering properties of the underlying soils and 15 any soil corrections or reinforcements. For a shoreline, the design must conform to 16 engineering principles for wave energy dispersion and resistance to deformation 17 from ice pressure and movement. For a streambank, the design shall conform to 18 engineering principles for the hydraulic behavior of open channel flow and shall 19 consider upstream and downstream impacts. 20 5.4.9 Rip rap placement projects shall contain a native vegetation planting element 21 equal to at least five percent of the overall cost of the project. 22 5.4.10 Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all 23 other reasonable alternatives. 24 5.5 Criteria for Retaining Walls. 25 5.5.1. A shoreline or streambank structure with a finished slope steeper than 2:1 26 (Horizontal:Vertical), including but not limited to a rock, boulder or masonry 27 installation, seawall, sheetpile structure or gabion basket, is considered a retaining 28 wall. A single course of riprap or other permanent material less than 18 inches in 29 height is excepted. 30 5.5.2 A new retaining wall, or repair/reconstruction of an existing retaining wall that 31 increases floodplain encroachment beyond that required by technically sound and 32 accepted repair/reconstruction methods, is permitted only pursuant to a variance. 33 The applicant must demonstrate there is no adequate stabilization alternative. 34 5.5.3 The applicant must file with the District a certificate of survey prepared by a 35 registered land surveyor locating the finished wall. 36 5.6 Criteria for Laying Sand along Shorelines and Streambanks. 37 5.6.1 Laying sand along shorelines and streambanks (a sandblanket) is permitted 38 only pursuant to a variance and is not allowed along streams or rivers. 39 5.6.2 The sand or gravel used must be clean prior to being spread. The sand must 40 contain no toxins or heavy metal, as defined by the Minnesota Pollution Control 41 Agency (MPCA), and must contain no weed infestations such as, but not limited to, 42 purple loosestrife, glossy buckthorn, reed canary grass and Eurasian watermilfoil, 43 or animal life infestations such as, but not limited to, zebra mussels or their larva. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 28 Rules 1 5.6.3 The sand layer must not exceed six inches in thickness, 30 feet in width 2 along the shoreline, or one-half the width of the lot, whichever is less, and may not 3 extend more than ten (10)feet waterward of the ordinary high water mark. 4 5.6.4 Beaches that are operated by governmental entities, and available to the 5 public, shall be exempted from the following restrictions: (i) that sandblankets be 6 no more than 30 feet in width 7 5.6.5 A natural zone of native shoreline plants of the same depth and equal to 20 8 percent of the width of the sandblanket shall be maintained adjacent to the 9 sandblanket. An aquatic vegetation management permit may also be required 10 from the DNR. 11 5.6.6 Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to all 12 other reasonable alternatives. 13 5.7 Required Exhibits. In addition to the District's standard application form, fees and 14 sureties, the following exhibits shall accompany a permit application (one full-size; one set- 15 reduced to maximum size of 11" x 17"): 16 5.7.1 A riprap application must include the following: 17 (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of lands under ownership 18 of the applicant; delineation of the existing shoreline; delineation of wetland 19 within the project area; existing contour elevations (if available); and 20 locations and lineal footage of the proposed rip rap treatment; 21 (b) Cross-section detailing the proposed rip rap, drawn to scale, with the 22 horizontal and vertical scales noted on the drawing. The detail should show 23 the finished rip rap slope, transitional layer design and placement, distance 24 lakeward of the rip rap placement, ordinary high water level elevation and 25 material specifications; 26 (c) Description of the underlying soil materials that will support the rip rap 27 and, if the underlying soils will not support the rip rap, the recommendations 28 of a professional engineer registered in the State of Minnesota; 29 (d) Gradation, average diameter, quality and type of rip rap material to be 30 used (need must be demonstrated for use of rock larger than a Class III 31 gradation, other than for buried toe boulders); 32 (e) Gradation, quality and type of filter blanket material to be used 33 (normally, Type I gradation is sufficient); 34 (f) Manufacturer's material specifications for proposed geotextile fabric(s); 35 (g) Verification that materials used shall be non-polluting. 36 (h) Detailed planting plan for native vegetation planting element of the 37 project. 38 (i) Plan for maintenance of riprap shoreline stabilization, if a long-term 39 permit is desired as indicated under Rule 5.2. 40 5.7.2 An application for a streambank structure or installation must contain the 41 following: 42 (a) Site plan prepared by a qualified professional registered in the State of 43 Minnesota showing property lines; the ordinary high water level (OHWL) Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Pacie 29 Rules 1 elevation and 100-year floodplain elevation; and existing streambank and 2 contour elevations up to the 100-year elevation, for at least 50 feet 3 upstream and downstream of the project location or for the reach for which 4 the project will affect flow conditions, whichever greater, or as otherwise 5 required by District staff; 6 (b) Cross-section of proposed project including slope dimensions (length, 7 width, height) and distance waterward; 8 (c) Material specifications including plant species and whether species are 9 rooted, seed or cutting; 10 (d) Design calculations and documentation of structural stability, accounting 11 for physical and flow characteristics of the watercourse, by a professional 12 engineer registered in the State of Minnesota; and 13 (e) Detail of proposed site-specific erosion and sediment control practices. 14 (f) Plan for maintenance of shoreline structure and shoreline stabilization, if 15 a long-term permit is desired as indicated under Rule 5.2. 16 5.7.3 A bioengineering application must contain the following: 17 (a) Site plan and project plans that detail the project setting in relation to 18 adjacent water body; 19 (b) Information sufficient to demonstrate ability of installation to withstand 20 wind fetch-induced waves and current, including orientation of installation 21 relative to fetch distance and current; 22 (c) Planting plan, planting list with species and planting density, and 23 specifications; 24 (d) Project timeframe and schedule, including any work contingencies or 25 restrictions due to high water; and 26 (e) Inspection and maintenance schedule to ensure project success. 27 (f) Plan for maintenance of bioengineering shoreline stabilization, if a long- 28 term permit is desired as indicated under Rule 5.2. 29 5.7.4 A variance application for retaining wall installation must contain a analysis of 30 alternative solutions in addition to the structural/geotechnical analysis prepared by 31 a professional engineer, practicing in civil engineering and registered in the State 32 of Minnesota, showing that the design conforms to accepted engineering principles 33 and will withstand expected ice and wave action and earth pressures. Recording 34 the location of the retaining wall on the title of the property is required. Submittal of 35 a plan for maintenance of the retaining wall is required. 36 5.7.5 A sandblanket application must contain the following: 37 (a) Site plan showing property lines, delineation of the work area, existing 38 elevation contours of the adjacent upland area, delineation of wetland 39 within the project area, ordinary high water elevation, and regional flood 40 elevation (if available), with all elevations reduced to National Geodetic 41 Vertical Datum (NGVD) (1929 datum); Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Pane 30 Rules 1 (b) Profile, cross-sections and topographic contours (intervals no more than 2 two feet) showing existing and proposed elevations and proposed side 3 slopes in the work area; and 4 (c) Planting plan and site plan indicating area to be maintained in native 5 shoreline plants. 6 5.8 Exceptions. A permit is not required for removal of an ice ridge resulting from ice 7 action within the last year if: 8 (a) Not more than 200 feet of shoreline is affected; 9 (b) All ice ridge material that is composed of muck, clay or organic sediment is 10 deposited and stabilized at an upland site above the OHWL; 11 (c) All ice ridge material that is composed of sand or gravel is removed as provided 12 above or graded to conform to the original cross-section and alignment of the 13 lakebed, with a finished surface at or below the OHWL; 14 (d) No additional excavation or replacement fill material occurs on the site; 15 (e) All exposed areas are immediately stabilized as needed to prevent erosion and 16 sedimentation; and 17 (f) At least seven days notice is provided to the District. 18 5.9 Guidelines. The engineer shall publish or make available to interested persons a 19 typical riprap cross-section for shoreline protection in compliance with this Rule. 20 5.10 Other Shoreline Improvements. Shoreline improvements not specifically 21 addressed by Rule 5.0 shall comply with accepted engineering principles. 22 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Pane 31 Rules 1 6.0 WATERCOURSE AND BASIN CROSSINGS 2 6.1 Policy. It is the policy of the District to discourage the use of lake beds and beds of 3 waterbodies for the placement of roads, highways, and utilities in order to prevent the 4 transport of pollutants into the waterbody, prevent flood damage, and limit disturbance of 5 the lake or streambed. 6 6.2 Regulation. No person shall use the beds of any waterbody within the District for 7 agricultural activity or the placement of roads, highways and utilities without first securing 8 a permit from the District. Watercourse and basin crossing activities may also require a 9 permit under Rule 7.0. 10 6.3 Criteria. Use of the bed shall: 11 6.3.1 Meet a demonstrated public benefit; 12 6.3.2 Retain adequate hydraulic capacity; 13 6.3.3 Retain adequate recreational navigation capacity; 14 6.3.4 Not adversely affect water quality; 15 6.3.5 Represent the "minimal impact" solution to a specific need with respect to 16 all other reasonable alternatives; and 17 6.3.6 Maintain the natural substrate of the stream bed. 18 6.4 Required Exhibits. The following exhibits shall accompany the permit application 19 (one set -full size; one set- reduced to maximum size of 11"x17"): 20 6.4.1 Construction plans and specifications; 21 6.4.2 Analysis prepared by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist 22 showing the effect of the project on hydraulic capacity and water quality; and 23 6.4.3 An erosion control plan 24 6.4.4 A restoration and mitigation plan. 25 6.5 Maintenance. A declaration or other recordable instrument stating terms for 26 maintenance of hydraulic and navigational capacity and approved by the District shall be 27 recorded in the office of the county recorder or registrar before permit issuance. In place 28 of recording, a public permittee or a permittee without a property interest sufficient for 29 recording may assume the maintenance obligation by means of a written agreement with 30 the District. The agreement shall state that if the ownership of the structure is 31 transferred, the owner shall require the transferee to comply with this subsection. 32 33 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 32 Rules 1 7.0 FLOODPLAIN AND DRAINAGE ALTERATIONS 2 7.1 Policy. It is the policy of the District to: 3 7.1.1 Promote the reasonable use of water resources, such that a landowner may 4 dispose of surface water only in a manner that does not unreasonably burden 5 downstream landowners; 6 7.1.2 Preserve existing water storage capacity in the hundred-year floodplain of all 7 waterbodies and wetlands in the watershed to minimize the frequency and severity 8 of high water; 9 7.1.3 Promote land development that protects property investments by managing 10 development within and adjacent to the 100 year floodplain; and 11 7.1.4 Preserve the natural hydrology of landlocked basins to minimize flooding 12 risks to structures and ecological impacts within or downgradient of those basins. 13 7.2 Regulation. No person shall complete a subdivision of land or alter or fill land below 14 the 100-year flood elevation of any waterbody, wetland, or stormwater management basin, 15 or place fill below the 100-year flood elevation of a landlocked basin, without first obtaining 16 a permit from the District. No person shall alter stormwater flows at a property boundary by 17 changing land contours, diverting or obstructing surface or channel flow, or creating a 18 basin outlet, without first obtaining a permit from the District. 19 7.3 Criteria for Floodplain or Drainage Alterations. 20 7.3.1 Floodplain filling must be accompanied by a replacement of flood volume 21 between the ordinary water level and the 100 year flood elevation except for 22 bioengineering and riprap projects permitted under Rule 5.0. The floodplain 23 mitigation area shall be calculated by a professional engineer registered in the 24 State of Minnesota or by a qualified hydrologist. 25 7.3.2 The construction of a stormwater basin or open stormwater conveyance, and 26 of any residential, commercial, industrial or institutional building, shall maintain: 27 (a) A separation of at least two feet between the lowest basement floor 28 elevation and the 100 year high water elevation; and 29 (b) A separation of at least one foot between the lowest basement floor 30 elevation and an emergency overflow. 31 7.3.3 Within a landlocked basin, the separation cited in paragraph 7.3.2(a), above, 32 shall be at least three feet, unless the building is at least one foot above the basin 33 overflow. 34 7.3.4 The separation required by paragraphs 7.3.2 and 7.3.3 may be measured to 35 the lowest grade elevation in contact with the structure rather than the lowest 36 basement floor elevation if the following criteria are met: 37 (a) Geologic mapping and all available data sources indicate the adjacent 38 waterbody is not a surface expression of a regional water table but is a 39 perched groundwater system; 40 (b) The basement floor elevation will be four(4) feet above the currently 41 observed ground water elevations in the area as demonstrated by two 42 borings or observation wells located between each structure and the 43 waterbody or basin; and Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 33 Rules 1 (c) The basement floor elevation will be two (2) feet above the elevation of 2 any known historic high groundwater elevation for the area. 3 7.3.5 The District will issue a permit to alter surface flows under paragraph 7.2, 4 above, only on a finding that the alteration will not have an unreasonable impact on 5 an upstream or downstream landowner and will not adversely affect flood risk, 6 basin or channel stability, groundwater hydrology, stream baseflow, water quality 7 or aquatic or riparian habitat. 8 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 34 Rules 1 8.0 WETLAND MANAGEMENT 2 8.1 Purposes and Policy. It is the policy of the District to: 3 8.1.1 Protect and improve the functions and diversity of the district's wetlands 4 and lay the groundwork to improve these resources. 5 8.1.2 Educate property owners and the community on the value of water 6 resources. 7 8.1.3 Limit altering the natural water levels of wetland basins. 8 8.1.4 Protect buffer strips of vegetation around wetlands as effective 9 management tools for protecting wetland systems. Vegetated buffers provide 10 cover and nesting habitat for wildlife, reduce erosion into the wetland, provide 11 vegetative diversity, and reduce the amount of pollutants in runoff prior to 12 discharge into a wetland. 13 8.2 Applicability. The requirements of this section apply to all activities regulated by the 14 Wetland Conservation Act in a municipality where the CMSCWD Wetland Management 15 Plan standards are not adopted and implemented by one year after approval of the 16 CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan unless an exception in section 8.10 applies. 17 Municipalities may have incorporated the standards of Rule 8.0 and the CMSCWD 18 Wetland Management Plan into local ordinances; in this case, local ordinances apply 19 and Rule 8.0 does not apply. 20 8.3 Regulation. Before any activity described in § 8.2 commences, a wetland 21 management plan shall be submitted to the District in conformity with the requirements 22 of this Rule, and a permit shall be secured from the District. 23 8.4 Wetland Management and Buffer Standards. 24 8.4.1 Impact Avoidance. Avoidance of wetland impacts is the preferred 25 alternative. In situations of unavoidable impact, replacement after minimized 26 impacts may be permitted in accordance with section 8.6. 27 8.4.2. Livestock Access. Wetlands with existing livestock access may continue 28 livestock access to the wetland so long as the function, value, and quality of the 29 wetland are not degraded. Proposed new livestock access is only allowed on 30 Management Category 4 wetlands. 31 8.4.3 Water Appropriation. Any type of water appropriation and/or dewatering 32 practices are not allowed in High Valued Wetlands of Management Categories 1, 33 2, or 3. A variance for temporary dewatering impacts may be issued if all other 34 options have been exhausted. 35 8.4.4 Buffer Widths. Buffers are required around all replacement wetlands, with 36 the average and minimum widths summarized in Appendix 12.1. 37 8.4.5 Buffer Creation. No wetlands may be filled to create buffer. 38 8.4.7 Recreation Standards. All projects occurring with wetlands on the property 39 with existing trails currently used for landowner access to wetlands within buffer 40 zones and/or mitigated areas are allowed to retain those existing trails, unless 41 trails occur along a drainage swale. Existing trail areas not along a stormwater 42 path, but in an open field may be mowed for walking. Existing trails can not 43 cause any type of soil erosion, soil removal, or vegetation removal. An impacted Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Pane 35 Rules 1 buffer area must be mitigated by payment into the Restoration Fund at a 1:1 ratio 2 to help fund water quality projects. 3 8.5 Wetland Delineations. 4 8.5.1 Delineation Method. Wetland Delineations must be performed according to 5 the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual 6 and corresponding U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Board of Water 7 and Soil Resources (BWSR) guidance. Applicants are encouraged to consult 8 with the LGU prior to the wetland delineation, especially in atypical situations, 9 problem areas, and/or delineations based on inconclusive hydrology. It is 10 incumbent upon the applicant to provide satisfactory documentation to support 11 wetland boundaries, and that level of documentation is generally greater in 12 atypical situations and/or seasonal wetlands, particularly relating to hydrology. 13 The LGU will have final say as to the appropriate level of documentation. 14 8.5.2 Delineation Submittal Timing. Delineations must be submitted to the LGU 15 with ample growing season remaining for review. This decision is at the 16 discretion of the LGU, and could mean that submittals less than 60 days prior to 17 the end of growing season may be deemed incomplete until the following year's 18 growing season. Delineation reports submitted prior to the growing season will 19 be considered complete at the start of the growing season, and the 60 day 20 review process will begin at the start of the growing season. 21 8.5.3 Growing Season. For the purposes of this section, the growing season will 22 start on May 15 and end on October 15; however the final decision for these 23 dates is at the discretion of the LGU. 24 8.6 Wetland Impact Mitigation. 25 8.6.1 Impact Sequencing. Impacts to existing wetland areas must meet the 26 sequencing requirements as outlined under Minnesota Rules 8420.0520 27 "Sequencing." 28 8.6.2 De minimis. This WCA exemption is nullified under these Rules and the 29 CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan for all wetlands in Management 30 Categories 1, 2, and 3. A permit and contribution to the Restoration Fund is 31 required for the area of de minimis impact in wetlands in Management Category 32 4. 33 8.6.3 Excavation. Mitigation is required for all excavation within wetlands in 34 Management Categories 1, 2, and 3. Excavation may be allowed for wetlands in 35 Management Category 4 if a Restoration Fund payment is made in accordance 36 with section 8.6.5(d). 37 8.6.4 Allowable Mitigation Activities. Actions available for mitigation credit are 38 outlined in Minnesota Rules 8420.0541. 39 8.6.5 Replacement Ratios. Landowners needing to "mitigate" or compensate for 40 wetland impacts must meet the required replacement ratios for wetland impacts 41 in addition to meeting the requirements of section 8.4.1. Full replacement and 42 enhancement of all wetland functions is required. Replacement ratios (new 43 wetland area:impacted wetland area) are as follows: 44 (a) 6:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 1 45 (b) 4:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 2 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 36 Rules 1 (c) 2:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 3 2 (d) 1:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 4 3 8.6.6 Location of Replacement. Replacement must be located within the District 4 and as close as possible to the site of impact. Qualifying township, city, or 5 county road impacts may be mitigated outside of watershed under WCA via the 6 BWSR road replacement bank, however, the replacement ratios and restoration 7 fund payments required under Rule 8,0 still apply. 8 8.6.7 Restoration Fund. Landowners needing to "mitigate" or compensate for 9 wetland impacts must make a payment into the Restoration Fund in addition to 10 mitigation replacement ratios, and for excavation activities not regulated by WCA. 11 When a wetland is impacted and mitigated, the impacted buffer area must also 12 be mitigated by payment into the Restoration Fund at a 1:1 ratio. The 13 Restoration Fund payment rate is determined and set by the Board of Managers 14 by formal resolution. Payment ratios (area used to calculate payment:impacted 15 wetland area) are as follows: 16 (a) 6:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 1 17 (b) 4:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 2 18 (c) 2:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 3 19 (d) 1:1 for Impacts to wetlands in Management Category 4 20 Monies in the Restoration Fund will be paid to, administered by, and held by 21 Carnelian-Marine-St Croix Watershed District, and will be used by the District for 22 wetland restoration activities and other natural resource improvement that would 23 restore, protect, and/or improve wetland function. 24 8.8 Delineation of Buffer Zones. 25 8.8.2 A buffer shall be indicated by permanent markers at the buffer's upland 26 edge, with a design and text approved by District staff in writing. 27 8.9 Required Exhibits. The following items, submitted in duplicate, shall accompany all 28 permit applications submitted to the District pursuant to Rule 8.0: 29 8.9.1 Wetland Delineation report prepared in accordance with section 8.5. 30 8.9.2 Site Plan showing: 31 (a) Property lines and corners and delineation of lands under ownership of 32 the applicant. 33 (b) Location of all onsite and adjacent wetlands and water features, including 34 the Management Category for each wetland according to the CMSCWD 35 Wetland Management Plan. 36 (c) Existing and proposed elevation contours, including the existing overflow 37 elevation and flow capacity of the wetland outlet, and spoil disposal 38 areas. 39 (d) Area of the wetland portion to be filled, drained, excavated, or otherwise 40 altered. 41 (e) Location of all proposed wetland buffers and wetland mitigation. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 37 Rules 1 8.9.3 Wetland Assessment data for each wetland according to the CMSCWD 2 Wetland Management Plan. If these data do not exist, then a Functions and 3 Values Assessment is required according to the protocol described in the 4 CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan. 5 8.9,4 Detailed explanation of the wetland buffer quality and buffer plans. 6 8.9.5 A replacement plan, if required, outlining the steps followed for the 7 sequencing process and including documentation supporting the proposed 8 mitigation plan. 9 8.9.6 An Erosion Control Plan. 10 8.9.7 A detail plan for proposed mitigation measures. 11 8.10 Exceptions. 12 8.10.1 Normal maintenance of stormwater ponds constructed in non-wetland 13 areas, and channel maintenance of existing ditches and channels is exempt from 14 the requirements of section 8.6.3 if the activity is exempt under WCA, 15 8.10.2 State roads and highways are exempt from Rule 8.0, however, the District 16 strongly encourages MnDOT to comply with the conditions and intent of the 17 CMSCWD Wetland Management Plan. 18 8.10.3 Buffers around existing wetlands in Management Categories 1, 2, and 3, 19 and/or preservation of high quality wetland may be accepted in lieu of payment 20 into the Restoration Fund at the required ratios at the LGU's discretion. 21 Appendix 12.1 22 Summary of Minimum Buffer Standards 23 Wetland Average Buffer Minimum Buffer Management Width Width Category (feet) (feet) 1 100 100 2 75 50 3 50 25 4 30 25 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 38 Rules 1 9.0 FEES 2 9.1 Policy Findings. The Board of Managers finds that: 3 9.1.1 by encouraging applicants to seek permits for potential projects, the public 4 benefits by reduced inspection and enforcement costs; 5 9.1.2 it is in the public interest that certain projects, involving larger scale 6 development or development in sensitive locations, be inspected and analyzed 7 by District staff to provide the Board of Managers sufficient information to 8 evaluate compliance with District Rules and applicable law.; and 9 9.1.3 from time to time persons perform work requiring a permit from the District 10 without a permit, and persons perform work in violation of an issued District 11 permit. The costs of engineering inspection and analysis in such cases exceeds 12 those costs where the applicant has complied with District requirements. 13 9.2. Site Inspections. A site inspection by District staff shall be performed in the 14 following cases: 15 9.2.1 Commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential developments; 16 9.2.2 Subdivisions of four or more lots; 17 9.2.3 Any alterations of a floodplain; 18 9.2.4 where any person performs any work for which a permit is required under 19 these Rules without having first obtained a permit from the District, or, performs 20 any work in violation of any terms or conditions of a permit issued by the District 21 under these Rules; or 22 9.2.5 any project which, due to its location, scope, or construction techniques, 23 requires inspection in order to determine compliance with District Rules and 24 applicable law. 25 9.3 Calculation of Fees. In all cases described in section 9.2, the applicant, or person 26 responsible for the violation, shall pay to the District a fee equal to the District's actual 27 costs of field inspection of the work, including investigation of the area affected by the 28 work, analysis of the work, services of a consultant, including engineering and legal 29 consultants, and any subsequent monitoring of the work, which in the case of a violation 30 are incurred after notice of violation from the District. 31 9.4 Escrow Deposit. A review and inspection cash escrow deposit is due at the time of 32 application. The cash escrow shall be in the amount specified in the District's Fee 33 Schedule, as amended from time to time. Interest will not be paid on the review and 34 inspection cash escrow deposit. 35 9.5. Violation Procedures and Payment of Fees. 36 9.5.1 The District shall notify any person performing work described in sub- 37 section 9.2.4 of this Rule of the violation. If a permit has not been issued for the 38 work, the person performing the work shall promptly apply for a permit. The 39 Board reserves the right to increase the permit fee as a penalty for work without 40 a permit. If a permit has previously been issued, the District shall rescind the 41 permit if it finds violations of permit terms. Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 39 Rules 1 9.5.2 On receipt of a permit application, exhibits and completion of any 2 necessary inspection and analysis showing that the work to be performed is in 3 accordance with District requirements, the District may issue a permit. On permit 4 approval, the District shall notify the permit applicant of the fee due. The fee shall 5 be paid to the District within thirty(30) days from the date of permit approval. 6 9.5.3 In cases where the permit approved by the District requires further 7 monitoring of the project by District staff or consultants, the District shall notify 8 the applicant of the monitoring fee due. The fee shall be paid to the District within 9 thirty (30) days from the date of notice and failure to pay the fee shall constitute a 10 violation of the permit terms and the District may rescind the permit. 11 9.5.4 In cases where the fee due is not paid within thirty (30) days from the date 12 of notice, the District shall use the review and inspection fee cash escrow to 13 recover the permit review and inspection fee. 14 9.6 Recovery of Fee. The fee provided for in this Rule may be recovered by the District 15 by any legal action authorized by law. 16 9.7 Governmental Agencies Exempt. The fee provided for in this Rule shall not be 17 charged to any agency of the United States or any governmental unit in the State of 18 Minnesota. 19 20 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 40 Rules 1 10.0 SURETIES 2 10.1 Policy. It is the policy of the District to protect and conserve the water resources of 3 the District by assuring compliance with the District's Rules in the performance of 4 activities within the District, and to assure compliance where necessary by requiring a 5 bond or other surety with a permit application that is conditioned on adequate 6 performance of the authorized activities and compliance with District Rules. 7 10.2 Form and Conditions of a Surety or Letter of Credit. 8 10.2.1 The District may require a letter of credit, cash surety, or other bond or 9 surety in an amount and form approved by the District for an activity regulated 10 under these Rules. A commercial surety shall be from an issuer licensed and 11 doing business in Minnesota. The surety shall be submitted by the permit 12 applicant but the surety principal may be either the landowner or the individual or 13 entity undertaking the proposed activity. 14 10.2.2 The surety shall be in favor of the District and conditioned on the 15 applicant's performance of the activities authorized in the permit in compliance 16 with all applicable laws, including the District's Rules, the terms and conditions of 17 the permit and payment when due of any fees or other charges authorized by 18 law, including the District's Rules. The surety shall state that in the event the 19 conditions of the surety are not met, the District may make a claim against it. 20 10.2.3 The surety must be valid and in force for at least a one-year period and 21 shall contain a provision that it may not be canceled or released except pursuant 22 to the terms of section 10.4 of these Rules. 23 10.2.4 Interest will not be paid on a cash surety. 24 10.3 Surety Amount. 25 The amount of the surety shall be set by the Board of Managers by resolution as the 26 amount the Board deems necessary to cover the following potential liabilities to the 27 District: 28 (a) Application, field inspection, monitoring and related fees authorized under 29 Minn. Stat. § 103D.345; 30 (b)The cost of maintaining and implementing protective measures set forth in or 31 incorporated into the permit; and 32 (c)The cost of remedying damage resulting from permit noncompliance or for 33 which the permittee otherwise is responsible. 34 (d) No stormwater management facilities surety is necessary if the applicant can 35 demonstrate that the municipality has received a performance surety in an 36 amount equal to or greater than the amount required by the District. 37 10.4 Release of a Surety. On written notification of completion of a project, the District 38 will inspect the project to determine if the project is constructed in accordance with the 39 terms of the permit and District Rules. For a surety to be released, vegetation must be 40 established to a level that will provide the necessary level of soil stabilization. If the 41 project is completed in accordance with the terms of the permit and District Rules and 42 there is no outstanding balance for unpaid inspection fees, the District will release the 43 performance bond or letter of credit. If the District has not inspected the project and Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Pade 41 Rules 1 made a determination about the project's compliance with the above criteria within 45 2 days of District receipt of written notification of project completion, the surety is deemed 3 released. In this event, the District will provide a writing releasing the surety if needed to 4 meet the issuer's requirements. 5 10.5 Governmental Agencies Exempt. The surety provided for in this Rule shall not be 6 charged to any agency of the United States or any governmental unit in the State of 7 Minnesota. 8 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 42 Rules 1 11.0 VARIANCES 2 11.1 Variances Authorized. The Board of Managers may hear requests for variances 3 from the provisions of these Rules in instances where their strict enforcement would 4 cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the property under 5 consideration. The Board of Managers may grant variances where it is demonstrated 6 that such action will be keeping with the spirit and intent of these Rules. A variance shall 7 contain conditions to prevent or mitigate adverse impacts from the activity. 8 11.2 Standard. In order to grant a variance, the Board of Managers shall determine that 9 the special conditions that apply to the structure or land in question do not apply 10 generally to other land or structures in the District, that the granting of the variance will 11 not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, and that the variance will not impair 12 or be contrary to the intent of these Rules. A hardship cannot be created by the 13 landowner, the landowner's agent or representative, or a contractor, and must be unique 14 to the property. Economic hardship alone is not grounds for issuing a variance. 15 11.3 Term. A variance shall become void after one year after it is granted if the activity 16 requiring a variance is not initiated within one year unless the Board grants an extension 17 of the variance. After the action requiring a variance is complete, the variance applies to 18 the completed action in perpetuity. 19 11.4 Violation. A violation of any condition set forth in a variance shall be a violation of 20 the District Rules and shall automatically terminate the variance. 21 11.5 Procedures. Procedures are as identified under Rule 1.0. 22 23 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 43 Rules 1 12.0 ENFORCEMENT 2 12.1 Violation of Rules a Misdemeanor. Violation of these Rules, a stipulation 3 agreement made, an order or a permit issued by the Board of Managers pursuant to 4 these Rules is a misdemeanor. 5 12.2 District Court Action. The Board of Managers may exercise all powers conferred 6 upon it by Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D in enforcing these Rules, including criminal 7 prosecution, injunction, action to compel performance, restoration, abatement, or other 8 appropriate action. 9 12.3 Administrative Order. The District may issue a cease and desist order when it 10 finds that a proposed or initiated project presents a serious threat of flooding, soil 11 erosion, sedimentation, or adverse effect on water quality or otherwise violates any Rule 12 of the District. 13 Carnelian-Marine-St. Croix Watershed District Page 44 Rules COMMENT RESPONSES ---—----------- # Rule Comment From !Response 1 1General !Start each new rule on a new page. May Township This change has been made. The proposed rules appear to be consistent with the Council's Water Resources Management Plan. Metropolitan Council Staff thanks you for the opportunity to work with your organization and member communities on revising the watershed district rules. Council staff would like to commend you on your effort. Using your Comment noted, the District appreciates the participation of the Metropolitan 2 General !technical advisory committee of permitted and Council Metropolitan Council in the Rule Revision technical input Mother interested parties in your district helped to process. effectively and efficiently gather input on the rules. Staff believes the proposed rules, when implemented, will help maintain and improve the water quality of the water resources in the district. Therefore, the Council staff is highly supportive of the district's revised rules. Dennis Add something to the introduction stating that O'Donnell 3 General !guidance materials being developed and (2/29/08 The District doesn't have an active web site at this time. available on the District web-site Meeting) 4 General !Page 26, line 20, a space is needed after "flow" May Township This change has been made. at "flowand" 5 General Page 31, line 29, a space is needed after "plan" May Township This change has been made. _ at "planun_less" '6 General !Page 32, lin 15 ends in 2 periods. !May Township!This change has been made. CMSCW D Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 1 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Many of the rules (such as wetland buffers, mitigation requirements and elimination of de IThe Board has considered the standards and applicability of the minimus exemptions) expand regulations I rules and set those standards to apply to areas that are not 7 General l beyond what is now required by local ordinances City of afforded the needed level of protection. The wetland buffer or state law. The board should consider the Scandia widths are based on published research and mitigation ratios are impact these additional restrictions will have on set to a level intended to highly discourage impacts to the 'property owners and their expectations of how exceptional quality wetlands. (they will be able to use thier land. First, a general comment regarding administration and enforcement of the rules. ,The city is usually the first point of contact for property owners planning any type of construction project. We have overlapping regulations and responsibilities for many of the same activities covered by the rules. 8 General Coordinating; the watershed's procedures with City of The District will work with municipalities to develop MOUs the city's process for development reviews and Scandia regarding coordinating efforts in permit review and enforcement. building permits will be a challenge. There will be opportunities to work together to reduce the time and expense for landowners and for the public. At some point, it may be desirable to develop a "memorandum of understanding" to better define how we will work together. The rules contain a lot of highly technical terms and jargon that will be difficult for the average 9 General citizen and probably even many people in the City of The term MnRAM has been more clearly indicated as the development industry to understand. Where Scandia Minnesota Routine Assessment Method. possible, additional definitions and explanations 'should be added (for example, "MnRAM"). CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 2 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Prior to adoption of the Rules, we will need to Washington develop the process and procedures for Conservation The District will work with LGUs to coordinate the District and 10 General I reviewing proposed wetland impacts under both District (April WCA review process. the WCA and the District's Wetland 8, 2008) Management Plan and rules. City of Citizens and municipal staff and representatives indicated that In a number of its responses, the Watershed determining how to comply with the rules and providing all the Scandia - District has stated that the CMSCWD will be exhibits for Rule 2.0 was the main burden. These will be eased Attorney 11 General (developing guidance documentation. How will through the guidance document and a change to Rule 2.0 to (Written letter (the guidance documentation take away the clear after Public state that required exhibits can be waived at the discretion of the burdens established by the Rules? administrator if the exhibit is not needed for evaluation of the Hearing) proposed project. We all recognize that protection of the District's water sources is very important. However, it is important to recognize the constitutional right of City of The Wetland Management Plan was developed to be property owners to the reasonable use of their Scandia - implemented under MN Rule 8420.0650, Local Comprehensive property. Significantly increasing the restrictions Attorney 12 General Wetland Protection and Management Plans, with the input of on those rights beyond the requirements of the (Written letter BWSR and a Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen State-wide rules implemented under the after Public Advisory Committee. 'Wetland Conservation Act, makes the District Hearing) Rules susceptible to court challenges and takings claims. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 3 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment I From Response DEFINITIONS. There should be additional detail given to some of the definitions and definitions The definition of Distributed CN-value approach has been provided for certain important terms used in the !City of revised to state ""Distributed CN-value approach" means an Rules for which definitions are not supplied. Scandia - approach that separately assigns a curve number to each land Examples are as follows: a. Distributed CN- Attorney use to more accurately reflect volume and timing of site- value approach. A citation to the official (Written ,generated runoff. Impervious surfaces directly connected to 13 10.0 I methodology should be included. b. MnRAM. A clarification of j stormwater conveyances may not be grouped together with (definition should be included with a reference to !verbal 'disconnected impervious and pervious areas for calculation of Ithe official methodology. c. Reconstruction. This 'comments at drainage area curve numbers." The term MnRAM has been term, if used in the Rules, should take into I Public more clearly indicated as the Minnesota Routine Assessment consideration Minnesota Statutes §462.357 !Hearing) Method where it is used in the Rules. The term reconstruction is Subd. 1 (e), which allows reconstruction under a only used in reference to roadways and retaining walls. number of circumstances. ,The steep slope standard only applies in Rule 2.0 where it is CMSCWD steep slope definition is not 'Dennis I used to extend the buffer width to encompass steep slopes 14 0.0 necessarily consistent with all applications of !O'Donnell !partially located in the buffer. The Board discussed the steep steep slope in Washington County - Is this going ;(2/29/08 slope standard at a workshop and determined the definition to make it a problem for someone to comply? Meeting) included in the Rules best reflects the District's areas of !concern. The definition also is consistent with the DNR I shoreland zone definition of steep slopes. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 4 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES 'Rule Comment From Response I The state statute definition has been incorporated and use of the term major subdivision was removed. The definition of i "subdivision" as defined in Mn. 462.352 Subd. 12 is as follows: Sec. 0.0, Definitions. The definition of "Subdivision" means the separation of an area, parcel, or tract of "subdivision" is overly broad and would appear land under single ownership into two or more parcels, tracts, l to apply to land divisions that do not fall under lots, or long-term leasehold interests where the creation of the i municipal subdivision authority (see Mn. Stat. leasehold interest necessitates the creation of streets, roads, or I 15 0.0 Sec. 462.385 Subd. 4.b,) Later in the rules, the 'City of alleys, for residential, commercial, industrial, or other use or any term, major subdivision" is also used (page 35, Scandia combination thereof, except those separations: 1 Sec. 9.2.2) but it is not defined. The terms (1) where all the resulting parcels, tracts, lots, or interests will be "major subdivision" and "minor subdivision" 20 acres or larger in size and 500 feet in width for residential mean different things to different municipalities uses and five acres or larger in size for commercial and so should be defined clearly if they are used. industrial uses; (2) creating cemetery lots; (3) resulting from court orders, or the adjustment of a lot line by ithe relocation of a common boundary. Page 2, Definitions: Groundwater-dependent Minnesota 16 0.0 i natural resource. Please send me a map of the Department of A map of the groundwater-dependent natural resources will be 1 (groundwater dependent natural resources in this, sent to Beth Neuendorf at MnDOT. Transportation 1 (watershed for our records. The Board reviewed the definition of "Impervious surface" and 0.0 Definitions, "Impervious Surface" looks found that the current definition adequately describes the types 17 0.0 Isubjective. The addition of a pervious "curve May Township of surfaces considered to be impervious. Curve numbers are number" as the test would eliminate future used to estimate the rate and volume of runoff from a particular problems of interpretation. land use. The addition of a curve number would not make the definition clearer with respect to which areas are impervious. 1 CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 5 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response "Steep Slope" differs from the definition used by May Township and the County in their ordinances, where differing overlay districts dictate a stricter definition. In the general agricultural and rural residential zones, a steep The Board discussed the steep slope standard at a workshop 18 10.0 (slope is defined as 25% or more. In the County May Township and determined the definition included in the Rules best reflects the District's areas of concern. The definition also is consistent 1 Shoreland overlay district it is defined at 18% or more and in the St Croix River overlay district it with the DNR shoreland zone definition of steep slopes. is defined as 12% or more. We believe it is !important for all agencies to use the same 'definition for steep slope. Under Definitions, there is no mention of The District is not proposing the elimination of the settling out of sediment as a resource protection tool. Wet detention and j"sedimentation," only "infiltration" and further, "sedimentation" got little if any discussion in the extended detention ponds, the stormwater management body of the rules as a resource protection tool. practices that make the most use of sedimentation as a water 19 0.0 May Township quality treatment tool, are listed as water quality treatment Is the District proposing the elimination of "sedimentation" (the settling out of solids) as a options in Rule 2.5.1. The word sedimentation is used twice in resource protection tool? We hope this is not the Rules, both times it refers to the detrimental impact of the case. sedimentation on water resources, therefore, the District does Lot find a definition necessary. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 6 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES If # Rule Comment From Response The term "pre-settlement" conditions is defined in section 0.0 Definitions. It was used in the rule simply to indicate what the baseline soil condition and vegetation condition is to be used for hydrologic modeling. The soil and landcover condition of a property does not have to be restored to "pre-settlement" condition under the Rules. The rate and volume of runoff from a What are "pre-settlement" conditions? Where is ! property has to be managed to mimic the estimated runoff from 20 0.0 it defined? Under what circumstances do May Township a woods/prairie condition. The specific curve numbers relating landowners have to restore their land to pre- to this condition are given in section 2.5.3. The curve numbers settlement conditions? were chosen based on a woods and prairie mix appropriate to the area of the District. The Marschner map provided this background on pre-European settlement conditions based on notes from the original official land survey of Minnesota. The Rule has been revised to remove most uses of this term and to simply reference calculations conduted as indicated in section 2.5.3 as the standard to meet. City of Rule 1.0 has been revised to add the following language Scandia - regarding appeals: "Appellate Procedure and Review. 1. Any Attorney person aggrieved by enforcement of these Rules and 21 1.0 Add a section on appeals. (verbal Regulations or by any Order of the CMSCWD may appeal comments at therefrom in accordance with the appellate procedure and Healr ic ng) review as provided in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D." The Managers determined it was important to review smaller Dennis projects because of their potential impact on water resources. In the case of individual variances, the O'Donnell The review will require information to be submitted that allows 22 1.0 CMSCWD is requiring more information than (2/29/08 the District to evaluate the project and its potential impact. The Washington County requires. Meeting) District will assist individual homeowners with determining the proper format and source for the needed information. Sec. 1.10. The phrase "If the permit is acted City of 23 1.1 upon" should be changed to "If the work is Scandia This change has been made. commenced." CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 7 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # !Rule 'Comment 1 From ;Response Page 8, Section 1.3: Which part does the statement "The Board may extend the review 'timeline by 60 days" apply too? Would this be to Minnesota This section is simply a restatement of the state law regarding 24 1.3 ithe initial 10 business days or the time in which Department of timelines. The Board may extend the 60 day timeframe by the managers shall act which is set at 60 days? Transportation another 60 days. The initial 60 day timeframe includes the 10 j This is confusing, please clarify. Four months to days if the application is found to be complete. make a determination is a long time. Rule 1.4 Conformity with Local Requirements - This language does not appear to address the granting of variances. Clarify how this process would work (e.g. permit not approved by the Dennis Rule 1.4 has been clarified to state that District review will be 25 1.4 CMSCWD until local approval of the variance O'Donnell concurrent with municipal or county review and that preliminary received). It also needs to be clarified that the (2/29/08 local approval will mean either preliminary plat approval or CMSCWD will be reviewing the submittal Meeting) issuance of a local permit. materials WHILE all other regulatory bodies reviewing submittal materials not after all other approvals have been made. Under 1.6 Notification Process, you are asking every applicant who will come before the Board for a public hearing, to go down to the County and obtain their own address list of properties within 500 feet of their parcel. The District will 26 1.6 then send out notices using the applicant's May Township This change has been made. supplied list of addresses. Rather than making each applicant go down to the County to get the list, it is easy enough for the District to do this, and charge enough in fees to cover the cost. This is standard procedure for LGU's. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 8 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response The term "pre-settlement" conditions was used in the rule simply to indicate what the baseline soil condition and vegetation condition is to be used for hydrologic modeling. The Marschner The rules are based on a policy to work toward I map provided this background on pre-European settlement restoration of natural hydrology by limiting peak conditions based on notes from the original official land survey off-site stormwater flow to pre-settlement rates. j of Minnesota. The curve numbers given in the rule were chosen 'The District should consider whether or not this City of based on a woods and prairie mix appropriate to the vegetation 27 2.0 I is a reasonable policy, given that it is difficult to Scandia of the District indicated on the Marshner map. The rate and determine what pre-settlement conditions were, volume of runoff from a property has to be managed to mimic band whether or not they were truly superior to the estimated runoff from a woods/prairie condition. This land ment". The Rule use condition could also be termed "pre-development".pre-development conditions. p p i has been revised to remove most uses of this term and to simply reference calculations conduted as indicated in section 2.5.3 as the standard to meet. __I__- —_ -- — Dennis ICan the CMSCWD legally require an individual O'Donnell For projects where a permit is required the watershed can 128 I2.0 I home owner to have an easement on (2/29/08 require easements for stormwater facilities. I stormwater management facilities? Meeting) It appears that certain projects may be required The District will issue a permit once for the overall development. Ito comply with this rule and obtain a watershed The construction of structures on individual lots in a permit more than once; when the subdivision is I development where a plan was approved for the overall site 29 2 0 Ireviewed, and when each home is built. The City( of would not require an additional permit if stormwater district should consider issuing its permit for the Scandia management for the structures was included in the approved subdivision and not requiring an individual permit stormwater management plan. The District will work with for each home, provided that it complies with municipalities to plan cooperative enforcement efforts for single permit issued for the subdivision. lot construction activities. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 9 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response 1 i I 'The Board discussed what types of stormwater practices should be encouraged and determined that the sequence in Rule 2.5.1 encouraged the practices that incorporated slow release of water. Wet detention ponds are lower in the sequencing. For large storm events, a "weep" outlet design would necessitate very large stormwater facilities and may retain more water than necessary in upland areas. The District's proposed rule FYI, the May Township storm water ordinance is in two May Township provides rate, volume, and water quality control standards that 30 2.0 stricter than the watershed's rule 2.0 important ways: outflow control and pond sizing. don't necessitate requiring oversized wet detention ponds. Additionally, the CAC indicated that they prefer the raingardens and infiltration or wetland based options that are encouraged by the District's proposed rule over large wet detention ponds that do not maintain the rural feel of the community. The District will additionally work with municipalities to develop Memorandums of Understanding to address maintenance and enforcement concerns regarding the use of infiltration practices. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 10 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # I Rule Comment From Response PRE-SETTLEMENT CONDITION. May Township asked for a definition of pre-settlement conditions. The response on page five of the responses states that the term pre-settlement conditions is used in the Rules simply to indicate 2.0 what the base line soil condition and vegetation condition is to be used for hydrologic modeling. The property does not have to be restored to The runoff reference standard condition used in the rule is for "pre-settlement" condition under the Rules. The hydrologic modeling, not for evaluation of wetland impacts or rate and volume of runoff from a property has to mitigation ratios. Under a typical WCA evaluation, hydrologic be managed to mimic the estimated runoff from City of modeling would not be required. The Marschner map provided wood/prairie condition. Scandia - a the background on pre-European settlement conditions based Attorney on notes from the original official land survey of Minnesota. The Rule 2.4(a) states that a land altering activity (Written curve numbers given in the rule were chosen based on a woods 31 must not increase peak stormwater flow as clarification of and prairie mix appropriate to the vegetation of the District compared with the pre-settlement condition for verbal various precipitation events. I believe that the comments at indicated on the Marshner map. The rate and volume of runoff from a property has to be managed to mimic the estimated standard that has been used and has been Public runoff from a woods/prairie condition. Pre-development and pre- applied by the Wetland Conservation Act is the Hearing) settlement could be considered the same standard, this rule sets pre-development condition as opposed to the the curve numbers based on an evaluation of native vegetation 2 pre-settlement condition.0 . What is the reason for of the area. the change? Are there sufficient standards to determine the pre-settlement condition? Pre- Settlement is used in the WCA Rules to designate areas in the State which require replacement at either a one to one ratio or a two to one ratio for non-agricultural lands. It is not used to establish a restoration standard or a runoff standard. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 11 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment 'From Response Section 2.2, Applicability of Stormwater Rules. These thresholds are low. For example, 5% of site area for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot is only 500 ft. Many very small projects would require a permit under this rule, necessitating a large investment The Board has observed that the impact of these smaller in engineering to show that the standards are projects is important to consider and has set the applicability met. This would be burdensome on the land standards to apply to sites in key areas where a water resource owner and may be excessive. We recommend is most likely to be impacted. To limit the burden for smaller Ithat this language be changed to one acre or 5% projects that may not require the level of information needed for 132 2.2 of a site area, whichever is more. The City of larger projects, the rule has been revised to state that required Lthreshold of 5,000 sq. ft. of land disturbance is Scandia exhibits can be waived at the discretion of the administrator if also small, ensuring that almost any new home the exhibit is not needed for evaluation of the proposed project. within a shoreland overlay district will require a Additionally, the District will develop a guidance document that stormwater permit. This is much less onerous will assist landowners in determining how to comply with the than the rule as originally proposed (250 sq. ft.) Rule. but it will still be a significant burden on the landowner. One acre of impervious surface is a common threshold in other watersheds and should be considered. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 12 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule 'Comment From Response Section 2.2 - This section outlines projects that will need Watershed District approval and permits. Among other projects, permits will be required for projects requiring a variance from the lake/river setback requirement and any project with a land disturbance of 5,000 sq. ft. within 1,000 ft. of a waterbody. Under The Board has observed that the impact of these smaller Washington County Shoreland Management projects is important to consider and respects the standards regulations, permits from Washington County already set in the Shoreland District and St. Croix River District. are already required for these activities. However, Washington County's standards are not as restrictive 33 2.2 Additional permitting through the Watershed Washington as the CMSCWD rules (e.g. Washington County does not have District will be duplicative with added costs to County a rate and volume control requirement). Allowing the County property owners. In addition, going through the alone to review activities in this instance would not be consistent Watershed District process could delay projects. with the goals and policies set forth in the District Plan. The It is important any permitting process by the District will issue erosion control permits administratively. Watershed District be streamlined and it is suggested that permits be issued administratively to save time and money. As an alternative to permitting, it may be possible for Watershed District comments or concerns to be addressed through the county permitting process. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 13 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Under 2.2 Applicability, (a), the rule applies to any subdivision. This is over-reaching since it will sweep up many land use actions that have little or no storm water impact. I attach as Exhibit B, the applicability standard of the Browns's Creek WD Stormwater Rule, where it properly states that the rule applies to %subdivisions of 4 or more lots. This makes sense since four lots is the point where a public road is required and therefore, storm water issues are present because of public infra- Rule 2.2(a) has been revised to state "Residential subdivisions structure, whether is not a house or even a of four or more lots" and the exceptions of 2.7.6 have been 34 2.2 May Township removed. Residential subdivisions have been added to Rule 7.0 private driveway into a lot, is ever built. Often minor subdivisions (3 or fewer lots result) are to ensure that floodplains and low floor elevations are identified done just to parcel up land that does not get for all new lots. developed (a building permit is not obtained) for many years. That is, there is nothing at all happening on the site. Staff has attempted to assuage this issue by including a series of exceptions in 2.7.6. Unfortunately the exceptions are just getting more confusing and now they allow for a 4-lot subdivision to escape the rule. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 14 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response ' I We suggest the 2.2 applicability language for subdivisions read as follows: "(a) Residential subdivisions of four or more lots, or where a public road is being built.", and then eliminate the exceptions. The reference to a public road Rule 2.2(a) has been revised to state "Residential subdivisions will include those land owners who did multiple of four or more lots" and the exceptions of 2.7.6 have been 35 2.2 minor subdivisions in stages, and the LGU May Township removed. Residential subdivisions have been added to Rule 7.0 dictates that it is now time to build the public to ensure that floodplains and low floor elevations are identified road even though the latest application may only for all new lots. create one more lot. It is the building of public infra-structure (public roads and stormwater management features) that should dictate if rule should apply, not the mere creation of a minor number of lots. The Board has observed that the impact of these smaller Also under 2.2 Applicability, (d) may be over- projects is important to consider and has set the applicability reaching. A land disturbance of 5,000 sq feet standards to apply to sites in key areas where a water resource isn't much. It's a garden 70' x 72' or a similar is most likely to be impacted. To limit the burden for smaller sized building pad for a garage that required the projects that may not require the level of information needed for 36 2.2 area to be leveled. For a 5 acre lot this is 2% of May Township larger projects, the rule has been revised to state that required the lot size; for a 10 acre lot it is 1%. Is it really exhibits can be waived at the discretion of the administrator if the intention of the District to force garage pads the exhibit is not needed for evaluation of the proposed project. 950 feet from public water to operate under the Additionally, the District will develop a guidance document that stormwater rule? will assist landowners in determining how to comply with the Rule. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 15 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response I However, Sec. 2.2 (b) effectively takes away that exception if there is 5% or more impervious. The exception language also contains an unnecessary reference to Sec. 7.0, which may Rule 2.2(a) has been revised to state "Residential subdivisions Ibe confusing to the reader. We recommend that of four or more lots" and the exceptions of 2.7.6 have been City of 37 2.2 'section 2.2 (a), "Residential subdivision" be removed. Residential subdivisions have been added to Rule 7.0 removed, and the exception language is 2.7.6 Scandia to ensure that floodplains and low floor elevations are identified also be deleted. The other five criteria would for all new lots. ;determine which subdivisions fall under the Istormwater management rule. This would eliminate confusion and conflicts in the rules. — i Rule 2.2 (c) and (d) the County already requires Dennis Washington County's standards are not as restrictive as the a Certificate of Compliance for grading within O'Donnell CMSCWD rules (e.g. Washington County does not have a rate ,38 I2.2 and volume control requirement). Allowing the County to review 1,000 feet of a public water. Can't the (2/29/08 CMSCWD piggyback on this existing review? Meeting) activities in this instance would not be consistent with the goals II and policies set forth in the District Plan. Rule 2.2 (f) and 4.2 (b) change "structure Dennis '2.2 O'Donnell Not all of the resources requiring buffers or municipal setbacks 39 ;setback from the property line adjacent..." to I4.2(b) I(2/29/08 are public waters, therefore they would not all have an OHWL. "from the OHWL" j Meeting) y CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 16 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response 'Section 2.4.1 - This section sets forth standards for obtaining a permit. The proposed rules require that the permitted activity not increase the stormwater rate and volume, as compared with the presettlement condition. This would be a The Board has observed that the impact of these smaller new standard for activities in the Shoreland projects is important to consider and respects the standards District and the St. Croix River District. In most already set in the Shoreland District and St. Croix River District. cases, it appears a property owner will need to The District wil carefully review each project against the unique hire an engineer to determine their run-off conditions of each lot to maximize the water quality benefit of calculations. Thus, adding to the cost of the constructed practices and intact natural areas with trees and 40 2.4.1 project. The county recognizes the intent and Washington other vegetation. A number of water quality treatment options purpose of the rate and volume control County are available to take advantage of existing vegetated areas for standards. But compliance with this standard on stormwater treatment. Washington County's standards are not relatively small lots in the Shoreland District or as restrictive as the CMSCWD rules (e.g. Washington County St. Croix River District could result in significant does not have a rate and volume control requirement). Allowing grading and tree removal for the purpose of 1 the County alone to review activities in this instance would not constructing stormwater best management be consistent with the goals and policies set forth in the District practices. This may not be practical or may not Plan. meet the intent of the Shoreland/River Regulations which promotes preservation of ,natural scenic value and topography around these resources. Page 11, Section 2.4.1 (c): Section says "Will As summarized in section 2.4.4, road reconstruction projects will provide water quality Best Management only have to address the additional runoff rate, volume, and Practices (BMPs) sized to infiltrate and/or retain water quality treatment from additional impervious surfaces. the runoff volume..." please add "from Minnesota The runoff from the site for a 2-year event will still be used as impervious surfaces" here. The 2-year storm the standard. The volume control, rate control, and water quality '41 12.4.1 c ,should be explained, as 2.8 inches is a lot of treatment standards all work together so that a treatment train 'Department of Transportation water to be retained on linear projects where approach of smaller facilities along a linear project will likely there is not a lot of R/W width to work with. One meet all four standards under 2.4.1. A similar standard has j inch retention would be more doable on linear been in use in the Brown's Creek Watershed District and has projects. successfully been implemented on linear projects. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 17 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Rule 2.4.1(b) and (d) do not contradict each other, in fact standards under (a) and (b) work to provide the needed control Item d contradicts item b. In our opinion the 100 of offsite flow rate and volume that allow a project to meet the 42 2.4.1(d) year storm frequency should be deleted and !Stillwater standards for bounce and duration of inundation on wetlands follow the 10 year frequency as outlined in WCA 'Township listed under part (d). In most cases a project that meets the rate and volume control t of standards also meets the bounce and duration of inundation standard. Section 2.4.4, Redevelopment. This language modifies the applicability language in Section I43 2.4.4 2.2, and should be moved to that section in City of This language has been moved to section 2.2 ! order to provide a clear description of when the Scandia rule applies. Minnesota Mill and overlay on a roadway should not cause an increase in ~I 44 2.4.4 Page 11, Section 2.4.4: Are Mill and Overlays impervious surface cover, and would therefore be exempt from exempt from these requirements? Department of!the rule. As summarized in 2.4.4, onlynet additional impervious Transportation 1 p surface is considered in the reconstruction of roadways. Page 13, Section 2.5.7: This section refers to a Minnesota 45 2.5.7 Maintenance Agreement. Mn/DOT would like to The District will work with MnDOT to develop a MOU or other have just one of these in place with the District Department of agreement regarding maintenance of MnDOT facilities. that covers all of our projects. Transportation Page 13, Section 2.5.8 and 2.5.9: Stormwater Facilities within MnDOT R/W would not require additional features will be placed on Mn/DOT RM/. There Minnesota easements as the R/W should already provide the ability for 46 I2.5.8, is no need for a drainage easement to be placed Department of MnDOT to access and maintain its stormwater facilities and 2.5.9 would be sufficient to meet the standards of 2.5.9. Recording over these features as they will already be on Transportation Mn/DOT R/W. an MOU regarding the location and management of that facility _ - - would be required. Page 14, Section 2.6.4: If we aren't filling, j „drainingor excavatinga wetland, whydo we Minnesota 47 '2.6.4 ;Department of ;Wetlands need to be delineated for review of bounce and need to delineate it as part of the Stormwater duration of inundation standards for wetlands under 2.4.1(d) Rule? Is this a full field delineation? (Transportation, I CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 18 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule j Comment From Response Rule 2.5.11 has been added to inlcude a statement that Page 15, Section 2.7.1: Please add Drinking Minnesota infiltration practices must be designed and placed in accordance 48 2.7.1 Water Supply Management Areas to the last Department of with the Minnesota Department of Health guidance called paragraph as a place where infiltration is also Transportation "Evaluating Proposed Stormwater Infiltration Projects in not feasible. Vulnerable Wellhead Protection Areas." In 2.7.4 it seems a misuse of language to call the stormwater facility for a 5-lot subdivision a The term "regional facility" is commonly used for facilities that "re lies e stormwater 49 2.7.4 mugc'onal facility."h larger than the Township ipself or evenMay Township Districtag fromsmaller proposed the 5-lot definition based on a comment p The larger than the County. How about "shared requesting that the term be defined more clearly. facility" or "common facility"? Rule 2.7.6 - Residential Subdivision. Rule 2.2(a) has been revised to state "Residential subdivisions Dennis Exemptions may not make sense because O'Donnell of four or more lots" and the exceptions of 2.7.6 have been 50 2.7.6 individual homeowners need to obtain permit in (2/29/08 removed. Residential subdivisions have been added to Rule 7.0 variance situation. Unclear what the difference Meeting) to ensure that floodplains and low floor elevations are identified is. for all new lots. Section 2.7.6, Residential Subdivision (exceptions to stormwater rule.) This language appears to exempt certain subdivisions from several of the management standards in Sec. 2.4. It needs to be read with the applicability language in Sec 2.2 to be understood. The Rule 2.2(a) has been revised to state "Residential subdivisions intent is to exempt certain small subdivisions of four or more lots" and the exceptions of 2.7.6 have been 51 2.7.6 from some of the management standards. City of removed. Residential subdivisions have been added to Rule 7.0 However, if a subdivision meets any of the other Scandia to ensure that floodplains and low floor elevations are identified criteria (such as land disturbance over one acre, for all new lots. or over 5,000 sq. ft. in a shoreland area) the standards would still apply. The exceptions seem to conflict with the other criteria. For example: Sec. 2.7.6 says that some standards do not apply to certain residential subdivisions with less than 10% impervious. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 19 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # 1 Rule 1 Comment ,From I Response Rule 2.4 - This rule makes it difficult for Dennis 52 2.4 individual homeowner to comply as they would IO'Donnell The CMSCWD will be developing guidance documents/tools that have to hire an engineer to perform calculations. (2/29/08 can be used to facilitate compliance with the rules. I Meeting) ;Section 2.6 - This section outlines the required The Managers determined it was important to review smaller exhibits that must accompany a permit projects because of their potential impact on water resources. 53 2.6 application. For a small project such as Washington The review will require information to be submitted that allows grading/variance, etc. the submittal County the District to evaluate the project and its potential impact. The requirements could be quite burdensome for a District will assist individual homeowners with determining the property owner. proper format and source for the needed information. Dennis I If the standards of Washington County are at least as protective Washington County wondering if the District as the District standards, Washington County could assume full 54 3.0 could i ac on the Count 's O'Donnell piggy bk Y existing responsibility for issuing erosion control permits within its erosion control process (2/29/08 jurisdictional areas. An MOU could be developed to clarify Meeting) coordination between the County and the District. Section 3.0 - This sections requires a grading/erosion control permit from the Watershed District for certain projects. The If the standards of Washington County are at least as protective Washington County Shoreland Management as the District standards, Washington County could assume full 55 3.0 and St. Croix River Ordinances require a permit Washington responsibility for issuing erosion control permits within its County for the same activities. Again, this seems to be jurisdictional areas. An MOU could be developed to clarify duplicative. Recommendations from the coordination between the County and the District. Watershed District could be included in the County permit.We suggest the first few uses of the horizontal to vertical notation (H:V) be defined as such so There are no uses of the H:V notation in the draft of the rules ,56 13.0 May Township Isubmitted for the formal comment period. All uses are spelled Ithe reader is not left guessing what "H:V" means. out as "horizontal:vertical", this change was made previously. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 20 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Left unchanged, our family will need an erosion control plan for our garden once these rules are passed, yet we have zero protected waters on our 60 acres. And if we needed to create a pad for a new building on our 60 acres, where the The Rule has been revised to remove the threshold of 50 CY of pad is 5,000 sq feet in size, yet no protected earth and to refine the 5,000 SF standard to be for those areas 57 3.0 waters were anywhere in site? We will need an May Township within 1,000 feet of a public water and within the drainage area erosion control plan, vet this 1/99" of an acre of a groundwater dependent natural resource. (5,000 sq feet) amounts to less than 0.2% of our parcel's size. The applicability tests in the rules need to be reasonable, fair and practical. Section 3.1 sets the thresholds for erosion control permits at 50 cubic yards of grading, or excavating or disturbance of 5,000 sq. ft. or more of land area. This is an improvement from The Rule has been revised to remove the threshold of 50 CY of the initial draft of the rules, which would have City of earth and to refine the 5,000 SF standard to be for those areas 58 3.1 I required a permit for 250 sq. ft. of land Scandia within 1,000 feet of a public water and within the drainage area disturbance. This threshold is still fairly low, and of a groundwater dependent natural resource. could be made less onerous for property owners if an erosion control plan could be approved at the subdivision level, rather than for each l individual home. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 21 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment ;From Response j Under 3.2 b., unlike the Stormwater Rule 2.0, I i the applicability standard for Erosion Control covers any disturbance of 5,000 sq feet or more,, (without qualification. At least under rule 2.0 the 5,000 sq feet of disturbed area is qualified by The Rule has been revised to remove the threshold of 50 CY of 59 3.2(b) 'saying it must be "within the surface water May Township earth and to refine the 5,000 SF standard to be for those areas 'contributing area of a ground water dependent within 1,000 feet of a public water and within the drainage area natural resource" or must be "within 1,000 feet of lof a groundwater dependent natural resource. a public water." Although the "1,000 feet of a public water" still seems to be an over-reaching test, it is better than sweeping up everyone. City of Scandia - The subparagraphs to section 3.3 of my draft of Attorney the Rules are not correctly numbered. The (Written 60 3.3 clarification of This change has been made. reference to paragraph 3.3.2 in paragraph 3.4.4 is incorrect. verbal comments at Public Hearing) CMSCWD will not make the distinction between linear projects and non-linear projects with regards to site maintenance practices. In the experience of the erosion control permit i Page 18, Section 3.4.2: Can "every day work is inspectors at EOR, inspections should be completed every day performed on the site" be changed for linear because silt fence and other BMPs are often runover (by projects to be once every week during active Minnesota members of the construction crew or the public), moved out of 61 3.4.2 construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall ;Department of the way, chewed/scratched through by animals and otherwise event of greater than 0.5" in 24 hours to be Transportation left in disrepair. Often times, unauthorized vehicles such as 4- consistent with the construction NPDES Permit wheelers and motor bikes run through silt fence in the evening from the MPCA? hours. In additon, linear projects often leave behind materials or equipment until needed, occasionally when the materal/equipment is retrieved erosion control practices are 'damaged. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 22 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response � I Under 3.5 "Agricultural Practices" two goals seem impractical. First is "no fertilizer" used in a buffer zone. The problem comes when a grassy waterway leads down to a buffer area around a protected water, and that grassy waterway runs The provisions of Rule 4.0 only apply to sites that are subdivided through a farmed field. In such cases, farmers or subject to certain variances. The buffer in Rule 3.5 is not will avoid tillage or herbicide in the waterway extended along a contributing small drainageway. The standard when in rows crops, but they may plant a row states that the buffer zone adjacent to agricultural activity should crop right through the waterway, and thus not be fertilized. The District is working to protect the quality of fertilizer will be placed in the waterway. It's 62 3.5 actuallyworse when the field is in hayand the May Township the District's water resources. The addition of fertilizer directly toj a waterway or to a buffer adjacent to a water resource will allow grassy waterway actually becomes part of the the easy conveyance of fertilizer to that water resource. The hay field. Here the use of fertilizers is often addition of fertilizer can degrade the quality of a resource and is broadcast and you can never keep it out of the discouraged by the District through the standards set in this and "waterway." There needs to some distinction other rules. drawn between fertilizers used in the immediate buffer zone and fertilizers used in a grassy waterway that is connected to the buffer zone, which the rules now treat as if it is an extension of the buffer zone. Also, 3.5 states that livestock should be prevented from accessing naturally occurring Livestock access can degrade the quality of water resources by water sources. This is further defined in Rule 8 causing erosion of shoreline and streamback areas and by "Wetland Management" where there is an directly adding nutrients and fecal material to the water outright prohibition. This is neither practical nor resource. The District is working to protect the quality of the feasible is many cases. This will be further 63 3.5 addressed under Rule 8 but for now, see Exhibit May Township District's water resources and therefore discourages these activities. The activity is discouraged, not prohibited under Rule D which shows all of the wetlands from lust the 3.5. Rule 8.0 has been revised to allow livestock access in National Wetland Inventory (NWI) in May wetlands with exisiting access so long as the quality of the 'Township. The Kelly Farm alone has four lakes wetland is not degraded. and countless wetlands that would need to be 'fenced. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 23 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule 'Comment From Response Section 4.0, Applicability of Lake, River Stream and Wetland Buffer Requirments. The buffer widths are greater, and the applicability of the buffer requirement is significantly greater, than what is now required in Scandia. Currently, buffers are required only on Natural Environment (NE) lakes (50 feet) and Types 3, 4, and 5 wetlands (50 feet) in the Shoreland District is working to protect the quality of the District's water Overlay District. The proposed rule requires 75- foot buffers on NE lakes, and 50-foot buffers on resources, there are a number of high quality resources in the City of District that need this level of protection to maintain their quality.64 4.0 Recreational Development lakes. Buffers ranging from 30 to 100 feet are required on all 1 Scandia Additionally, buffers of the proposed widths will assist the District wetlands, whether or not they are in the to improve the quality of impacted resources. The buffer widths Shoreland Overlay District. While the buffer are based on published research. widths may be reasonable based on the need to protect the water resources, the new rule could be seen as significant expansion of the requirements and restrictions on landowners. ,The City would prefer that the wetland buffer requirements to be revised to be similar to what is now in place in local regulations. -- — !Dennis --- -- --- ---. 65 4.3 Rule 4.3 Buffer zone widths are difficult to O'Donnell This type of information will be included in guidance documents understand - recommend including a graphic (2/29/08 developed by the District. Meeting) CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 24 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response As with rule 2.0, the applicability standards under 4.2.1 (b) picks up all subdivisions, rather For Rule 4.0 to apply, a property must meet both parts (a) and than just major subdivisions. Applicability test b of 4.2.1. Onlyprojects that are both adjacent to a water 66 4.2.1(a)( ,4.2.1 (a) willpick upanyprojects, includinganyMayTownship O p > p j p b) individual building permit projects, that might resource and subdivided or subject to a variance from the endanger a protected water, so nothing is lost by, applicable shoreland ordinance will require buffers. excluding minor subs from this applicability test. Rule 4.0 only applies to projects adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater dependent natural resources that are located on property that has been subdivided or subject to a variance from the shoreland ordinance for structure setback or 1 4.3.1(d- Page 21, Section 4.3.1 (d-g): It is likely that we Minnesota impervious surface percentage. Most often roadways will not be 67 will be unable to get these buffer widths on linear Department of 'subject to the rule. When roadways are subject to the rule, g) projects with limited right-of-way available. Transportation sections 4.8 and 4.9.1 recognize that roadways may have to be located within the buffer where alternative feasible options do not exist. Averaging and mitigation of buffer area are options that will allow roadway projects to meet the rule when the full buffer width is not feasible. Page 21, Section 4.4.1: If wetland buffer MnDOT R/W would not require additional easements as the (features are located on Mn/DOT R/W, it is Minnesota R/W should already provide the ability for MnDOT to to properly 68 4.4.1 redundant and not possible to place an Department of maintain wetland buffers and would be sufficient to meet the easement over them as they will already be on Transportation standards of 4.4.1. However, recording an MOU regarding the Mn/DOT R/W. location and management of that buffer would be required. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 25 of 37 _ COMMENT RESPONSES # 'Rule 1 Comment From I Response Section 4.4.2, buffer monuments. The rules Iprovide for two options; flush to the ground or post markers. Post markers have some benefits for education and enforcement. It is easier to The District will encourage consistent use of buffer markers in a 69 4.4.2 determine if a monument has been removed or if City of Scandia community and can coordinate this with the City of Scandia mowing or other disturbance has occurred through the development of a MOU. around it. The design of markers should be coordinated with the city so that there is consistency in the community. The vegetation present in a buffer zone is a watershed issue I Under 4.5.1 (a) and (b), "turf grass" is deemed a because it is directly related to the ability of a buffer to protect bad thing, yet it is a natural result of pasturing water quality and provide wildlife habitat. This is outlined at the animals where, over time, the legumes die out beginning of Rule 4.0 and in section 4.1. In general, turf grass ' and what is left are often just the grasses in a does not provide the necessary habitat or infiltration to fully dense concentration of plants creating asod-like protect the function and value of the adjacent resource. A water 4.5.1(a)( resource surrounded by turf grass would have an overall 70 b) 'environment that is very resistant to erosion. It May Township is especially beneficial on sloped land and diminished function and value even though the site is stable. should be preserved there once established. The Board discussed the vegetation standards at a number of Yet under 4.5.1 a landowner can be directed to workshops and settled on the language included in the Rule, but plow it all up and start over. Why is this even a noted that there may be certain cases where the Board would water shed issue? 'not require restoration of a buffer containing undesirable species if the disturbance to the buffer would be a greater detriment to the adjacent resource. Page 23, Section 4.5.4 (c): If there is no other 4.5.2(d) has been revised to inlcude the statement: "Structures feasible location for the roadway, then it may Minnesota and appurtenances associated with the road or utility shall not 71 4.5.4(c) need to be located in the outer zone. The text to Department of be located within the outer zone unless no feasible alternative ;this effect is in Section 4.5.2 (d) and should be Transportation exists." In areas where a road is located, as allowed under ;added to this section as well. 4.9.1, these standards wouldn't apply because it would not be considered a buffer. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 26 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Rule 4.0 only applies to projects adjacent to streams, lakes, wetlands, and groundwater dependent natural resources that Under 4.9.1, we may be heading for conflict are located on property that has been subdivided or subject to a between the watershed and the road authority if variance from the shoreland ordinance for structure setback or 72 4.9.1 asphalt re-pavings are treated the same as new May Township impervious surface percentage. Most often roadways will not be road construction or road expansion. This subject to the rule. Section 4.9.1 has been revised to clarify that 'needs further mutual discussion. mill and overlay and reconstruction is exempt, but that new impervious is not exempt. Section 4.9.2, access zones to wetlands or water bodies. The access zone permitted is smaller than currently allowed by Scandia's 73 4.9.2 shoreland regulations (30 versus 50 feet). The City of Rule 4.9.2 has been changed to allow an access zone of 50 feet City would prefer that the access zone be Scandia or half the lot width whichever is smaller. revised to 50 feet to be consistent with what has been allowed be current regulations. Rule 4.3 Buffer Widths - a 100-foot buffer Dennis Manage 1 wetlands are of exceptional quality and require this increases the County's structure setback of 75 O'Donnell level of protection to maintain that quality. The District's 74 4.3 feet which is what the County requires. The (2/29/08 Wetland Management Plan provides additional detail on the CMSCWD should re-evaluate this buffer in light Meeting) quality of these wetlands and how the classification was made. of the County's setback. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 27 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response Section 4.3 - This section requires buffer zones around the lakes and wetlands. The Washington County Shoreland Management ordinance also requires buffer zones around lakes and wetlands; however the prescribed distance in the: Watershed rules are greater than those j Manage 1 wetlands are of exceptional quality and require this 75 4.3 contained in the Washington County Shoreland Washington level of protection to maintain that quality. The District's Management Ordinance. According to the i County I Wetland Management Plan provides additional detail on the proposed rules, a 100 foot buffer is required Iquality of these wetlands and how the classification was made. from Manage 1 wetlands. This distance is greater than the 75 foot structure setback Washington County requires from such wetlands. As a result, buildable area will be reduced on some parcels. Rule 4.4. Declaration and Delineation of Buffer Dennis The easement may be dedicated to different parties depending O'Donnell on the specifics of the property. The easement dedication will 76 4.4 ,Zones - who does the easement get dedicated 'to? (2/29/08 be determined on a case by case basis with particular attention Meeting) paid to who is responsible for the maintenance of the buffer. ;We hereby request the Watershed District consider providing an exemption clause for ,existing property owners whose residence or (accessory building is currently located within the !proposed specified buffer zone. The property owner may want to add onto their home or 1There is an exemption for this situation, please see section 4.9.4 77 4 5 jaccessory structure but would be restricted with IlStillwater which states that in situations where the structure does not [the proposed rule. Obviously, a property owner ITownship [conform to current setbacks the buffer must be 50% of the who had constructed a structure in a buffer zone I existing distance between the resource and the structure. prior to this date - was not aware of these ,proposed rules. Therefore, in our opinion, an exemption for these property owners should be considered, if an addition to the structure is proposed within a buffer zone in the future. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 28 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule !Comment From Response Dennis Rule 5.0 - Is the Department of Natural O'Donnell The local DNR hydrologist participated in the TAC and helped 78 5.0 Resources fine with the CMSCWD having a (2/29/08 set the standards included. similar rule? Meeting) Riprap is not always the most suitable method for shoreline protection. It is often detrimental to the quality of shoreline and aquatic habitat and is also often installed when there is no erosion occurring. The Board discussed the various shoreline 'This rule seems to discourage the use of riprap stabilization options and decided that encouraging the use of 79 5.0 as a way to protect shoreline from repeated ice- 1 May Township bioengineering would best benefit shoreline areas. The hard out damage. It should encourage the use of this! armor methods, such as riprap, are available options for areas practice. where bioengineering is not suitable. The rule requires that those proposing shoreline alterations first fully consider bioengineering options and if those are determined to not be suitable to protect the shoreline or adjacent structures, riprap may then be used. Dennis 80 5.3 and Rule 5.3 and 5.4.3 - Replace "should" with O'Donnell This change has been made. 5.4.3 "shall" (2/29/08 Meeting) Under 5.5.3 we place a very costly burden on the shoreland owner who wants to utilize a retaining wall, since this rule requires that a certified survey be done that defines where the wall should go. This could cost the landowner $1,500 or more for something that is not A retaining wall survey is a DNR requirement. It was requested 81 5.5.3 necessary. It is easy enough for the landowner May Township at the TAC by Travis Germundson, DNR, that the requirement and the WD representative to place metal stakes be included in the CMSCWD Rules as well. demarking the location of the wall to be built, take a few measurements from key landmarks, and memorialize it all with a series of photographs, and use that as the retaining wall 1 "locate.." CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 29 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES _---- -# Rule Comment From --- Response - --- - — - — _ - _. If the standards of Washington Countyare at least as protective Rule 5.7 - Washington County requires a permit !Dennis as the District standards, Washington County could assume full 82 5.7 for rip rap walls - can the CMSCWD piggy back IO Donnell responsibility for issuing shoreline and streamback alteration on this existing permit? (2/29/08 permits within its jurisdictional areas. An MOU could be Meeting) developed to clarify coordination between the County and the District. If the standards of Washington County are at least as protective Dennis as the District standards, Washington County could assume full 83 5.8 Rule 5.8 - Washington County requires a permit 'O'Donnell responsibility for issuing shoreline and streamback alteration 'for an annual ice-ridge (2/29/08 !permits within its jurisdictional areas. An MOU could be Meeting) '''developed to clarify coordination between the County and the District. City of Scandia - jAttorney WATERCOURSE CROSSINGS. Does Rule 6.0 (Written 84 6.0 apply to bridges over rivers and streams and clarification of Yes, bridges and culverts crossing water bodies are subject to ,culvert crossings? 'verbal the standards of Rule 6.0. 'comments at Public I ! — Hearing) CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 30 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES 1 # Rule CommentFrom Response Under the rules, a landlocked basin is defined as an area that does not outlet under a 10-day long runoff event totalling 7.2 Land-locked basins are a way of life in inches of runoff. The use of such a large event to define a Washington County and even small parcels may 1 I landlocked basin ensures that few small basins would be have many. The act of building a driveway will (considered landlocked under the proposed rule. Filling in a now require a WD permit simply because the landlocked basin causes it to outlet more often which alters the driveway might move in and out of one or more hydrology of the next downgradient resource. Thus, filling of 85 7.0 land-locked basins. What the rules should be May Township landlocked basins has the potential to cause flooding of concerned with is not the adding of fill to a land- properties and water resources that previously did not locked basin that might send more water into a neighboring land-locked basin, but rather, filling experience flooding. The standards established by the District are intended to protect the quality of water resources and avoid a land-locked basin such that it now sends water new flooding of properties. The District will develop a guidance pre-maturely into a protected water. and calculation worksheet that will allow a homeowner to determine if a basin is landlocked. The low floor elevation standards are 2 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or 1 foot above the emergency overflow. In a landlocked basin the standard is 3 feet above the 100-year flood elevation or 1 foot above the outlet. In cases where the Under 7.3, the criteria for establishing low-floor structure is adjacent to a perched basin, the low floor can be elevations is somewhat hard to follow and below the 100-year elevation, but still above the observed 86 7.3 seems to be out-of-synch with typical LGU rules. May Township groundwater elevations. In that case, the lowest elevation [These should be reviewed by our mutual staffs where the soil meets the structure has to be at least 2 feet so that we can ensure they are in synch. above the 100-year flood elevation or 1 foot above the emergency overflow. These standards were discussed at a TAC [ meeting and the municipal representatives present indicated they were common standards and consistent with municipal standards. I--- - -_ - In most cases the lowest floor elevation (basement) of the Should a linear setback distance be specified I structure will be at least two feet above the 100-year flood between the basement of the structure and the elevation. Only in cases of a structure adjacent to a perched limit of the 100 year high water level for the Stillwater basin, as addressed by 7.3.4, would water potentially access the 87 7.3.2(a) ,,basin? In our opinion, soil conditions should also ',Township building through the soils. In these cases, waterproofing and be considered in determining the setback separation distances could be recommended by the District on a distance. Icase-by-case basis. 1 CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 31 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # 'Rule Comment From Response !REPLACEMENT RATIOS. What is the legal authority for requiring six to one replacement for category one wetlands and four to one for replacement of category two wetlands? The rules for the Wetland Conservation Act appoint the local municipality as the local government unit to enforce the WCA Rules. The District's response to a comment on replacement is that the District contains a number of wetlands that are of exceptional quality and require this level City of of protection to maintain that quality. Scandia - ---------- -- ---- Attorney !The Wetland Management Plan was developed to be (Written !implemented under MN Rule 8420.0650, Local Comprehensive 88 8.0 Similar responses are used to respond to many clarification of Wetland Protection and Management Plans, with the input of comments relating to the small thresholds verbal BWSR and a Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen requiring applicability of the Rules. The Board's comments at Advisory Committee. "feeling" that the impact of small projects is Public important to consider is not a sufficient basis for Hearing) establishing a rule. What is the legal basis for requiring both replacement and a contribution into a restoration fund? It seems that if a contribution is to be made to a restoration fund, then the replacement ratio should be reduced. 1 Requiring a payment into a restoration fund at a rate set by the managers without a legally enforceable standard is not appropriate. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 32 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # i Rule JComment From Response 'The Wetland Management Plan did include us in' its development, and also as reviewers of the wetland inventory and functional assessment of the District's wetlands. I agree that the District Washington has significant water resources deserving Comment noted, the District appreciates the participation of the Conservation 89 8.0 protection. To date, the inventory only covers the District (April Washington Conservation District in the Wetland Management former CMWD area; an effort to inventory the 8, 2008) Plan and Rule Revision technical input process. expansion area should be started as soon as possible. In the interim, the wording in 8.9.3 is sufficient to obtain the data needed on a permit- by-permit basis. We must again take strong exception to the requirement in 8.4.2 that livestock must be fenced out of wetlands. An examination of Exhibit D clearly shows the huge potential Rule 8.4.2 has been revised to allow livestock access in 90 8.4.2 impact of this rule on properties within May Twp. May Township wetlands with exisiting access so long as the quality of the The wetlands within the Kelly farm, which is wetland is not degraded. New livestock access to wetlands is mostly grazed by cattle and sheep, are too only allowed for management category 4 wetlands. numerous to count. In the name of full disclosure and fairness, this issue alone is worthy of a public hearing. LIVESTOCK ACCESS TO WATER SOURCES. Rule 8.4.2 has been revised to allow livestock access in Requiring fencing of all landlocked water bodies City of wetlands with exisiting access so long as the quality of the Scandia - may not be legally enforceable in the case of a (Attorney wetland is not degraded. New livestock access to wetlands is 91 8.4.2 !Kelly Farms situation, especially where such only allowed for management category 4 wetlands. The (Written letter access is specifically allowed under the rules of Wetland Management Plan was developed to be implemented after Public the Wetland Conservation Act for landlocked Hearing) under MN Rule 8420.0650, Local Comprehensive Wetland basins in agricultural areas. Protection and Management Plans. Will 8.4.7 that manages trails near wetlands Paved trails are required under 4.9.2 to be located outside a 92 8.4.7 allow for the use of paved trails to make the May Township buffer zone. wetland wheel-chair accessible? CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 33 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # jRule Comment 1From Response Section 8.4.7 Recreation Standards is still rather 11 !confusing for the reader. I suggest that a i 1 guidance document be prepared to describe Washington which activities are a concern and that would be (Conservation The CMSCWD will develop guidance documents/tools that can 93 8.4.7 regulated under this section. I also suggest that be used to clarify this section and facilitate compliance with the the rationale for these changes be included, District (April rules.' such as addressing the potential for erosion and 8, 2008) sedimentation of those activities, and the volume of run-off expected from the activity. Section 8.6.4 Allowable mitigation activities might be expanded (again via guidance 1Washington documents) might to include other actions 'Conservation The CMSCWD will develop guidance documents/tools that can 94 8.6.4 be used to clarify this section and facilitate compliance with the deemed important to the District's mission, to District (April fulfill the portions of the replacement ratio above 18, 2008) rules. the ratio required by the WCA. We hereby request the Watershed District To ensure no net loss of wetlands, the District's Wetland 95 8.6.2 ;consider following the de minimus rules of the (Stillwater T Management Plan allows de minimis exemptions only on 'WCA ownship Manage 4 wetlands. DE MINIMIS. Rule 8.6.2 eliminates the WCA exemption in Management Categories 1, 2 and 3. In response to Stillwater Township's (City of comment, the Watershed District states that the De Minimis exception has been eliminated to Scandia - The Wetland Management Plan was developed to be insure no net loss of wetlands. What legal Attorney implemented under MN Rule 8420.0650, Local Comprehensive 96 8.6.2 authority does the Watershed District have to be (Written Wetland Protection and Management Plans, with the input of more restrictive than the Wetland Conservation clarification of BWSR and a Technical Advisory Committee and Citizen verbal Act? The Wetland Conservation Act is to be Advisory Committee. The elimination of the de minimis administered by the local government unit which comments at exemption was desired by the TAC and CAC in that process. is, in many cases, the local municipality not the Public local watershed district. Is eliminating the De Hearing) Minimis exception reasonable in light of the various financial and practical considerations? CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 34 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response 'The District contains a number of wetlands that are of Rule 8.6.5 The replacement ratios are higher Dennis i exceptional quality and require this level of protection to 97 8.6.5 (than what is required under state law (e.g. 6:1 O'Donnell !maintain that quality. The District's Wetland Management Plan ratios seem a lot higher than WCA (2/29/0provides additional detail on the quality of these wetlands and Meeting) requirements) Meetingg) how the classification was made. — Section 8.6.5 - This section sets forth the The District contains a number of wetlands that are of replacement ratio for wetland impacts. The exceptional quality and require this level of protection to 98 8.6.5 proposed ratio for category 1 wetland is 6:1. Washington maintain that quality. The District's Wetland Management Plan This exceeds ratios contained in the Wetland County provides additional detail on the quality of these wetlands and Conservation__Act. !I how the classification was made. iThe District contains a number of wetlands that are of The replacement ratio of 4:1 for "Management exceptional quality and require this level of protection to 'Category 2" exceeds the WCA replacement ratio Stillwater 99 8.6.5(b) maintain that quality. The District's Wetland Management Plan of 2.5:1. We hereby request consideration of Township provides additional detail on the quality of these wetlands and (following the WCA rule for this item. how the classification was made. Section 8.6.7 Restoration fund- When the Washington 100 8.6.7 District prepares a draft payment rate schedule, Conservation The District will keep you informed of the continuing process. I would be happy to participate in that District (April discussion. 8, 2008) Section 8.9.2 (b) Required exhibits lists wetlands and water features on adjacent parcels. The District should consider what level of Washington The District will consider the limitations to access of adjacent investigation is acceptable for this submittal, Conservation private property and will not require detailed analysis of 101 8.9.2 'considering access limits to private lands not District (April p p y q y i resources on adjacent properties. I owned by the applicant and the potential for 8, 2008) remote observation, especially for sites not yet inventoried. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 35 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # 1 Rule i Comment From Response 'Section 8.10.1 - While normal maintenance of stormwater facilities and ditches might be exempt from mitigation requirements under Washington 102 8.10.1 (these Rules, I suggest that those projects Conservation Maintenance activities will be reviewed to ensure that they require administrative review, to assure that they District (April qualify for the exemption. do qualify for this exemption. I realize that some 8, 2008) of those projects might trigger other permit requirements, such as Rules 3.0 and 5.0. 103Capitalize the first word in 9.1.1, 9.1.2 and 9.1.3. 9.1.1- These are complete sentences and should look May Township This change has been made. 9.1.3 like complete sentences. Dennis The rule does not suggest that all people are violators, it does 104 I9.2 and Make sure Rules 9.2 and 9.3 read correctly - "All O'Donnell 9.3 people may not be violators..." (2/29/08 identify that fees are needed to cover inspection and review M_e_eUng) costs of the District. __ - Under 9.2 Inspections, 9.2.2 properly limits 105 9.2.2 inspections to "major subdivision." Of course we Ma This language has been revised to state "subdivision of four or urge this same applicability test be used y Township more lots" elsewhere. ISureties. The district will require sureties in the (form of a letter of credit, cash or performance 106 10.0 Ibond. They may wish to consider eliminating the City of performance bond as an option. Most cities have,Scandia This change has been made. ceased accepting performance bonds due to the , difficulty of making a claim. Page 37, Sureties: Government agencies Minnesota 107110.0 I should be exempt from the sureties, same as for Department of A statement has been added to Rule 10.0 that government 'the Fee Rule. Transportation agencies are exempt. CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 36 of 37 COMMENT RESPONSES # Rule Comment From Response The WD and the LGU should avoid situations where both require and hold a surety for the same work, such as site stabilization. This is a Rule 10.3(d) states "No stormwater management facilities surety double penalty against the landowner and will is necessary if the applicant can demonstrate that the Icause confusion in cases where remedial work municipality has received a performance surety in an amount 108 10.0 might be needed ... the "Who's in charge?" May Township I equal to or greater than the amount required by the District." question. This happened for Manning Prairie, Coordination with the municipalities regarding use of the sureties where both Brown's Creek WD and May will be completed through MOUs. Township required a site stabilization surety. This needs to be avoided but as written, rule 10.0 does not prevent this. This rule should mention 1.0 "Procedural 109 11.0 Requirements" where the application, notice and May Township Rule 11.0 has been revised to reference Rule 1.0. public hearing process is spelled out. Dennis Rule 11.2 - where did this rule language come O'Donnell This variance language is based upon other similar Rules and 110 11.2 (from. Is this standard watershed district rule Ian ua e. (2/29/08 on relevant case law. g g 'Meeting) CMSCWD Draft Rules - Comments received during Formal Comment Period 37 of 37 Meeting Date: 06/17/2008 Agenda Item: V. / City Council Agenda Report City of Scandia 14727 209th St. North Scandia, MN 55073 (651) 433-2274 Action Requested: Discuss City participation in the annual Taco Daze event. Deadline/ Timeline: Booth reservations are due by June 26. Background: • The 2008 Taco Daze festival will be on Saturday, September 6. • The Park and Recreation Committee has had a booth at Taco Daze the last couple of years, but the Town/ City has not. • Timing of this year's event will be good for sharing information about the draft Compfehensive Plan. • A joint or"all-city" booth could provide information on parks- related issues, the draft plan, and any other city information we would wish to include. The city could draw on Council, CPC members, Planning Commissioners, Park and Rec Committee members to staff the booth. The Comprehensive Plan Committee discussed this at their June 9 meeting and agreed that it was a good idea. • We will need some lead time to prepare materials and exhibits. There would be some expenses associated with the booth, the largest potentially being at tent or awning. • As in the last two years, the Park and Recreation Committee plans to sponsor a dodge-ball tournament. This activity was assumed in the 2008 budget. Recommendation: I recommend that the Council give staff direction on reserving a booth for Taco Daze. The Council may also wish to discuss your participation in the parade, or take that up at a future meeting. Attachments/ • None Materials provided: Contact(s): Prepared by: Anne Huriburt, Administrator (taco daze) Page 1 of 1 06/12/08