Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Untitled
REVISED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT For a Project to Manage Stormwater and Protect Water Quality in the Brown's Creek Watershed,Washington County,Minnesota The parties to this Revised Cooperative Agreement("Revised Cooperative Agreement")are the City of Stillwater, a Home Rule City of the Third Class, existing under the constitution and laws of Minnesota("Stillwater"),the City of Oak Park Heights,a statutory city("Oak Park Heights")and Brown's Creek Watershed District("BCWD"),a watershed district created pursuant to Minn. Stat. §103D. Recitals and Statement of Purpose WHEREAS Brown's Creek is a unique and important natural resource and a designated trout stream located within the Twin Cities metropolitan area, the ecological health and habitat viability of which depend on the maintenance of water quality,water temperature, and stable flow character. WHEREAS, Stillwater conducted an Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) for areas proposed to be annexed by Stillwater between now and the year 2020 and produced a Report(May 1997) and Final Report(December 16, 1997)(together,the"AUAR Reports")reviewing impacts to water resources from development in the annexation area consistent with the Stillwater comprehensive plan and proposing means of mitigating those impacts. WHEREAS,the implementation and use of regional measures to manage stormwater may serve to allow properties within the drainage area to meet the requirements of BCWD rules,the AUAR, and Stillwater and Oak Park Heights ordinances in a more cost-effective way than managing stormwater on an individual site basis. WHEREAS,the parties desire to implement measures recommended in the AUAR to protect Brown's Creek and its tributaries and acknowledge that their ability to do so requires that each party satisfactorily and promptly perform its obligations and cooperate with the other party on those tasks. As used in this Revised Agreement,the Regional Treatment System that will be designed, constructed, owned and maintained by Stillwater is described as the Brown's Creek Trout Stream Mitigation Project("TSMP"). 1 WHEREAS,on August 7,2003, Stillwater and Oak Park Heights have reached an agreement establishing terms on which land within Oak Park Heights may drain to the TSMP,entitled"Memorandum of Understanding Between The City of Oak Park Heights and The City of Stillwater With Regard to Storm Water Management Issues Within the City of Oak Park Heights' Central Business District and adjoining lands,Lying South of Trunk Highway 36,West of Oakgreen Avenue and East of Trunk Highway 5"("Stillwater/Oak Park Heights MOU")and Stillwater and the BCWD have determined the TSMP as designed will manage surface water flows from the areas described in this Revised Agreement so as to protect Brown's Creek,its tributaries and the other water resources within the watershed. NOW,THEREFORE,the parties enter into this Revised Agreement to document their understanding as to the scope of their undertaking;reaffirm the commitment of each party as to the responsibilities and tasks to be undertaken by each party; establish procedures for performing these tasks and responsibilities; and facilitate communication and cooperation among the parties to ensure successful completion of the undertaking. AGREEMENT 1. General Responsibilities and Performance Guidelines 1.1 A Work Plan describing the tasks and schedule anticipated in performance of the TSMP is incorporated in this Revised Agreement by reference (Exhibit"A"). Consistent with its obligations under this Revised Agreement, Stillwater will retain final authority as to the manner in which it implements the responsibilities assigned to it but will provide the BCWD and Oak Park Heights the opportunity for review and comment with regard to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of the TSMP by timely providing any documents that another party requests and will cooperate with each other party in good faith to achieve goals of this Revised Agreement. 1.2 With respect to compliance with paragraph 2.4.1(b)of the BCWD Rules,the TSMP,within the area subject to the terms of this Revised Agreement, constitutes a regional facility pursuant to paragraph 2.7.4(c)of those rules. 1.3 The area of Stillwater that is subject to this Revised Agreement is limited to Phase I,Phase II,Phase III, and Phase IV as described in the Orderly Annexation Agreement between the City of Stillwater and Town of Stillwater dated August 16, 1996. Areas not described in this section, and areas that become 2 part of the City in the future by reasons of annexation or other expansion,are not subject to the exception unless this Revised Agreement is amended to include those areas. The orderly annexation area is described in Exhibit "B," Phase I on Exhibit "C,"Phase II on Exhibit "D," and Phase III on Exhibit "E." Phase IV is that part of the orderly annexation area(Exhibit"B")not shown on Exhibit"C," "D" or"E." 1.4 Also subject to this Revised Agreement is that part of Oak Park Heights labeled on Exhibit F as"Remaining Parcels in the BCWD to be Developed Subject to the Revised Cooperative Agreement." Oak Park Heights recognizes that a portion of this area lies within the BCWD hydrological boundary but currently outside the BCWD legal boundary, and therefore that development of this portion may be subject to the stormwater management review of another watershed management organization. 1.5 All designs,written materials,technical data,research or any other work in progress concerning implementation of the TSMP must be available for review and copying by the other party,except to the degree limited by law. 1.6 Review and comment as provided for in this Revised Agreement means distribution of the documents or materials in question to each other party for a 30-day opportunity to review and comment. This period shall begin on the later of(a)the other party's receipt of documents under paragraph 1.1; or(b)the other party's receipt of documents pursuant to a request under paragraph 1.4 made within 15 business days of the Administrator's initial receipt under paragraph 1.1. Stillwater will in its discretion ensure that review occurs at a time when any comments may be meaningfully considered and implemented by Stillwater. The parties agree to consider all timely comments fully and to modify documents or materials to the extent feasible. 1.7 In the event of conflict between the terms of the Stillwater/Oak Park Heights MOU and this Revised Agreement,the Stillwater/Oak Park Heights MOU, specifying the terms by which land within Oak Park Heights may drain to the improvements described at paragraph 2.1 of this Revised Agreement, shall supersede the terms of this Revised Agreement as to the rights and obligations of Stillwater and Oak Park Heights with respect to each other. Nothing in the Stillwater/Oak Park Heights MOU shall affect the rights and obligations of the BCWD as set forth in this Revised Agreement,nor shall Stillwater deny any lands credited by the BCWD under paragraph 4.1 of this Revised Agreement the use of the improvements to the extent contemplated in the plans for development of those lands incorporated into a BCWD permit. 3 1.8 This Revised Agreement shall apply to land within Oak Park Heights,and to the rights and obligations of Oak Park Heights,effective retroactive to August 7, 2003. 2. Structural Improvements 2.1 Stillwater will prepare plans and specifications for the construction,operation and maintenance of the proposed improvements and distribute them for review and comment in accordance with paragraph 1.5. 2.2 Stillwater will be responsible for selecting the contractor or contractors to perform the construction of the improvements,negotiating construction contracts and supervising project construction. It will be responsible for obtaining any governmental permits and conducting any environmental reviews necessary for the construction,operation and maintenance of the improvements,and for acquiring any property or access rights needed to design, construct,operate and maintain the improvements. 2.3 Stillwater will take all reasonable and feasible measures to minimize impacts on Long Lake and Brown's Creek that are caused by development that takes place before and following complete construction and operation of the TSMP and all elements thereof. 3. Responsibility for Costs. 3.1 Stillwater will be responsible for all project costs for the design, construction and maintenance of the TSMP. Nothing in this section will limit the right of Stillwater to seek contributing funds from any entity other than BCWD that contributes flows to the TSMP on any basis allowed by law. 3.2 Stillwater and BCWD will exercise reasonable efforts to secure outside means of funding for activities under section 2. The parties will assist and cooperate in these efforts. 4. Application of BCWD Rules to Areas Affected by the Improvements. 4.1 It is the intent of the parties that the improvements constructed pursuant to this Revised Agreement constitute a regional facility for managing stormwater flow volume within the area described at Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of this Revised Agreement. Therefore,pursuant to Paragraph 2.7.4(c)of the BCWD 4 rules,development within the area described in this Revised Agreement is deemed to be in compliance with the standard at Paragraph 2.4.1(b)of the rules. 4.2 Stillwater will cooperate with the BCWD on any monitoring the BCWD may undertake with respect to TSMP performance and water resource conditions,and will provide a location for a BCWD monitoring facility as identified jointly by the parties. This shall not obligate Stillwater to pay the cost of any such monitoring,except as may be specified in the monitoring plan referenced in paragraph 5.1 of this Revised Agreement. 4.3 Nothing in this Revised Agreement affects the authority or responsibility of the BCWD to revise paragraph 2.4.1(b)of its rules as appropriate. In the event a revision of paragraph 2.4.1(b) should impose a stricter standard than presently applicable to the Orderly Annexation Area as described in Paragraph 1.3 of this Revised Agreement,or the area of Oak Park Heights described in Paragraph 1.4 of this Revised Agreement, any permit applicant subsequent to adoption of the revised standard would be required to meet that standard, after consultation and agreement of the municipalities within the drainage area of the Regional Treatment System or TSMP as defined in Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of this Revised Agreement. An applicant within the area described in Paragraphs 1.3 and 1.4 of this Revised Agreement will receive compliance credit for that degree of volume control that the TSMP is providing, but also shall be required to provide for such additional volume control as is necessary to meet the standard. A revised standard would operate only as to applications considered after adoption of the revision,and would not operate retroactively to any existing development. 5. Monitoring Plan 5.1 The parties,with the participation of other interested governmental bodies,jointly will develop and implement a monitoring plan("Monitoring Plan") that will identify specific sampling procedures,analytic methods, detection limits, and quality assurance and quality control procedures to facilitate the accurate measurement of baseline data and any water quality or quantity impacts within the Long Lake drainage area and areas downstream. The specific monitoring activities for which each party is responsible will be identified in the Monitoring Plan. 5 6. Remedies. 6.1 In the event that periodic sampling or analysis done by BCWD or the Monitoring Plan reveals that the TSMP or any associated improvements are not functioning to meet BCWD volume control standards,the BCWD will meet and confer with Stillwater and Oak Park Heights to determine appropriate curative action. 6.2 In the event the parties cannot agree on an appropriate curative action,BCWD may send a notice to Stillwater and Oak Park Heights entitled "Notice to Cure,"describing the curative action necessary. The notice must allow Stillwater six(6)months to cure. 6.3 If curative action is not taken, or for any other dispute between the parties arising under this Revised Agreement,the parties agree to mediation for a minimum of ninety(90) days before seeking redress in the District Court of Washington County, Minnesota. Mediation shall be conducted pursuant to procedures, and with a mediator, agreed on by the parties. The 90-day period shall commence on the written request of either party for mediation under this paragraph. 7. Indemnification 7.1 Stillwater agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the BCWD against claims including those made by third parties that arise out of the design,construction or maintenance of the TSMP,whether during construction of the system or after its completion. 8. Notice. 8.1 Notices to the parties to this Revised Agreement shall be given by hand delivery or first-class mail addressed to an elected or appointed representative of a party or a person as the party may designate. Documents required to be provided pursuant to paragraph 2.1 must be addressed to the BCWD Administrator at the BCWD's designated address and to the City Administrator, Oak Park Heights,unless otherwise specified by either party in writing. 6 9. Amendments. 9.1 This Revised Agreement may be amended only by agreement of the parties in writing. 10. Effect and Binding Nature. 10.1 This Revised Agreement replaces and supersedes the August 18, 2000 Cooperative Agreement executed by Stillwater and the RCWD as of the date on which this Revised Agreement has been fully executed by all parties. 10.2 This Revised Agreement will be binding on the parties and their respective successors,whether by merger,consolidation or transfer of authority to another government agency,to the fullest extent permitted by law. 11. Termination. 11.1 This Revised Agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity. Any party may withdraw its participation under this Revised Agreement on two(2) years'written notice to the other parties. Before termination is finalized,the parties shall meet in good faith to attempt to resolve the reasons for the noticed withdrawal. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have executed this Revised Cooperative Agreement. CITY OF STILLWATER By Date Ja b , ayyor• A o��- .44/ And: Ata,ce_ L7% G�— Date Diane F. Ward, City Clerk CITY rd ' .•, o• HEIG T -ZZ By: l /, Date P ` d)e (i et,Mayor / 22C' / And: 14,FA Date ,. ric bison, City Administrator 7 BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT i • By: G, i. otos ._� Date Craig Lei er,President 8 10-29-'03 17:58 FROM- T-040 P02/07 U-557 EXHIBIT "A" Work Plan for TSMP Item 7/1/2000 Status Estimated Completion bate Trout Stream Realignment— Completed Spring 2000 Completed Oak Glen Segment McKusick Downstream Out for bid Fall 2002 Conveyance Improvement McKusick Lake Diversion • Partially Complete Fall 2003 Construction Long Lace Outlet Control Conceptual Design 2005 • Long Lake Conveyance System Partially Complete 2007 Improvements • • • • .. • •f 10-29-' 03 17:58 FROM- T-040 P03/07 U-557 . ,..i a. 13'35___ 1 31 PM • ifCc "Bs FRANK ROSS - _• • Na• , 6168' . ' ,...- ' / It-D- kV!...-:- , willtit.00 .--• . - -.11 t .. .•.., . _ arm ..., .........._,.... i , _ ... ,ilig 1110.1N) .:0.. 1 ' - . - Vil PI • I & .-a 1 ... „ , In Ik."':iiM.' mr"---.., V itcimffillilli fa.,);:-. ... 14,74411112 ' • a�r�� o o`'pIr e- '-_,W. =tr:i WO/ J ? ..,„,. ,9 imeseri=skt . J iv mi • Tor;0 6.--<t yer ...,.._........ -, , q. l• :iii � 111 -..2:� oOft il smi .o_,.,Q ILI - Alibi 11Z.W:Vqf co, 111Ptm -A./. A 11114-1 - h-.71'1„.- ,,; gill" iir'1" -• . ..,, . . . 5.. .. 1;1.. t,,,,-NO, : igittzt. ..„ . . .. .. _ ._ .......,..-mplit , coings5A,,,,waik,d ,,,,,.. _...., De.e c. T Qom • • i e � � a� ,�e1 � _ �,dc . ,~ - 11 .K cal in Gli rID.�21.1111 .0.41/ �J°s4S iii I iii 'ICIL'' pi Erri sr- ,,„, ,„•••''' �. -cs ,r,,a :,,�d daDaz cm'o�!*'� :,,- ®writ fig. `dd �,/�,a.Q� S� "� 7�j. • . .. • :. \ ..\ .\-.. . tp.kN..{ --6_3_,..,..--,. r-... V. • ',•••••=:.,i:,52‘...;::::•z-....,......),..v., . .44,4-61 3,14 . .,........,:::?„..:.•:•S\.1`..."-Z. P W.\• l'.%11. 1 • : . G= • • j t Orderly_ -Nei;\r,• \ ::_:•:.,.--••;• , . \\\ - - ; .Area or :'W.�7\�:_ _ M '.a S.Al #12 1 \\ N7,., "-.��,`,' i , -- • ' -, • �. t , - - ✓ .8.. ..i - i 'N _. \ •r( ,,,,,-...; ,. . wi\NW.- si.1 .,1101. . /h...Ar% . I. N. •; : . .' ''.61 ••:"‘-'AM ak OM . -.1 ' :.%ZZ,-..1::!'l•-n...-.7..'.7' VAIN ,. - ijelli..., . .. ..,, . v.,,,.•,,,-;%-;,.:i --L-..,-._-ma-i.r. . SIP Ilk • . •"""\V"..Z .SLVV:.'••' Illtililillagrin1111.1. (.\ . Hwy. #36 EXHIBIT • 1 wy• s , • McCorbs Frank Roos Rsaoci etcs, Inc. CITY & TOWNSHIP rbi t5D50 Z rd Ria, N. OF STILLWRTER • Ply,auch,-MN. 554a7 Engineers • ORDERLY ANNEXATION 10-29-'03 17:58 FROM- T-040 PO4/0Y u-nnt r7---kr. 10. 1996-- 1 : 31PM----MCr^uBS FRANK ROSS --.,--8 a. 61 6 8......P. 3/6.... t. . 1 . .. •7......_ ... Le.1,\- -, -- , ; -- - "Lb . i_. ,... :1per cm, iy«!!ftn ilrra L . . AM :-.:t.zz-.-, : .4,,...‹.i. _lifil ::z:.;jraeln irrtaz irm ..47:ga- -A 5 1 i i Mb6. 1 2 air MI 5140# i• i • 5 am ! I- 1 • ....67 IV n . ireilik.v.,...z i rasa - airk-tim a t... ..1.e 1 Pkb* ...L-..'Alliii mipli\ 111171- -. Sal ;<•::liM11111111111M er,.— ,..i. .. _ 114;111111 1111E0-*-- --,11•1M!.1.1121111= i ..e.i ksy„.1 . .....4 gmigi.immiltikic - i- ._ 1 .4.,.a .......,..-,L141 ow Hi -,.. - - i 41100 -. .,-"k".. .. \111 '• ... cat I3 . CIE- tb-i-.-'"---,--- -,------'-' a --. ' \ - CIE 51 lag \i,b !:* 1 0 a .: ,i.,. gi •r611 ‘ ,. ,,, • „...i........,. ..ft,,_ 4 b . . *ligris skibTrq I .„,•: • l'— N-7WWillit *2114 -,#;N:s .. X. ral=11111Thal r‘I' lllnk41-10i.S°1411411t t" tAriTainhotVg! • . 511ritif it 15=1._..--n":7 ,3,21. Rill ,0 • ) 4,- ,_4•!1_16-___ it.: ,MINIIIM ' 1 ' illatilliP1 11-"11 :4t - ilk A. ....-r----------t- 1/1 ;. 1 * • I ' \I 1 -9 [ Lk.r.n.A...1.-fi• . • .r, _ .', ! , • . In I - ' t . • lif ! 'Pc- -1; ' IF Ir.n.: .... _ .. _r • t; "Ar,'W g' F::F---- • .;.-=f—ie',,ii a •l • Arttnir:-7 / .--J,,,,; 1.1...sti. s-1, . a rE . . •id Y's 17:,:. :aid plf !E. ti3YAR wiippere : • Aiiiir . 7c,. 7:71 ;;;!: alai' 111111 • -Gil ...iiiiiir _,.. .___:...i_ 1111-.7 INF • . g •Iii4areiry -/ 111 MI t;a1."Z":"Fili 11111111111=imiii Nu 1111011121e1MVIzI14 111:11(:` - 1.111V iiiiiii11111 0.-mall iiii:. s. EXHIBIT • . II .---..... .._--. . 1 hcCoabs Frank Rocs fisscclatec, Inc. CITY & TOWNSHIP • "suite. ler.Cm MJ O.. W 10-29-'03 17:59 FROM- C�''UBS FRANK ROSS Nu. 6168,,,,•.P. 4/6,_„ 7u.n: •(0. 1996 ( 3l P.M,�� Rw./1fi `" - -- ---1 -----: :.9 io - .r V� t1tC > I. .7.,4115, l•• v,s4 • ♦.es: 21):7.deraillab. A i/d" /4'4 MON itia, Cid 4'. .r 'i�I pne. _ -/� ' wy.a 2 �..rx.•••,p / . ... •/ ....i1..t.-..-...g.....4a•.•.•...•.r..it...i n . . .... .-...,.-.„ �'"„ . -µ• 4 Sick =:7 ____l. „W. t-Y. load #6 ur-, . — ---r.._,•-�•r.- ��+. 100 713 yup I \lk •./r. .i. + v../� .� 11. ;'- PHASE II ..r. /.... tiii . .. _ ___ tI�•' . - 4 (tvw . . /1:11;:', le::I/5i. iiem • , . . g,.- , .•- err• >t� isie 1 vim* CIN adet 711160Ca;so r(�o y NI:K: 1 s Ject9 gia i 207!4 . 411 ..:..Ogliter. . ' ' aliollh iiiti, Wat 01-Lto v.„,,, . • lt, el/ 7"t .1...ser - : . a Asa "tal irop .."...... a e 11211 . / vF l.stOo. iii ,e. s y . 11C=Iikk4 lila `�► *!!H „ire •irm I-- 404 w 174' titall ti I KOG �e•00 On A1 foo� r . \• �'S+�dit.�� 'a � t � d/ i 1 7D Aso la sox uqCSA • W.711Wwmm0 C4.3414" - jai . I _ . roc • „1 .1-0,---stizair,-- . gfjr Oa•ti•. 1 _ . •I I - ' / ...'..\ n ......, • - ., EXHIBIT D T1cCaatbs Fronk Roos•Associ ttcs, Inc. CITY_E. TOWNSHIP 1-EF-110 i uu/�• ` 10-29-'03 18;00 FROM- !o. 6168"P. 5/6" GCO"R5 FRANK ROSS i...,� — r `--�1un. 10. 1996— 1 :32P�• \ -2: I?_—_•. y • ._i—, • i i,a = '.: ('L1:C: ,-, `.r.• SOS! d) • • . `ST . #96 a r.et E ,A,ap�__..• „co . I1 i 1:� s e• uswg : :tit • . , •. 1 T v.:':i; Il.t: 1 WO :i 1 , _ v 1 PIIA.SE PIIASEI1I %- NOS ae \ilblit„.. 1 azt. . . •` — \• _ 1 Sr* i a SE 4 idift4, 11,1, • f • �� ' \ • I. ♦soe 1 . • aaJ 3 P ..-A........ +OB. 1111115 re,10. $141 4 , o ..,. 1 d .�., • >r jJ, . Road #6 McKUS1ck "'s:.► rM., z. s-.. C . • ter. • -•Na-,••1f -. .. a6„ ��It4 7 Is a••� 1 1 I .�� yam, • • .04• ” . \ i •Ai .s.... 1 . t ,--"•- _ • � 17 --• 1 Ka ��(( t . 1 :•.1 jam'' • ;. 1 . � iici, r ` • f \ \ 4---/ NE. (igA CFS ii 80th Street . • .. % ei :\ 44 \ q.---.1 _ • • 'Mc" Vie:: Is5:1 ; 11* 04M.cc 117.1 -. ..--411. t______...—.1 3 1 • A - ii.j, 01" A ; 1 *C4 .' a -,..., ' 4 .r :Oat .i 115: :1 • 1 EXHIBIT R 'VIts W. ill . . . . �-----•- CITY TOWNSHIP . . ticCoabs Frank Roes Associates. OF STILLWRTER / 15050 23rdpve_ H: �I it '�I�1�I1ligliJ �l I:: iii � I 1 rdromminar-E II. -- ------- h MEMO I -14. 11-711 WAITII,f ;i 611:-'r , ( 11111111111]il lej; 4, lima -r. ....ii 1 ism , 111 JIli .., l ,Oft LL ,iIIit!Ild . woo(cLNoxI03 0 zx EW mi,rr 44„.„,„,,,,„:-..- v 1 - 1 ® Ah.misk 7 t _LT___,h I, , 7 ' , ' AI , nips. , -_-__-:[. , Air !"/ .h. , --:- ,,, p 4 \\ It ,. I Mil. l' ! Mr ' \ ) 'N lair Ul IIII III 1 : .1r 111 ! i .v0i,P16,, 4 >- ralialiiii.411111 q11%1°‘ WI ® 11.111111r' 14111°111 1 w ! 1 !I 1 2 ' '' . ----------4011 iA: diaill&ikt 1I 1 I g I ; 1 I /I i •� I o r� i \1 �� M 1 1\ 1 � '� 'r Y rrli ,,11 11 /N144; Kf h i �17- 1--- (gm '7 il■ 111 ��� �� UPIM li'r \\ �\ iiii 5 11 .r.,, F il - ' 4/40trosii 1,..i_ _ _ II silk 1111. - , IIII� lirliiii,41Li ii,i Illikiklik lg. l fI • Memorandum of Understanding Between The City of Oak Park Heights and The City of Stillwater With Regard to Storm Water Management Issues Within the City of Oak Park Heights' Central Business District and adjoining lands, Lying South of Trunk Highway 36, East of Oakgreen Avenue and West of Trunk Highway 5 WHEREAS, in August of 2000, the City of Stillwater entered into a cooperative agreement with Brown's Creek Watershed District relative to the City of Stillwater's Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR) and studies produced and published in May, 1997,with final report of December 16, 1997; and, WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater,with Brown's Creek Watershed District, implemented measures recommended within the AUAR to protect Brown's Creek and its tributaries, and acknowledged that their ability to do so requires that parties to that agreement satisfactorily and promptly perform obligations as specified within the agreement; and, WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater constructed a regional treatment system, which was then designated,owned and maintained by the City of Stillwater,described as the Brown's Creek Trout Stream Mitigation Project(TSMP); and, WHEREAS, the studies that were performed by the City of Stillwater relative to storm water management within the AUAR included areas within the City of Oak Park Heights located south of Trunk Highway 36, west of Oakgreen Avenue and east of Trunk Highway 5; and, WHEREAS, the August, 2000 cooperative agreement between the City of Stillwater and Brown's Creek Watershed District included t hose territories t hen existing within the City of Stillwater, but did not include within its parameters the areas within the City of Oak Park Heights, otherwise studied and included in the calculations for the AUAR reports; and, WHEREAS, the City of Oak Park Heights has indicated its desire to join with the City of Stillwater in the AUAR regulations, under the terms and provisions of the August 2000 cooperative agreement with the City of Stillwater and Brown's Creek Watershed District;and, WHEREAS, the City of Stillwater has applied to Brown's Creek Watershed District to amend the August 2000 cooperative agreement to include the areas of the City of Oak Park Heights identified above. NOW THEREFORE,the Cities of Oak Park Heights and Stillwater herewith agree as follows: 1. Processing of applications, payment of fees, regulation of storm water relative t o v acant and undeveloped lands. T he C ity o f Oak Park Heights shall continue to receive applications and process same, relative to the development of lands within the area impacted by this agreement. The City of Oak Park Heights shall notify the City of Stillwater, relative to developments that are proposed to be initiated within the area specified and, for every development that is hereafter pursued and constructed, shall collect on behalf of the City of Stillwater, the fees specified herein. The City of Stillwater shall provide the technical evaluation and analysis of development projects for purposes of compliance with the terms and provisions of the Brown's Creek Trout Stream Mitigation Project, AUAR regulations and the terms and provisions of the cooperative agreement of August 2000, between the City of Stillwater and the Brown's Creek Watershed District. (a) There shall be paid to the City of Stillwater by the City of Oak Park Heights, the sum of $5,000.00 per developable acre for each development that is constructed within the affected area, under permit from the City of Oak Park Heights. This amount shall be adjusted annually, effective January 1 of each calendar year, based upon the national Construction Cost Index, as determined by the City of Oak Park Heights. The computation of acreage provided for herein shall exclude existing wetlands and existing ponds on the site of each development,but shall otherwise include all lands within the boundaries of each parcel so affected. The terms and provisions of this agreement shall not apply to the reconstruction, remodeling or redevelopment of existing parcels now served by existing development within the City of Oak Park Heights, but shall only apply to vacant parcels that exist within the City of Oak P:ark Heights,within the confines of the area so described,which are anticipated to be less than one hundred (100) acres in number, as of the date of this agreement. The aforementioned fee shall cover the City of Oak Park Heights' responsibilities, relative to any on-going or future maintenance of the TSMP improvements and/or any monitoring requirements, as outlined in the Monitoring Plan noted in the original AUAR agreement. (b) The City of Stillwater shall provide its input and overview relative to storm water management issues within the area so described, so as to be compliant with the terms and conditions of the August, 2000 cooperative agreement, and the same shall be implemented by the City of Oak Park Heights relative to vacant lands that are being developed under the terms and provisions of this agreement. (c) The City of Oak Park Heights shall continue to implement storm water project improvements within the borders of the area described within this agreement, as the same have been planned and projected for by the office of its city engineer. All such plans and improvements, notice and information relative to same shall be made available between the engineering departments of the Cities to this agreement, prior to the implementation and improvement being constructed within the City of Oak Park Heights. (d) Payments due from the City of Oak Park Heights relative to improvement projects implemented on vacant lands within the area described, shall be due and payable only after the same have been collected by the City of Oak Park Heights from the land developer,but shall be forthwith paid to the City of Stillwater within fifteen (15)days of their receipt,by the City of Oak Park Heights. . 2. Subsequent modifications and amendments of the AUAR regulations and/or cooperative agreement of August 2000, between the City of Stillwater and the Brown's Creek Watershed District. There shall be no modifications, amendments or changes made to the AUAR regulations or the cooperative agreement between the City of Stillwater and Brown's Creek Watershed District, unless the same has first been presented to, and approved by, the City of Oak Park Heights. The City of Oak Park Heights shall not unreasonably withhold consent to any regulation or improvement that does not have an immediate and direct impact on lands within the City of Oak Park Heights. 3. Reconstruction. Although the TSMP and the improvements constructed as part of the TSMP have an estimated useful life of 50 years from the date of their construction and reconstruction is not contemplated within the foreseeable future, should reconstruction be proposed i n the future the C ities o f S tillwater and 0 ak P ark h eights shall confer with regard to the need, scope, design and specification for the reconstruction. The costs associated with such reconstruction shall be shared by the communities on a pro rata basis utilizing the number of acres each community contributes to the AUAR relative to the total acreage of the AUAR. 4. Amendment of Brown's Creek and Stillwater Cooperative Agreement of August 2000. Upon the execution of this agreement Stillwater will petition Brown's Creek Watershed District for an amendment to the Cooperative Agreement of August 2000 to include the described area of Oak Park Heights within the boundaries of the AUAR and allowing the non-described areas of Oak Park Heights now located within the Browns Creek watershed District to existing District volume control regulations. 5. Future Watershed District Boundary Adjustments. In the event that any existing areas of Stillwater and/or Oak Park Heights are reassigned for storm water flowage and Watershed District regulation to agencies other than Brown's Creek or its successor, then and in that event all such reassigned areas s hall b e excluded from the provisions of this agreement from and after the date of such reassignment however any fees paid hereunder shall not be refunded or returned. DATED THIS C)51 -• day of 214t 2003. i 41 `_ Ar. ' '1/ P/•'r of' lwater ipp 414 a, 1 . City of Oak Park Heights r• 11/04/99 11 :21 5 :01/08 N0:701 _ BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK • ® 6516361311 Fax Transmission o Anderllk &: Associate% Engineers i Archh�{ty� � \ I Date: )sJO v,_4 1949 To: __fa mekria From: 61 5 Fax Number: _ 442-_4/ 9 os 7c/ Our File No: �''- 98-pipb organization: e 7 ,1.k4o:1144c Pages to Follow: Subject: ____64.1alL Original Will Follow in Mali: Yes• No Remarks: • • • Note to Addressee: if you did not receive all of the pages In good condition, please advise sender at your earliest convenience. Thank You. • • Bonestroo, Rosene,Anderllik and Associates 2335 West Highway 36 is St. Paul, MN 55113 •651-636-4600 is Fax: 651-636-1311 a www.bonestroo.com • For Office Use Only Fax then mail: YesNo Urgent fax immediately: Yes No Cali to confirm fax was received: Yes No Fax and return original to sender: Yes No ' Make copies for: File Others Fax copies to(more than one): Other: BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK ' 6516361311 11/04/99 11 :21 5 :02/08 N.0:701 1111 1111 9onestroo MemoAssockno Project Name: BCWD Rules Client: Oak Park Heights To: Tom Melena File No: 55-98-000 From: Dan Edgerton Date: November 4, 1999 Re: Brown's Creek Watershed District Board Meeting to Adopt Rules • • The Brown's Creek Watershed District(BCWD) adopted the proposed Rules at its 10/28/99 Board meeting. Items discussed at the meeting: Cecilio Olivier handed out some graphs prepared by Barr Engineering for the Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District (see attached), comparing rules from various watershed districts, Including the BCWD proposed Rules. Cecilio used it to make the point that the BCWD Rules are in line with other watersheds. Without the full report, it was difficult to interpret the graphs and to know if Cecilio's assertion was correct. The last of the graphs(Figure 15)does seem to imply that the BCWD will require significantly more infiltration storage area than either Rice Creek WD or the proposed Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek WD Rules. Brett Emmons presented an example of a development review of Green Twig Villas in Stillwater based on the proposed BCWD Rules (see attached). Again,without some background on the development, it was impossible to understand the implications of the development review. It does appear that en infiltration basin will need to be added for runoff volume control, another infiltration basin will need to be added for water quality control, and some townhomes will need to be reconfigured to avoid wetland buffers. Whether soma townhomes would be lost is uncertain. The Rules were adopted on a 5-0 vote, with the effective date of the Rules to be January 1, 2000. Also adopted was a permitting process. • The new Board member, Don Peterson, has reviewed the Stillwater AUAR, the AUAR audit prepared by Stillwater, and Stiliwater's ordinances to enforce the AUAR. He stated in the meeting that he felt the AUAR essentially met the requirements of the BCWD's Rules and that the BCWD should grant an exception to its Rules to the AUAR area. The other Board members did not go along with this, and Craig Leiser brought out a draft letter from the BCWD to Kiayton Eckles, Stillwater City Engineer,that proposed options for Stillwater in its AUAR area. He ran through the letter briefly, but did not distribute copies to the audience, so I can't comment on it at this time. I did request that a copy be sent to Oak Park Heights for its Information. The Board voted to send the letter to Stillwater with copies to all the participants in the AUAR cost-sharing agreement. If you do not receive this letter soon, then a request for a copy should be put in to the BCWD. • cc: Joe Anderlik, BRAA Bonestroo,Rosana,Anderilk end Associates,Inc. 0 St.Paul Office: fa Milwaukee Office: 0 Rochester Moe: rl Wlllmbr Offlea: 0 St.Cloud Moe: 2336 Weal Highway 36 1518 West Mequon Road 2222 Rein North 206 5th Street SW 2005 Mh Sl.North St.Paul,MN 55113 Mequon,WI 53092 Rochester,MN 58501 WtIknar.MN 58201 St.Cloud,MN 58303 Phone:8124138.4800 Phone:414-241448e Phone.607.282-2100 Phone:320-214-9567 Phone:320.261.4663 Fpr A1241.1A-1411 Far 4144414001 Far.IM7.203-41Afl Far 32n-214.84M Far 426.281.122 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK 6516361311 11/04/99 11 :21 j :03/08 NO:701 — 4 • W , EMMONS `, & OLIVIER Memorandum RESOURCES_ Date: October 28, 1999 To: BCWD Board of Managers From: Brett H. Emmons, Christa Bren • Re: Development Review–Green Twig Villas,City of Stillwater Example Review and Suggested Comments Grading Plan dated: 6/4/99 A review of the above mentioned development site submittal was conducted to check for consistency with the technical aspects of the BCWD's Rules and provide general comments on the proposal. The following comments summarize how the site relates to the Rules. ,Rate Control/Flooding 1. Rate control for the site is provided on the site by two treatment ponds and meets the District's standards. 2. The 100-year high water level (HWL)is preserved with the required 2 feet of freeboard and an emergency spillway below the house elevations. 3. The pond includes an aquatic bench for treatment and safety purposes. Volume Control 1. A comparison of the two cases is provided: 1.) Existing plus 5% impervious cover(Rules threshold) 2.) Proposed Development 2. Modeling of the site, factoring in soils, geology, and land use changes, indicates that for the level of imperviousness,0.5 Ac-ft of additional detention/infiltration is required on the site. No infiltration practices are identified on the Plans. 3. Existing dry depressions and soil borings in the north area indicate that infiltration in the north area is practical. • 4. Suggested modifications include adding an infiltration cell in the north from Pond 2. 5. Maintenance and post-construction clean out of the ponds in the infiltration areas are needed to ensure good infiltration performance. Water Quality/Erosion Control 1. The water quality standard for runoff to Long Lake is a total phosphorus concentration of 220 ppb. 2. The proposed wet ponding in the treatment pond I exceeds standard NURP criteria but is substandard for pond 2. Making A Difference Through Integrated Resource Management 3825 Lake Elmo Avenue North • Lake Elmo, MN • 55042 • Tel:(651) 770-8448 • Fax:(651) 770-2552 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK 6516361311 11/04/99 11 :21 5 :04/08 N0:7 01 4 Page 2 3. A performance analysis of the infiltration area and the wet detention pond provides the following results: Phosphorus Treatment P conc. - Pond 1 P conc. - Pond 2 P conc. -Direct (ppb) (ppb) Drainage(ppb) BCWD Standards 220 220 220 , As proposed 168 243 200 Suggested with infiltration 140 164 160 4. The suggested changes including infiltration include reshaping Pond I to provide two cells to enhance infiltration in the second cell and adding an infiltration cell to Pond 2. • Wetlands/Buffers 1. The BCWD Wetland Buffers only apply to the DNR Protected wetland in the north. The wetland-buffer requirement would be 50 feet, as is shown on the plans. 2. Several townhomes are shown within the 50-foot buffer. • • Recommendations . • • Rate/Volume Control—No additional rate control is required. Volume control should be provided to accomplish the 0.5 Ac-ft of detention/infiltration. This can be accomplished by: • Slightly modify Pond 1 a 2-cell pond, with the 2nd cell for infiltration. • Add a 2"d infiltration cell to Pond 2. • Route Pond 2 north into the existing large depression as is naturally the case. • Design the outlet for the large northern depression to maintain the natural • bounce and infiltration of the area. • Water Quality- Maximize treatment with 2-cel pond configurations, especially for Pond 2 and utilize infiltration. • • Wetland/Buffers— Reconfigure the townhomes in the north to accommodate the 50-foot buffer and potentially place the ponds of the site in the location of the existing depressions. BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK g6516361311 11/04/99 11 :21 5 :05/08 N0:701 __ _. ___ .—,,__ i ____ 0 . _ ._ 0 • . iy • 3 w16 -8 ..:c , w 0 .� . .i CA �j 2 ;€3 �a., o f 3 • ie. RS i o0 °gamo I E I , M vai 01.4 •..-0 4) o M r 1 L., 0 u g •r I W PG A \ C I M It III 4) 1 ci a„ j l ■ i ■ §� ■ IN ■ ■ r■ i a • I I • ■ 8 I a : o a� i ■ II 11 11 II oC . LL. � ■ ■ a ■ ■ . . I • M r ■ . • N i I ■ ■ I I iI i ■ I g .: .0) I :AV 4it 1 ...2 111 ±--__. 07I 1 I lib\ . 0LO V) LOO O O O tEn d' CO CO N N T- •- spe9 AIJH-(spa) abieyasio >lead ienuuy BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLI g 6516361311 11/04/99 11 :21 5 :06/08 N0:701 _ • 0 in u O T' C . _.. ] ID 0 Od M h r N 2aJ N O. _ v � � o O Co)E I c g .1 0 0 0 all R' '� N � O .meq . , D r- a.. 1 ,� 3 . ___ . ;z O 0 Cl. CO as8 4 a ccc U. 3 0 - 00 i ii. CD — . Cl) 0 III if t0 I ,n � 1 O I"' "Zt CO _ . __. . .. . . CO w __ _.. O L. N i : .Q) l� _ ._. .... .. . .. _ O O O 0 a 0 N 00 O O __ (11aas/g14,4) Jerrod wew s enRelnwn3 k r. ó104/99 11 :21 5 :.07/08 No:701 BONESTR00 ROSENE ANDERE 6516361311 _. -"` (sql) 6uipeo1 slops pepuedsns ie of 0 8 § • w w w w 8 8 8 e�fi M N r 0 8 k . C0 u C UM ct 0 E 77.: I .5! . , . , _..1 u) O P' _,o . , Co . u sli. • .-. . • Cn 4 -E CD U C w ' c ._ .... .... . . . ._..,._�.__., V u., 6 ; F .._ > a W — 0 '1' _ ., . , _... .�._ 0 CD E T N LL 1 i 1 , . . . 1 . cr N M N N r 0 LA O (1/6W) uoiraa2ueouo3 991 11/04/99 11 :21 L9 :08/08 NO:701 BONESTROO ROSENE ANDERLIK ® 6516361311 • '-" • 0 r -- 0 Ei ci O1 .N o0o 6 CU if 0. E . . . 0 a I N. s O c m U 8 2 o45 o co a. z n- cc u. _ 0 • N V) 4aS CL 2 E a �+ N�, _ r • > L C Q .... a I M asp ■ r •p Tr.. w i Q) w = N y PI1 i o a 111111 r CD � S OM ._.._._....__. _ ; -{—( t--- 0 0 LC) o ih O N ,- - O O (dwi oe/ui) •JolS •idea •n,iedwi •pbel • - , - CITY 40F OAK PARK HEIGHTS .tr - "" 14168 N. 57th Street•Box 2007•Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 •Phone: (612) 439-4439 •FAX 439-0574 May 21, 1996 City of Stillwater 216 N. 4th St. Stillwater, MN 55082 Attention:Nile Kriesel and Klayton Eckles - On May 13, 1996 at our regular Council meeting,I was appointed to represent the City on a possible Study Advisory Committee which would deal with the concerns of Long Lake: Please keep me informed as to the progress of such a committee and any further information regarding this issue that may be pertinent to the City of Oak Park Heights Sincerely, / Barbara O'Neal Mayor cc: Friends of Long Lake -David Fabio, Edward Gordon Baytown Township Lake Elmo Grant Township Stillwater Township Jack Takemoto, Chairperson Tree City U.S.A. ENCLOSURE 2A Friends of Long Lake Homeowners Alkation, Inc. 2946 Marine Circle, Stillwater,MN 55082 City Council May 7, 1996 City of Stillwater Info. cc • 216 North 4th Street Nile Kriesel, Klayton Eckles Stillwater, MN 55082 Metro DNR via fax& mail Oak Park Heights Baytown Lake Elmo Grant Township Stillwater Township ' Dear Stillwater City Council, We are writing on behalf of our Homeowners Association, incorporated on May 3, 1996. The primary purpose of our association is to work with the jurisdictions in the Long Lake watershed to assure that our homes and Browns Creek maintain the same, or better, level of safety as intended in the 1976 DNR outlet design. We are pleased that the City of Stillwater has funded a watershed system study to address the issues and constraints in further development of the Long Lake watershed. We believe that a successful outcome will require the acceptance of all jurisdictions, the DNR, and those of us who live next to the Lake. For this reason, we ask that the City adopt a Study Advisory Committee composed of representatives from the above parties. The committee would serve to review the study plan, and to provide development plans and inputs from the jurisdictions, constraints or issues important to the DNR, and needs of the homeowners. The committee-would also review draft results before completion. We believe that solutions can be found, and that use of the steering committee will reduce last minute issues, and assure that the results are accepted by all. We believe that the Browns Creek WMO cannot fully provide this function due to its limited monthly meetings, non attendance by some jurisdictions, and the uncertainty raised by the pending request to disband. However, the WMO members may be appropriate candidates for the advisory committee. Finally, we recently learned that Lake Elmo has as much as several hundred acres tributary to the Lake which must be considered in the study. We encourage their involvement. Our association asks that you contact the appropriate parties to solicit their involvement in the study. Please provide a response confirming your intentions to use an advisory committee. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, • �� \• �! C/€47-*.- David David Fabio, Edward J. Gordon [Et@m [mgMAY - 9 996 May-20-96 09: 47P Ma or Barb ONeal OPH 612 351 1095 P _ 01 A L tye-4- leid40 „„ /3, /y .? 4, 4c6th} d,e, „LE s �c� � . /' J° � „( Let„.„ g-d toCe ?Co raz-4-4 t, ,1;ttio 2 pr. a ( ' - 6)- `r 46-6.<4. XoLx-t. Xcae..e._ ;7 Xs-z efe_e-tx_, � f . 62/-0)1,akt, &,„,te StSet/!Giory co hL 3tt`:_''` 'Al 1999 1849 �—, 1/ ASH Giron CoU$' 1 � \v -71;:-= " i 150 Y or PROGRESS &sa • • •• Report for • • • • Water Governance Study • • Washington County, Minnesota • • • • • May, 1999 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Table of Contents 1 1 Table of Contents I 2 1 Executive Summary 1 I. Introduction: Background and Need for the Water 5 Governance Study ' II. New Water Management Structure: Vision for 2010 A.D. 10 III. Analysis of Conditions and Issues: The Need for a New 19 II Water Governance Structure IV. Goals and Measures of Success 28 V. Proposed County Roles in Water Management 30 32 VI. Subcommittee Recommendations 332 Boundaries Organization Functions 47 7 Land Use 58 Finance 661 Ground Water Figures: Option 12 3 • Work Group Recommended Boundary p L Land Use/Water Management Coordination Model 15 15 Existing Water Unit Boundaries 40 Boundary Options 45 Fiscal Capacity of Boundary Options 54 Proposed Organization Roles 63 Financing Options 21 Page l Washington County Water Governance Study Executive Summary The Washington County Board authorized this study in May, 1998, to identify and evaluate the best governance structure for water management from a countywide perspective. The recommendations in the study were developed by a 25-member Water Governance Work Group appointed by the Board, representing all of the interests involved in water management in the County. The need for the study was identified after the failure of several joint powers Water Management Organizations in the county. Key directives for the study included the following: • Create a water management structure that will provide long- term protection for surface and ground water resources; • Create local water management units with the fiscal capacity and authority to govern efficiently and effectively; • Identify financing mechanism(s) that are fair and adequate to meet the needs of the county; • Coordinate surface water, ground water, land-use and natural resources management to provide for a more comprehensive approach to resource management; • Identify the County's role(s) in water management; • Adopt a pro-active, rather than reactive, approach to county- wide water governance; • Increase the accountability of the water management structure. This report summarizes the findings and recommendations of the Work Group, and the process used to develop these recommendations. The group identified issues and problems in the existing water management system, reviewed management structures used in other parts of the United States, identified system goals and measures of success, and finally recommended new water management unit boundaries, organizational and financial elements. Key recommendations include the following: 1. The number of water management units in the County should be reduced from eleven to six. These include three units that cross county boundaries (a new Sunrise River unit, and the Rice Creek and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Districts are unchanged from the existing system) and three new units within the County (located in North, Middle, and South Washington County). Washington County Water Governance Study Page 2 2. Each new water management unit should provide a minimum set of services, to ensure that planning is comprehensive, and necessary actions are taken to prevent or solve water management problems across the County. Water management should be based on a comprehensive assessment of water and related natural resources. Water units should develop comprehensive plans, develop performance standards for priority water bodies, identify and implement water management projects, complete ongoing monitoring and assessment, and assure citizen involvement and public education on water management concerns. 3. Local water management unit board members should be appointed by the County Board. Cities and townships should also have a strong role in the appointment process. Appointments should be based on standardized applications, interviews and criteria. Appointments should strive for balance in philosophies, backgrounds, and geographic distribution among the members on each board. 4. Local water management units should be watershed districts, not joint powers WMO's. The duties and authorities identified for the new water management units are all available to watershed districts under current law. Existing watershed districts can use these powers more fully to implement the recommendations of the Work Group. S. Each water management unit should engage the services of a professional administrator. The administrator will provide a point of contact for local governments and the public, and ensure that the organization provides the services required, including coordination with local governments and ground water management organizations. Each water management unit may hire additional staff, contract with private organizations, or the Washington SWCD or other public organizations to provide services. 6. Water units should cooperate with cities and townships to coordinate land use and surface water management. Cities and townships have the primary responsibility in managing land use, adopting and enforcing zoning and subdivision regulations. Water units will set performance standards for priority water bodies. Cities and townships will develop zoning and land use plans and enforce these to meet the standards. The water units will provide technical assistance and ongoing monitoring to assure that standards are met. There will be a single point of contact for permits and enforcement. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 3 7. Water units should use a full range of financing mechanisms, including ad valorem taxes, special assessments, storm water utility funds, and others. The choice of funding mechanism should depend on the nature of the activity being funded. Each water unit will develop an annual Capital Improvement Plan for review by the county and local governments. A Truth-in-Taxation hearing will be required to increase accountability for fmancial management and make financial decisions more visible to the public. 8. Each water unit must provide a mechanism (s)for effective citizen involvement, such Citizen Advisory Committee(s) at the watershed or subwatershed level. Citizens should advise local water management boards on planning, budgeting, and projects that 5 benefit the area. 9. The County should address needs for more county-wide leadership and coordination of surface and ground water management. The County should establish a county-wide Water Consortium to work on surface and ground water issues that cross local water unit boundaries. Members of the Consortium should include the local water units, cities and townships, Washington SWCD, County Departments, and natural resource agencies. The County should staff the Consortium. 10. The County Board should provide more leadership and direction to local water management boards. The County should provide clear expectations for performance, be explicit about roles and relationships, and provide more oversight of operations and budgets to assure that an adequate level of service is provided throughout the county and that local water organizations are accountable to an elected board. The Work Group also recommended criteria to be used to evaluate the new management structure, and suggested options for phasing its implementation. The Work Group suggested that the new structure be formally evaluated by the County Board during the second decade of the new millenium, to determine whether it is meeting the goals for water governance for the county. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 4 I. Introduction: Background and Need for the Water Governance Study This is a study of governance. The study focuses on the structures and systems that manage surface and ground water in Washington County. The definition of governance used during the study was as follows: Governance is a system and structure for governing. It is the establishment and exercise of political and administrative powers to determine, direct, and control. The Washington County Board authorized this study in May, 1998. The Board authorized the study to identify and evaluate the best governance mechanism from a countywide perspective. Several events pointed to the need for this study: • Since the early 1990's, the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) has been concerned about the inactivity of the East Mississippi WMO. Strong local interest existed in restructuring the unit as a watershed district. However, a petition has not been filed with BWSR to make this change, and the governance issue remains unresolved. • In 1993, the Cottage Grove Ravine Water Management Organization (WMO) failed. The South Washington County Watershed District was created to manage surface water in the area. • In 1996 the Brown's Creek Water Management Organization (WMO) failed. The County was required to prepare, adopt and implement the watershed plan. In 1997 the Brown's Creek Watershed District was created. • In 1999, the NEWMO (expanded Forest Lake WMO) was disbanded because its members were unable to agree on how to finance the organization. The Board of Water and Soil Resources received petitions to form watershed districts to govern portions of this area. This series of events, and concerns about the capacity of other water management units, prompted the County Board to examine water governance on a county-wide basis. The Board asked the study participants to determine whether existing water management organizations in the County have sufficient capacity and resources to govern, and provide long-term protection to surface and ground waters in the County. The Board identified the following objectives for the study: Washington County Water Governance Study Page 5 • To determine how water management should be organized to provide long-term protection to surface and ground water • To create a blueprint for countywide water management that would be both efficient and effective. • To determine the County's role in matters of surface water management. The County Board required that the following issues be addressed by the study: • Examine the surface water/ground water coordination Identify current problems with surface and ground water coordination, and mechanisms to improve coordination and management. Identify options to better align surface water unit boundaries with ground watersheds. • Examine the water management/land use connection The condition of water resources is intricately linked with land use and land management. However, water management and land management are often governed by different entities with little coordination. Identify ways to better link water and land management activities. • Focus on governance, not water resource management Identify changes needed to improve the structure of watergovernance rather than the management of the resource itself. • Consider planning and management Look beyond the planning function. Major problems have occurred when WMO's attempted to implement their plans, and could not reach agreement on how to implement and finance projects. Identify changes that are needed to reduce barriers and facilitate implementation. • Focus on the entire county, not just areas with current problems The numbers of organizations that have been unable to implement water management plans in Washington County as well as in other Metro Area counties suggests that issues go beyond individual organizations, and may continue to arise in the future. The study should go beyond crisis management, identify system-wide, structural problems, and develop county-wide, comprehensive approaches to water governance. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 6 • Provide a blueprint for action, not reaction The County intends to be proactive in attempting to establish the preferred governance option. The County will seek endorsement of the chosen option from all affected parties. • Develop governance options without being constrained by current law The Work Group must understand the authorities of the current law, but should not limit its options to those that are currently available. The County Board is open to seeking any legislation that might be needed to implement the chosen option. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 7 Study Process In June, 1998, the County Board appointed a Work Group to participate in the Governance Study, and develop recommendations to the Board regarding the future structure for water management in the County. Members of the Work Group represented all organizations and interests in the County with a stake in water management. The Work Group met approximately monthly from July, 1998 through April, 1999 to complete the recommendations included in this report. The Work Group used several subcommittees to create specific recommendations related to Boundaries, Water Organization Functions, Land Use and Water Management Coordination, Ground Water Coordination, and Financing. The Board also appointed a Steering Committee to manage the study with County staff. The Board used a competitive process to hire a consultant to provide facilitation and technical services needed to complete the study. Participants in the study included the following: Work Group Richard Caldecott, Camelian/Marine Watershed District John Jansen,Middle St. Croix WMO Barb Cobb,Alternate Craig F. Leiser, Brown's Creek Watershed District Jon Michels,Alternate Kate Drewry,Rice Creek Watershed District Mark Doneux, Washington Soil and Water Conservation District Konrad Koosmann,Alternate Roger Lake,Rainsey/Washington Metro Watershed District Cliff Aichinger,Alternate Louise Bergeron,Marine on St. Croix WMO Robert Jensen,Forest Lake WMO Dave Buchek,Valley Branch WMO Jim Wessman, South Washington Watershed District Jack Lavold, Alternate Jim Fitzpatrick, Lower St. Croix WMO John Waller, County Commissioner District I(Resident of Hugo) Wyn John, County Commissioner District 2 (Mayor of Lake Elmo) Klayton Eckles, County Commissioner District 3 (Public Works Director, Stillwater) Cheryl Kohls, County Commissioner District 4 (City Council, Cottage Grove) Washington County Water Governance Study Page 8 Steve Kernik, County Commissioner District 5 (Planning Staff, City of Woodbury) Cindy Weckwerth, Washington County Public Health and Environment Chris Thornton, Washington County Public Works Dennis Hanna, East Mississippi WMO Gordon Nesvik,Alternate Technical Advisors(non-members): Judy Sventek, Metropolitan Council Environmental Planning and Evaluation Molly Shodeen,Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Phil Belfiori,Board of Water and Soil Resources Bob Olson,Minnesota Extension Service Rita O'Connell,Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Patricia Blomgren, Minnesota Department of Health Steering Committee Jim Schug, County Administrator Mary McGlothlin, Director, Department of Public Health and Environment Don Wisniewski, Director, Washington County Public Works Mary Hauser, County Board Dennis Hegberg, County Board Louise Smallidge, Chair, Soil and Water Conservation District Doug Thomas, Board of Water and Soil Resources Project Manager Jane Harper, Washington County Office of Administration Project Consultant Sherri Buss, Bonestroo, Rosene, Anderlik and Associates The County Board, its Staff and Consultant gratefully acknowledge the members of the Work Group and Steering Committee for their efforts in this study. Meeting attendance by group members and alternates was nearly perfect, and contributed to the success and timeliness of the study products. Work Group members, particularly, gave valuable time and creative ideas during regular meetings and subcommittee meetings that formed the recommendations and ideas included in this report. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 9 II. New Water Management Structure -Vision for 2010 A.D. The narrative that follows describes the new water management system for Washington County as proposed by the Work Group for this study. The narrative summarizes the recommendations of the subcommittees and full work group. Detailed summaries of the subcommittee recommendations are provided in Section IV. Washington County Water Governance 2010 A.D. It is 2010 A.D. The Washington County Board has scheduled a county- wide celebration of the water governance structure that was instituted 10 years ago, based on the recommendations of a visionary and practical Work Group. The County Board Chair, a former member of that Work Group noted that change has not always been easy, but the new structure has addressed the problems identified in 1998 successfully. The structure has been a model for other Metro Area counties, and other parts of the U.S. as well. This is how it works: Geography The County and BWSR have established North, Middle and South Water Management Units that are contained within the county (see Figure 2). The Rice Creek, Ramsey-Washington Metro and Sunrise River Watershed Districts include portions of the county and larger areas in other counties. The boundaries of the districts were based primarily on hydrologic boundaries. In a few cases where the watershed included small sections of a city or township, the boundaries were adjusted to coincide with the municipal boundary if the adjustment created no water resource issues. Most cities in the County are now within the boundaries of only one or two watershed districts. In mid-1999, the County testified at the hearing that established the new Sunrise River Watershed District. The testimony supported the new boundaries proposed by the Work Group for that district within Washington County. Later in 1999, the County petitioned the Board of Water and Soil Resources to change the boundaries of existing WMO's and Watershed Districts in the County to create the new North, Middle and South Units. BWSR and the County worked with the WMO's and Washington County Water Governance Study Page 10 Watershed Districts that existed in the County in 1999 to make the transition to the new Water Units. The changes occurred over 2-4 years, so that the existing organizations could iron out existing problems, develop new relationships, and work out ways to address existing fiscal commitments before authority was transferred to the new units. Functions of the Water Units Each Water Unit in the County has a Board of Managers that was appointed by the County Board with participation by cities and townships within the Water Unit. Cities received copies of the applicants to the boards, and rated potential members based on standarized criteria. Representatives of some local governments participated in the interview process for water unit board members and provided additional comments to the County Board. Prospective managers completed a standardized application, detailing their background, interests and perspectives on the position. Interviews were held with a selected group of candidates that met the criteria for the positions, and members were selected based on the applications, interviews, andgeographic balance. The County, cities and townships review and comment on the annual budgets of the Water Units. The County has also set general guidelines for the budgets and levels of expenditures. A truth-in-taxation hearing is held cooperatively with the County to obtain public comment on the water unit budgets. Townships and cities are active participants in this process. The County and Water Units have developed common formats that all units use for budgets and financial reporting. Each Water Unit Board has hired an Administrator to carry out its day- to-day business. The Administrators of each district provide staff assistance to the Board, develop the budget and projects based on direction from the Board, supervise staff and consultants, develop working relationships with local governments and resource management agencies, and provide information and a point of contact for citizens and others with questions about water management. Each of the Water Units has completed a Comprehensive Assessment of the surface and ground water and associated natural resources in its area. The assessment required 12-18 months to complete. The County suggested a common format for the assessment, and provided technical resources, including GIS expertise, to all Water Units to assist them in completing the assessments. The County developed a county-wide water and natural resources database to catalog the findings of the assessments. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 11 Watershed Districts Watershed Management Organizations in Washington County Option 2B--Work Group Recommended Option No claim made City of Forest Lake FORE•T LAKE Sunrise River IIWD) !� New scandia Town (31 Square miles) RICE CREEK �� City of Marine on St.Croix (66 Square miles) zwi L. NORTH WASHINGTON UNIT (121 Square miles) L.- ,;:;.1'zct.4.Afwiv2ii:,;;;, 3f!rr.:,'.,yikt..i City of Dellwood City of Mahtomedi - ' � City of Stillwater City of Birchwood City of Willemie s City of Lake Elmo s` City of Bayport por City of Pine Springs � �, � � :if � R. 4 MIDDLE ST. City of Oakdale y � H CROIX RIVER ; West La t nd SEY-WASHINGTON METRO1. City of Lakeland onitimmi. (11 Square miles) City of Landfall - _,. - ,, ; City of Lakeland Shores i RAMSEY- City of Lake St.Croix Beach WASHINGTON- �' CityofAfton i -illi METROS City of St.Marys Point City of Newport OUTH WASHINGTON UNIT (71 Square miles) City of St.Paul Park �' i EAST DenmarkT` scup' LOWER ST. CROIX UNIT MISSISSIPPI _ (122 Square miles) Grey Cloud Island Township 14,B _str— LOWER' ,' ST;CROIX RIVER N a K City of Hastings t�Andel/cm 6 Associat 25000 Feet En"'..rsQAr"'"°"` The County worked with the Board of Water and Soil Resources to revise the schedule for the Second Generation watershed plans based on the implementation of the new governance structure. Each water unit has also completed the development of a Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan. The Plans include Performance Standards for water bodies in each unit. The County, cities and townships were active participants in development of the plans, and have subsequently adopted the watershed plans and performance standards into local comprehensive plans and land-use plans. The comprehensive assessments, identification of issues and problems, and development of the comprehensive plans were the activities most responsible for creating a sense of unity within the new Water Units in the county. The Water Units are in various stages of implementing their plans. The staffing patterns among the units are varied. Each has hired an administrator; some have hired additional staff. Others have contracted with the Washington SWCD, other public organizations or private consultants to carry out some elements of their work. Current functions of the units include the following: Ongoing Planning Activities Special Studies/Research Projects Monitoring and Assessment Project Management and Implementation Public Education Citizen Participation Some Water Units have established an area-wide Citizen Advisory Committee to advise the Board. Other units have established advisory committees in each major subwatershed units (such as the Carnelian- Marine subwatershed area). These groups hold an annual Water Management Forum and have regular meetings to identify water management issues and problems, assist the Board in prioritizing approaches to address the issues, direct public information/education efforts, and participate in management activities such as monitoring. The CAC's deal with local issues and forward recommendations to the Board, unless an emergency situation demands that the board make a quick decision. CAC's in each water unit have been shaped individually, based on the needs of the unit, within a mandate from the County to have an effective citizen involvement program. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 13 The Water Units are currently purchasing some legal services in common through the County. Each has retained the option to hire its own defense counsel if needed, but many day to day questions about rules and policies are being answered through a common legal resource. Some units have also chosen to contract with the Washington SWCD for water monitoring services and technical assistance to landowners and cities. The County has worked with its Water Consortium to develop common standards and approaches for the following: Erosion control Management of land-locked basins Storm water pond standards Storm water infiltration Wetland and stream buffers Water units and local government units have adopted these standards, and in a few cases have made the standards more stringent, based on the characteristics of particular resources. The County is beginning a next round of discussions to identify additional areas where common standards could be useful. Coordination of Surface Water and Land Use Management The graph attached outlines the relationship among water management and land use management organizations in the county. Soon after the new Water Units were formed, the County coordinated a county-wide inventory of surface and ground water and natural resources with the new and existing Water Units in the county. While much of the inventory and resulting GIS database were completed in this county-wide effort, some of the water units chose to complete additional inventory work in particular areas. The inventory included an assessment of all surface and ground water resources as well as key upland resources. The County and Natural Resource Agencies provided considerable technical assistance early in the process to develop the performance standards, and assure some consistency in standards county-wide. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 14 WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER GOVERNANCE STUDY LAND USE/WATER MANAGEMENT COORDINATION MODEL Water Unit Cities/Townships/County 1. Complete Water and Natural Resources Assessment 2. Classify Water Bodies Provide Comments � _/3. Identify Priority Water Bodies 4. Complete Watershed Plan •1 5. Set Performance Standards 7 6.Adopt Standards &Water Plan I I- 7.Develop capital improvement plans to implement land use and water plans 7 4 8.Develop land use& subdivision plans&&rules Provide Comments 9. Development reviews 10.Enforce rules and permits 11. Monitor enforcement to assure Standards are met 12, Provide technical assistance on water and natural resources management • Based on mutual agreement between water units and local units of government, Water units may enforce some rules. Permits will be provided from a single point of contact. The Water Units used the inventory and assessment to classify water bodies in their areas, identify priority water bodies and standards for these, and complete Comprehensive Watershed Management Plans. Cities, Townships, and the County were actively involved in the classification and plan development activities. This level of involvement was new for many local governments, but proved to be very useful in helping staff and local officials to understand the water resources issues in their communities and relationships to land use and development. In turn, the Water Units and their boards have become much more aware of the range of issues and problems involved in land use management. The Water Units worked with local governments in each area to identify the priority water bodies for planning and management. The Water Units set water quality goals (performance standards) for these priority resources. This process was difficult in some areas, and BWSR, and the County staff and Board were involved in mediating these discussions. Formal mediation services were needed to resolve differences in some areas. The priority water bodies and standards are identified in the Watershed Comprehensive Plans. After agreement was reached, the local governments incorporated water resource protection standards into their official controls, including Comprehensive Plans, Land Use Plans, and Zoning Ordinances. Permitting is now solely the responsibility of the local government unit that has overall land use authority. The local authority will issue and enforce permits in most areas, though some are relying on the County. The County and one of the Water Units established a task force to address roles and coordination needs, particularly as they relate to enforcement issues. Some townships and cities have chosen to contract with the water units for administration of rules and enforcement. The Water Units are beginning to set up monitoring systems to audit the success of existing regulations and local enforcement. There has been one legal challenge, in which a water unit questioned the effectiveness of the controls developed by the local government in protecting a resource of high concern. The County and a neighboring water unit with similar resource issues mediated the conflict to prevent a lawsuit. Water units provide ongoing technical assistance in managing water and related natural resources to local governments. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 16 Ground Water Wneated gar -wm th Ramsey and Anoka countiesCouty thatcrmet ona quarterlyater basis toconsortiushare information and discussashington issues of mutual concern. Theound surface Water Units from each county participated in these quarterly meetings, and in the projects that the group develops. County Ground Water staff served as a clearinghouse for information and technical assistance within the county. County staff maintain a ground water information phone line for citizens and others to use as an initial point of contact for information (of course by now Washington County has four area codes and may need another). County Water Consortium The discussions of the expanded ground water consortium led to the development of a Washington County Water Consortium involving all organizations managing surface and ground water. Members include each water management unit, cities and townships, county departments, the Washington SWCD, and natural resource agencies. The County provides staff services to the Consortium. A major work item for the consortium is the development of a State of the Water report for the County every five years that details the conditions and issues related to ground and surface waters. This helps to set the agenda for water management in the county for the next five years. The consortium has developed common data bases, identified data needs, and is developing policy recommendations regarding ground and surface water and land use management. It has developed standards for storm water infiltration, and recommendations for land use management. The consortium develops a 5-year work plan that identifies priorities for action by the whole group or members within the group. Its members have written successful grant proposals to complete research studies and implementation projects, such as well-sealing and a land-locked basin study. The County has used this group as a sounding board for water issues and to assist with carrying out some of its water management role. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 17 Financing The Water Units are using a full range of financing options for water management, tailored to their individual conditions. The Water Units use the financing guidelines that were developed by the Work Group in determining the best financing method for their activities. The Water Consortium periodically updates these guidelines. Each of the units uses an ad valorem tax to fund administrative costs. One or more financing methods, including ad valorem taxes assessed by subwatershed, storm water utility funds, and special assessments are used to fund projects with clearly-defined benefited properties. Several units have recently instituted a storm water utility fee to fund projects. One of the units is now experimenting with a flat $5.00 water management fee (similar to the solid waste management fee) across the district. This has provided a great deal of funding flexibility, particularly for special studies or feasibility studies, and has met little taxpayer resistance. One water unit is considering establishment of a tax increment financing (TIF) district to fund a large project, though this funding mechanism has been opposed by local school districts and municipalities. Each Water Unit develops an annual Capital Improvement Plan and budget. These are reviewed by the County Board and local governments, and are presented to the public at a Truth-in-Taxation hearing. The County Board has lobbied successfully with other Metropolitan Counties to obtain the same funding allocation for water management from the State as outstate counties receive. The County uses these funds to provide common GIS services and data to Water Units, and to assist in funding projects and programs. The County has also instituted a fund for open space and greenway acquisition. Water units as well as local governments are eligible to use these funds. County staff provide assistance to Water Unit administrators and boards in identifying and seeking other grants for water and natural resources management. The Water Units in the County cooperate with the County Board to complete a report on The State of Ground and Surface Water in Washington County every five years. The report summarizes current conditions and trends, and is used by all units to set goals for the future. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 18 III. Analysis of Conditions and Issues: the Need for a New Water Governance Structure Eleven local organizations currently manage surface water in Washington County. (A map of the current organizational boundaries follows on the next page.)Four of these are multi-county organizations; seven are wholly within Washington County. The water unit areas vary from less than 20 square miles in size to 201 square miles. All organizations include more than one city and/or township; several include 3 or 4 communities. The County, cities and townships, the Washington Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), and several state and federal agencies also have roles in surface water management. These organizations also have roles in ground water management. A chart included in the Appendix to this report summarizes the roles these organizations perform in surface and ground water management. Several sources were consulted to create a picture of the current system of water governance in the County, and to identify key issues and concerns to be addressed by the Governance Study. Sources included the following: • Focused interviews with "experts" on water management, including State Agency staff, State Legislator and staff, County organizations and staff, local government and water organization representatives. Most of these individuals were not members of the Work Group or Steering Committee, and so provided additional perspective to the study and issues analysis. • A survey of Work Group members and Technical Advisors • Completed studies of water management in Minnesota and other states, including state agency reports, County reports, and other research completed in recent years. The issues and concerns reported by each of these sources were remarkably similar. The discussions identified structures and processes that are working well and not working well within the existing governance structure. The following summarizes the issues considered by the Work Group that formed the basis for developing recommendations for the new management structure: County-Wide Issues • Growth and land-use related issues are intensifying the focus on water management in Washington County. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 19 • The public and agencies are demanding more comprehensive solutions to water and natural resources management, not limited to solving flooding problems. • Some organizations are having difficulty adapting to these changing demands. • Water management has often been "crisis" oriented. This fosters a single-issue focus and discourages a comprehensive approach to water management. When crises are solved, many organizations become inactive. • Current financing mechanisms for water management are perceived as inequitable or unfair. • Current funding for water management in the County is viewed by many as inadequate. Those organizations that are not contributing adequate funds for water management include the Joint-Powers WMO'S, undeveloped portions of the county, cities (that are members of Joint-Powers WMO's), and state agencies. • JP-WMO's throughout the Metropolitan Area are experiencing problems similar to those identified in Washington County. All of the JP-WMO's in Scott and Carver Counties have been declared "non- implementing", and these counties have taken over their water management functions. Dakota County reports similar concerns related to JP-WMO's. • Natural resources management and land-use management are not adequately coordinated with water management. These efforts should be coordinated with the greenways/natural areas planning efforts that are occurring in the County and the Metro Area. • Ground water and surface water management are not adequately coordinated. Communications among organizations involved in managing these resources in the County are not adequate. Ground water roles among organizations working in the County are unclear. • The numbers of local (Watershed District and WMO) and state organizations involved in water management are too large. This creates problems and inefficiencies. • Many areas still lack a "watershed ethic"-a sense of common watershed management concerns upstream and downstream. • The boundaries of water management organizations in the county contribute to problems in water management, administration, planning, implementation, and accountability. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 20 Watershed Districts & Watershed Management organizations in Washington County"" Existing aty of Forest Lake r , ,m ary of Marine on St.Crax , i gtE Qty of Dellwood r City of Mahtorredi any of Birchwood E, ary of stilnnrater aty of Willerrue � Qty of Oak Park Heights ary of Pine springs MIDDLE ST.CROIX aty of Oakdale .� � RIVER c • aty of Bayport . i p ■'v aty of Lakeland Wi4SHINGTON- - N O ' RAMSEY � �,�,, ,�� atyof Lakeland Shores city of Landfall ary of Lake St.Croix Beach City of Neuvpat SOUTH% E ary of st Marys Point lis HINGT%l COUNTY city of St.Paul Park � Arrows e ,, :, ., indicate Grey Cloud Island Township general ground water flows. '�'' `tip , �� � ` ,e'8 s..;s ,w N ngs tw,'oIA Bonestroo Cit IAnen lik& 25000 Feet associates Engineers i ArcNtettt Existing County Water Management Structure Elements that work: • Land use management • Shoreland and floodplain regulation • County Comprehensive Plan (exception: Natural resource elements need to be better communicated to local governments to be implemented) • Staff have a high degree of knowledge about water, natural resources and land use • Enforcement role Elements that don't work: • Current role in surface and ground water management is unclear. • County has not given clear guidance to water management organizations and local governments on the goals and expectations for water and natural resources management in the county. • Technical, legal and organization support for local governments and water organizations is not adequate • There are unresolved water management issues between metro and non-metro counties. • Too much focus on political (rather than natural resource) issues in planning and management activities • County Board is uncomfortable resolving political issues in water management. Watershed Districts (Watershed districts are special purpose units of local government, created to manage surface water resources. Watershed District boards are appointed by the County Board. Six of the existing water management units in the county are Watershed Districts.) Elements that work: • Watershed district plans are adequate, and well-established districts have generally been effective in implementing plans. The capacity of newer watershed districts in these areas is unknown. • Watershed districts have generally been effective in managing water quantity issues. • Professional staff contributes to the effectiveness of watershed districts. They provide an identifiable point of contact for citizens, other local governments, and state agencies. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 22 • Watershed districts have been able to raise funds successfully to support their operations and plan implementation. • Use of natural resource (not political) boundaries are an asset for planning and goal-setting. • Districts play valuable roles in supporting city decisions and resolving inter-community issues. Elements that don't work: • Districts need to expand their roles in water quality management and natural resources management • To be more effective, Districts need more • Information and technical expertise • Clearer direction and responsibilities. More focus on the "big picture" • More accountability to local governments and citizens • Watershed districts have difficulty dealing with development and land use issues. • Success in monitoring the effectiveness of District actions is mixed. Joint Powers Water Management Organizations (JP-WMO's) (These organizations are formed through joint powers agreements among local governments. Their board members are appointed by local government members, and may include staff or elected officials. Five JP-W-N40's current govern water management in Washington County.) Elements that work: • JP-WMO structures are only effective when all members agree. Elements that don't work: • JP-WMO's are ineffective in managing water resources. This is a result of organizational structure. • Members governments lack a common vision, and tend to be parochial. • They have been ineffective in • Adopting adequate plans • Implementing plans • Working with other organizations • Monitoring actions Washington County Water Governance Study Page 23 • Effectiveness is compromised by politics. Individual members don's want to "lose"politically or professionally • These organizations lack the technical expertise needed to address complex water and natural resource management issues. Volunteer nature of Boards is a problem when they are unwilling to seek technical advise and assistance. • These organizations may have the necessary authority and financial capacity to be effective, they don't use them. • Most frequent comment: "Joint power is no power." Cities and Townships Elements that work: • Cities with professional staff are effective in land-use planning and regulation. Integration with water management can be effective at this level. • Cities implement most surface water regulation and projects in Washington County. • Cities are typically responsible for resolving conflicts or differences in values among water management, land use, and other community issues. Other organizations (agencies, Watershed Districts, WMO'S, advocacy organizations) seem to have a narrow focus or set of values. Elements that don't work: • Focus for planning and management is on political boundaries, while water systems and management issues often cross these boundaries. • Some communities lack a water resource that defines the community or is highly valued. These areas often have a low interest in water management. • When requirements among WMO's or Watershed Districts vary greatly within a city or township, implementation is difficult. Washington County Soil and Water Conservation District(SWCD) (The Washington SWCD is a county-wide organization. It provides a variety of services to water management organizations, other units of government and private landowners. The organization is governed by an elected board, and is funded by county appropriation, state grants, and contracts for services.) Washington County Water Governance Study Page 24 Elements that work: • Technical assistance that SWCD staff provide to local governments and landowners • SWCD works effectively with other organizations Elements that don't work: • The role of the SWCD in water management has become less clear as the County urbanizes. • Roles and status of SWCD Board in relation to County Board is unclear. • The SWCD has been more willing to play a role in technical assistance rather than in enforcement. Natural Resource Agencies Elements that work: • BWSR works effectively with other organizations in managing water and related resources. Elements that don't work: • Agencies are not providing the technical information needed to develop solutions. Local organizations need "how to" not "can't do". • Agencies have not given clear guidance to local organizations on their expectations for water and natural resources management. • Agencies lack accountability. The large number of water resources agencies allows frequent "buck-passing". This slows review and decision-making processes, but does not add value or useful information. Models and Trends from Other States The participants in this study reviewed water governance structures and trends from other parts of the United States. The Board of Water and Soil Resources invited representatives from several states to provide presentations to their Board members on September 23, 1998, and invited the Work Group members from the Governance Study to participate. In addition, the consultant to the Governance Study completed interviews and a literature search to identify useful elements and ideas from other areas. State programs reviewed for the study included Florida, Nebraska, Wisconsin, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Washington, and Oregon. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 25 A summary of major trends that was presented to the Work Group follows. Additional information on the state models reviewed by the Work Group is included in the Appendix. • Most areas reviewed have recently consolidated local water management organizations into larger watershed or basin-size units. Boundaries are based on hydrologic unit boundaries. Units were sized to provide sufficient fiscal capacity and authority to successfully implement plans. • In many cases, the water management organization is a multipurpose organization that is also responsible for management of associated natural resources. • Responsibilities of most water governance units are similar to those authorized for watershed districts operating in the Twin Cities Metro Area. • Most water management units use a mix of funding sources similar to those used by watershed districts in Minnesota. • Coordination of land use management with water resource management is still a problem in most areas. In all cases land use is managed by local governments. Wisconsin has co-located local watershed coordinators with county land use staff in some counties to improve coordination. Bob Doppelt, of the Institute for Watershed and Community Health, Springfield, Oregon, recently completed a study of trends in watershed management, and an evaluation of watershed governance approaches. He provided a copy of his study to the Board of Water and Soil Resources and to the Water Governance study. Doppelt noted that his research has identified three major traits of successful water governance structures: • Adoption of scientifically sound management goals to guide stewardship of water and natural resources, particularly those that are held in common, such as clean water, clean air, soils, fish and wildlife. Management goals are consistent across land ownership boundaries and administrative boundaries. • Integrated economic and environmental objectives • Effective and efficient delivery of services through the development of high-performance organizational structures. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 26 Doppelt's research further notes that programs that are doing the best job of implementing these three components have some or all of the following characteristics: • Establish clear vision and goals for the area • Develop credible scientific analysis of baseline conditions and needs • Establish measurable objectives • Identify all priority issues and the elements that must be changed • Emphasize devolving decision-making down to the most appropriate level, emphasizing local implementation, innovation and responsibility • Federal, state and local entities develop integrated and coordinated management plans at the corresponding watershed level. (Recognizes that watersheds at various geographic levels are "nested"within each other). • Establish clear, easy to understand, policy relevant scientific principles to guide all levels of management. • Seek to align management goals within, and between, land ownership and management units. • Develop an integrated process for coordinating budgets at the basin level. • Clearly identify responsibility, and reverse the, burden of responsibility to those that know their industry well. • Use outcome or performance-based management systems. • Use regulation only to establish baseline conditions and to regulate "free riders". • Solve problems at their source. • Develop public-private partnerships to solve problems. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 27 IV. Goals and Measures of Success In October, 1998, the Work Group began developing the framework for the new water management structure in Washington County. The Work Group agreed to a series of criteria, goals, and guiding principles for the new structure. These criteria and principles guided the work of subcommittees and the full Work Group during the remainder of the study process. EVALUATION CRITERIA Work Group Criteria for Geographic Structure • Structure is based on hydrologic unit boundaries. • Minimizes the number of water governing units for each city or township. • Number of local governmental units is manageable for developing cooperative working relationships. • Adequate fiscal capacity. • Areas included within each unit have similar land uses and growth philosophies. • Assures citizen involvement and access. Overall Criteria for the Governance Structure • Accountabilities are clear. Citizens, local governments or other should be able to easily identify one organization that has final responsibility for each water management function. • The structure is efficient. It minimizes duplication and uses resources efficiently. Lines of communication and coordination are clear. • Effectiveness. The structure can implement goals and plans. • Politically feasible. Most of the affected entities and the County Board should support the proposed structure. • Organizations have administrative and legal capacity to carry out assigned functions. • Equity/fairness. The fmancial tools available make it possible to closely align those who pay for a project or service with those who benefit. • Service capacity. Organizations should have the resources to provide the level of service prescribed in the recommendations. • Comprehensive-addresses full range of issues identified for water governance. • Long-term orientation rather than crisis orientation. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 28 • Timeliness of response. The structure and responsible organizations should be able to respond quickly to problems. • Visibility and accessibility. Citizens, local governments and others should know who to contact and easily reach someone who can deal with their concerns. GOALS FOR THE WATER MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE • Maintain or improve surface water quality. Set a measurable standard. • Manage water quantities to control flooding. • Manage natural resources to achieve healthy ecosystems. • Manage ground water to achieve the best possible quality. Set a measurable standard. • Integrate water management with land use management to meet goals for the condition of water resources and address problems at their source. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 29 V. Proposed County Roles in Water Management The County Board requested that the participants in the Water Governance Study specifically identify the role or roles that the County should play in the new water governance structure. Work Group members indicated that they do want the County to duplicate roles provided by state agencies or local organizations, but do see the need for the County to provide additional leadership and resources in some areas of the water governance system. The roles identified by the Work Group include the following: Identify county-wide standards and needs • The County should set minimum water resource and system standards. This could be a County Water Resource Ordinance that operates as a "fail safe." Local water organizations could have the option to set standards that are more stringent than county standards. • The County should give a focused charge for water management to local water organizations. • The County should identify common water management problems and coordinate approaches to address them (examples include flooding, erosion control, landlocked basins). Provide specialized resources • The County should assure that specialized staff and resources are available to local water organizations when this will improve consistency in water governance across the county, reduce costs, or help local units of government to address the basic standards set by the County. In some cases, these specialized resources may be best provided at the state level. The system should be developed to avoid duplication. • The County should make some types of legal services available to all water units. • The County should consider providing GIS services to local water units. • The County should be available to assist in resolving disputes. Provide Coordination • The County should incorporate the results of natural resources assessments, performance standards, and county-wide water management standards in its comprehensive plan. These should also be incorporated in County land use regulations and enforcement activities as needed to meet identified standards. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 30 • The County should assure coordination of ground water management. Overall coordination may need to be assigned to multi-county organizations with boundaries that follow ground watersheds. The County or local governments may implement ground water protection activities, as appropriate. • The County should assure cross-boundary coordination with other counties and among water management organizations within the county. • The County should coordinate common data and information, such as GIS and natural resource data. • The County should complete a report on the State of Water in Washington County every five years, and work with water management organizations to identify and adopt goals and priorities for the next five years. • The County should actively participate in the development of local water management plans. The County should work with local water units and local government units to adopt policies and official controls to meet the goals established in the plan. • The County should coordinate the work of the County Water Consortium. Appoint Local Boards • The County should appoint local water management boards, based on standardized selection criteria and interviews. Board members would be accountable to the County Board(elected officials). Provide Oversight • The County should provide fiscal oversight to the local water units by develop a common reporting format and develop guidelines for water unit budgets. The County should review water unit budgets annually, and present its comments to the water unit boards and to the public at Truth-in-Taxation hearing. • The County should suggest a common format for surface and ground water assessments. The County should coordinate the development of a county-wide inventory of these resources. Washington SWCD • The Washington SWCD should provide technical and planning assistance to local water organizations. The SWCD may assist local water units in identifying and applying for loans and grants to support their activities. The roles and structure of the SWCD will be further defined in the Implementation phase of the Water Governance Study. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 31 VI. Subcommittee Recommendations The sections that follow include the final reports of several subcommittees, including their recommendations regarding the new water governance structure for the County. These recommendations provide the rationale for the structure described in Section IV, and provide further detail about how the structure is intended to function. The recommendations will be developed further in the Implementation phase of the Water Governance Study. A. Boundaries Subcommittee Options 2 and 4 maps and rationale B. Organization Functions Subcommittee Memo and Functions Chart C. Land Use Subcommittee Memo D. Finance Subcommittee Memo and mechanisms chart E. Ground Water Subcommittee Washington County Water Governance Study Page 32 A. Boundaries Subcommittee—Summary of Recommendations Members: Richard Caldecott, Carnelian-Marine Watershed District; Klayton Eckles, City of Stillwater; Jack Lavold, South Washington Watershed District; Rita O'Connell, MPCA; Jane Harper, Washington County; Sherri Buss,Project Consultant. PURPOSE: The Subcommittee met to address the following questions, and develop recommendations for the full Work Group: • What boundaries should govern water management in Washington County? • Identify one or more boundary options, and rationale for each. • Recommend a preferred option and provide a rationale for the recommendation. PROBLEM STATEMENT: The Work Group noted that a large number of water management organizations (eleven) currently exist in Washington County. The small size of some organizations limits their fiscal capacity and effectiveness. A large number of organizations may mean duplication of services (i.e., each organizations does its own planning, administration, rule development, legal services, etc.). Work group members have previously agreed that the WMO organizational structure is generally ineffective, and boundaries as well as organizational structures should be changed to increase effectiveness. The Work Group has agreed that boundaries should follow hydrologic units. 1" Meeting: Subcommittee discussion of issues and initial recommendations: • The Subcommittee reviewed the current configuration of water management boundaries in the County, and agreed that the number of local water organizations in Washington County should be reduced, based on the problems in the existing structure identified by the Work Group. The Subcommittee adopted the assumption that WMO's would be eliminated, and the future governance structures and their sizes would resemble Watershed Districts, based on the recommendations of the Organization Functions subcommittee. • The Subcommittee reviewed information from the "Organizations" Subcommittee, detailing the comprehensive functions that local water organizations should provide, and that to provide this level of service, an annual administrative budget of$200,000-$300,000 should be assumed. Local water organizations should be large enough to have resources to support professional staff,particularly an administrator. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 33 • The boundaries of the Rice Creek and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed Districts were left as the currently exist in most options, since the size and structure of these organizations meets the assumptions of the Work Group and subcommittees to date, and the majority of these districts is outside the County. • Subcommittee members noted that new boundaries should try to minimize the number of local water organizations that cover a city or township. If possible, each city or township should be included in one or two local water organizations. This will help local governments and water organizations to work more closely together, and minimize the difficulties of local governments enforcing differing standards among several water organizations. • A smaller number of local water management organizations will help to minimize boundary disputes. • Boundaries should create water units that have similar land uses and growth philosophies where possible. Resulting units will probably have similar water management issues, and conflicts among communities of differing values will be minimized. • It is critical for local water organizations to have local identity and ownership. Boundaries and structures should be developed to encourage citizen participation in water management decisions and activities. If an option with large water organizations is chosen, the organization could establish citizen advisory groups for subwatershed areas, for example, the current Carnelian-Marine W.D. area could be a subwatershed advisory group under any of the options described below. • Major ground watersheds are identified on the map showing existing water management boundaries in the county. These boundaries correspond best with the Multi-county Basin Option or the Washington County Unit Option. RESULTS (RECOMMENDATIONS): The Subcommittee developed the following four options for water management boundaries in Washington County(illustrations attached): Option 1: Multi-county Watershed Districts Large multi-county watershed districts would be established, such as "Upper St. Croix", "Lower St. Croix", and "Mississippi River". Washington County would be part of two districts, one flowing to the St. Croix, and the other to the Mississippi River. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 34 Advantages: • Would facilitate large-scale planning that identifies problems and coordinates solutions at a basin scale. This may benefit water and natural resources by identifying problems close to the source, so that solutions can address problems rather than symptoms. • Large scale allows maximum flexibility for prioritizing problems and solutions. • Most cities and townships would have one local water organization to work with rather than two or more. Could improve consistency in surface water management. • Large districts high fiscal capacity to fund water management projects • Reduces duplication of functions such as planning, legal, etc. Disadvantages: • May lose local ownership and citizen participation. • Difficult to implement. Washington County could not implement this option on its own; would require negotiation and support across multiple counties. • Requires inter-county coordination to resolve water issues • Each basin organization would need to work with a large number of local governments. Developing relationships and cooperation may be more challenging on a larger scale. • Need sufficient staff and resources to deal with local problems and regulation in a timely manner. Local priorities may get lost, or may not be addressed because resources of the governing board are going into larger scale issues. • Would need a strong system to ensure coordination with local land use authorities. Option 2: Washington County as the Water Management Unit This option would exclude areas currently included in the Rice Creek Watershed District and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District. All other areas of the County would be included in a single Watershed District. (The subcommittee also discussed an option for water management unit boundaries to coincide with the County boundary, but rejected this option based on the Work Group principle to follow hydrologic unit boundaries.) Washington County Water Governance Study Page 35 Advantages: • Reduces duplication of water management functions by reducing the number of organizations that are completing plans, setting rules, etc., and may therefore reduce costs. • May make access point to the water management system more clear for consumers and local governments. May improve accountability. • High fiscal capacity. • Reduces number of local water organizations that govern each city or township to one. Common standards could apply across the county. • Allows for easier coordination with County land use management, ground water management and other programs. • Allows for setting common standards and regulations where appropriate throughout the county. • Could be managed by existing county-wide organizations such as the County or SWCD, thereby reducing layers of bureaucracy. • Could be managed by an organization run by elected officials, meaning more direct accountability. Disadvantages: • Need to carefully define water organization role and county role in water management to prevent confusion. Need to carefully define roles of water organization board and county board. • May discourage local ownership/citizen participation. • The management organization would need to develop relationships and cooperate with a large number of local government units. • Large geographic area and number of issues may affect timeliness of decisions. Option 3: Two Water Management Organizations Cover the County Rice Creek Watershed District and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District boundaries remain unchanged from current conditions. The County would be organized as a Northern Water Organization and a Southern Water Organization—the first located north of the Baytown Township line with West Lakeland Township, and the other south of this line. All of the Valley Branch W.D. would be included in the southern water organization. (Rather than use the township boundary, a hydrologic boundary in this area should be used to be consistent with Work Group recommendations.) Washington County Water Governance Study Page 36 Advantages and Disadvantages: Similar to #2, though confusion with County and County Board structures would be less likely. Option 4: New North, Middle and South Washington County Units Rice Creek and Ramsey-Washington Metro Watershed District Boundaries remain as existing. Remainder of the County is divided into three local water organizations: • Northern area: includes Forest Lake and Marine on St. Croix WMO's, and Carnelian Marine and most of Brown's Creek Watershed District. • Middle area: includes Valley Branch Watershed District, Middle St. Croix River WMO, and southern portion of current Brown's Creek district that will flow through McKusick Lake. • Southern area: includes South Washington Watershed District, East Mississippi and Lower St. Croix River WMO's Advantages: • Units follow hydrologic boundaries so one organization deals with the source and the endpoint of water and management issues. • Units are consolidated, which may reduce duplication in some functions and costs. • Some cities have fewer water management units within their boundaries. • Some units have similar geography, land use and growth philosophies. • Increases fiscal capacity over current structure. • Units may have more "local identify" than units in Option 1 or 2. • Change to this structure may be easier to implement than Option 1 or 2. • Builds on the strengths of existing water organizations. Disadvantages: • Fiscal capacity of some areas is not as large as option 1 or 2. • More potential for duplication of efforts and costs than option 1 or 2. • Little correspondence of ground water and surface water management units. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 37 2°d Meeting: Discussion and Revised Options The Boundarimmeied hdoptionand Work Group discussion. They discusseditteerthe followingewe issues:raft • At thees requestSubcoof one membery , includetan option that s makes the County boundary the water management unit boundary. • Eliminate Option #3, which had received little interest. It was replaced with a new option #1. This option simply reconfigures the current boundaries to combine the joint- powers WMO's with watershed districts. • Review options for the Forest Lake WMO (NEWMO area). The Subcommittee recommended the following: 1) the portion of the watershed that flows to the St. Croix River become part of the "northern unit" options, and the remaining areas become part of a new Sunrise River Watershed District. The four options that emerged from this meeting included the following: Option 1: Reorganize WMO's Advantages: • Least change from the current system, so it may be the easiest to implement. This option primarily addresses County Board concerns related to the fiscal and organizational capacity of WMO's. • Consolidates some units, so that some cities are included in fewer local water unit areas. • Increases fiscal capacity over the current structure for some areas. • Creates some units that have common land use and water management issues(such as the North Area). • Units may have more "local identity" than under county or basin options Disadvantages: • Option uses political unit boundaries. Areas where water management problems are generated are separated from areas that are impacted. Reduces accountability and makes problems more difficult to solve. • Some units have limited fiscal capacity. • Limited correspondence of ground water and surface water management units. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 38 1111111111111111111111m.---- • Option 2: New North, Middle and South Units (same as #4 • above) Option 3: Washington County as Water Management Unit (same as#2 above) Option 4 St. Croix and Mississippi Basin Units(same as#1 above) *Recommended Option by the Work Group: 2b (attached), a variation of the option with New North, Middle and South Units. .#1 PFM • • Page 39 Washington County Water Governance Study S ✓ Watershed Districts • & e Watershed Management Organizations in le ✓ Washington County Option 1: ReorganizeM WO's No claim made Qty of Forest Lake ... F _ LAXXE ,, a; _.,,,i,.- -L-3.1-, .1 SUNRISE RIVER '�''ao (29 Square miles) : 1 .`. '" ',-', i' •.- �1 NW AREA' City of Marine on St.Croix �E f r (66 Square miles) '' NORTH AREA (80 Square miles) • s Giant Qty of DeIIVIood , ,..._ Qty of Mahtomedi r BROw CREEK Qty of Birchwood ..` 1 Qty of Stillwater MIDDLE AREA Irp City of Willenve r 1 ®` (43 Square miles) i tY Bayport Qty of Pine Springs Q of Ba ® P MIDDLE ST. Qty of Oakdale L CROIX RIVER SE AREA City of Lakeland (12 Square miles) Qty of Landfall - Qty of Lakeland Shores RAMSEY- Qty of Lake St.Croix Beach WASHINGTON- ••,of METRO Qty of St.Mays Pant Qty of Newport SOUTH WASHINGTON AREA (70 Square miles) Qty of St.Paul Park EAST LOWER ST. CROIX AREA MISSISSIPPI � P �, = (122 Square miles) Grey Cloud Island Towrrship N Bonestroo City of Hastings we And�erhk& Associates 0 25000 Feet Enylneert&Architects hclNEren np . II Watershed Districts III Watershed Management Organizations II III in II ington County Option 2: North, Middle and South Districts rNo ..:.New LAKE City of Forest Lake 4,„,,,,.,,,,„41,� � SUNRISE RIVER ph WATERSHED g NORTH WASHINGTON (29 Square Miles) (140 Square Miles) woo; RICE CREEK Ory of marine on st.Croix (66 Square Miles) ry (Sty of Dellwood City of city of D edi ary of Stillwater G1ry of Birchwood MIDDLE ST. City of Willemie " CRDD RIVER � � � � ' �� (Sty of Bayport ary of Pines WASHINGTON �► MIDDLE ary of Oakdale , ., (135 Square MLles) Ile RAMSEY WASHINGTON =:,,,,,,_;',..,tr,;.„, 1,„ (Sry of Lakeland (11 Square Miles) atyof Lakeland Shores City of Landfall _ �� ary of Lake St.Croix Beach El WASHIN TON- " - � � METRO - " City of St.Mays Point • ary of NeWpa't � SOUTH WASHINGTON , (70 Square Miles) A'4 a of St.Paul Park EAST MISSISSIPPI Grey aoud Island Township � , gonestroo N ` `°� Rosene gnderlik& gssoclates iy,,,�,py<. gngh�ears i MCMtee s 0 25000 Feet rIODu.T kil?wm� t '''' Watershed Districts & S Watershed Management Organizations a in Washington County • Option 2B--Work Group Recommended Option No claim made maCity of Forest Lake FORE 1 LAKE Sunrise River(WD) ,gam (31 Square miles) �' New Sandia Town �p ', . RICE CREEK < City of Marine on St.Croix (66 Square miles) May hip NORTH WASHINGTON UNIT MARINE-0 ' ✓ ,;• ST CROIX (121 Square miles) .- CARNELIAN ,. - 1.5 -MARINE{, Vs-�. = P. til WaterTown Grant i '` j City of Dellwood � .� `BRC?WN� `#�, �, City of Mahtomedi CREEK City of Birchwood g= . � City of Stillwater .;; , ''''-:!::°: ,.-,a,,,-r.:,, City of Willernie diPIO City of Pine Springs City of Lake Elmo _+ Bayto City of Bayport ` Towns , City of Oakdale ;• MIDDLE ST. VALLEY BR' H CROIX RIVER RAMSEY-WASHINGTON METRO West La -and (11 Square miles) 4 Towns p City of Lakeland rdt City of Landfall City of Lakeland Shores RAMSEY ' ' �� WASHINGTON -1-4 of r , City of Lake St.Croix Beach METRO City,of Afton"�_ City of Newport _.- F ' City of St.Marys Point i .,- ., i.:,-r .,,,,* SOUTH WASHINGTON UNIT _-„,- TON, (71 Square miles) , ..-: , , 2r...,•,,,,-..'?*•,iNT,.:','.:7, . City of St.Paul Park EAST MISSISSIPPI = Denmark Township' LOWER ST. CROIX UNIT Grey Cloud Island Township � = (122 Square miles) z LOWER' • :.....i L �} ST. CROIX ": RIVER N City of Hastings In,Bonestroo 0 Q Rosen 25000 Feet • Ar,aertik s till Associates .. • ,. .a w.ara.rs D Watershed Districts Watershed Management Organizations ID in II Washington County Option 3: Washington County District No claim � SUNRISE RIVER City of Forest lake & WATERSHED is Township (29 Square Nies) CE4*-:, ' - ' City of Marine on St.Croix • RICE CREEK ������K � ',' ,� .hip 1. (66 Square Miles) 0�Akst ,,� MARINE-ON- O �2m _ ST.CROIX CARNELIAN ,, � -MARINE � a di ` M WASHINGTON COUNTY 'Meter Township p Gant BASIN (319 Square Miles) qty of Dellwood BROWNS gc,. City of MaMomedi �' CREEK qty of StilMrater City of Birchwood tl r MIDDLE ST. � CROIX RIVER J qty of Willemie 111Pli Amp • Sty of Lake EImD I 4,1 qty of Bayport City of Pine Springs Bayt• i T .. i Cty of Oakdale VALLEY BRANCH.,* West _ _a„d RAMSEY WASHINGTON ■ Ti p qty of Lakeland • (11 Square Miles) ti � 1 la qty of Lakeland Shores City of Landfall RAMSEY- pu City of Lake St.Croix Beach butY WASHINGTON- ood METRO ' AftmierCity of St.Marys Point qty of Newport SOUTH ) 11 ilia WASHINGTON COUNTY • City of St.Paul PardIt EAST Denmark Tomnshi• MISSISSIPPI Oty of Cottage • LOWER Grey good Island TranshipST.CROIX RIVER .1%0gonestroo + AA N City of Hastings 1 wii o^"de" b •••- IA ASSOCiateS Engineers i Architects0 25000 Feet i I isigthomnrce Watershed Districts & Watershed Management Organizations in [:W1) Washington County Option 4: Multicounty Basins El.myatir Nodaim ze t' F;'City of Forest Lake 4OR. L. yifin ul� . s VI SS SSIPPI • MI I BASIN 4,it' .,.,' ;,., , City of Marine on St.Croix • (148 Square Miles) I: 0 ,- .=----':,AN ''° ,,„ ''' !vs!,, / a f�®s a I im .A.... ST. CROIX BASIN r (274 Square Miles) 4 ' .E Iw F TC71Nr Np. ;p •>.,,. .,eCity of Dellwood .,-e ' 4" , : ,, Qty of Mahtomedi "� "`� Qty of Birchwood ,' ) Qty of Stillwater ' MIDDLE ST. City of Willemie '4.9 �s CROIX RIVER a r ra�,� > fir® City of Pine Springs ,. aty of Bayport '' wQty of Oakdale - ,x‘-',A,- Qty of Lakeland atyof Landfall � �� � �, Qty of Lakeland Shores RAMSEY City of Lake St.Croix Beach WASHINGTON- . • METRO 4' � City of Newport Qty of St.Marys Point a ;a wx4r,v4 vtLrr4:,,,,zw,,,,,,,4.:4 ja,- ,44,,,,,,47,,,,:1,,,,;74,,,,,,,,w..,.`4'1"°'4:::\ City of St.Paul Park EAST MISSISSIPPI s "`" Grey Cloud Island Township *' t 4 ty / + N .r.:> ,. Qty Hastings jBonestroo 0 Rosene 0 25000 Feet Anderlic& Associates Engineers A w cts • w WATERSHED DISTRICT M..litpc Hoard of Mousers Maw Mirrasffea�lcnknl Adviser: ' CJO%W in�sl Soil and Water C'.anea+ntic n I)istrid 6:3(3 p.m..2nd k 4th Monday c4the Meth C'�Corai t.aaar: at Wahington Soil and Water a nwre aion KKNbora.Y' aidad Ins r crest rd.baits tot Edward Ckwd n,Tram=5lilhvad cer MN SS01t2 R2 I7idrirl Jon Midicls.Nasdaq Daniel Patter .win► vastrin►--- lE @ L5 OV E AGENDA D Workshop Meeting, Monday Sept. 28, 1998 SEP 2 519 AB 1. Call to Order(0,6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes from Sept. 14, 1998 Meeting(Michels) 3. Treasurer's Report(Gordon) 4. Plan Amendments.VInpt Drgft for Submittal to BWSR(Smith) 5. jteview and Approval of LCMR Contract(Smith) 6. Review of LCMR Status(E&0,Grubb,DeMars) 7. Review of the H&H.Study Matrix(E & O) 8. HMOP Program, Status Report(Deaeux) 9. FDR Project, Status Report(Donau) 10. Rules Development Status(Smith,Kilberg) 11. AUAR/BWCD/DNR Review Meetings, Status(Westeriund) 12. Discussion of DRAFT RFP for Consulting Engineering Services(Miicbsb) 13, Communications(Donees,all) 14. Old Business 15. New Business 16. Adjournment sake everuffort to resolveon the • Minutes of Meeting Approved Brown's Creek Watershed District August 24,1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Karen Kilberg Dan Potter Ned Gordon Others Mark Doneux, SWCD Louis Smith and Chuck Holtman of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Cecilio Olivier, Brett Emmons, and Stuart Grubb of Emmons & Olivier Resources Derek Knapp, Montgomery Watson Matt Moore, BWSR Julie Westerlund and Molly Shodeen, MNDNR Jyneen Thatcher, Citizens Advisory Committee Citizen: Neil Fagerhaugh Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. The workshop meeting was called to order at 6:43 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 2. Approval of Minutes of 8/10/98: A motion to approve the Minutes of the 8/10/98 meeting was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion passed 3/0 in the absence of Jon Michels and Ned Gordon. 3. FDR Project. Review of Current Status—Mark Doneux: • Contract to be reviewed by BCWD legal counsel prior to Board vote. • Robey appraisal on Rice property to be available at next meeting. • Mark Doneux to obtain quotes for further appraisals on the Rice property. 4. HMGP (hazard Mitigation Grant Program) Option— Mark Doneux: • HMPG form completed for the Rices and the Hoffmans. • FEMA information to be made available to the Rices and Hoffmans. Ned Gordon to discuss with the Rices. 5. LCMR Status and Update— Emmons and Olivier • Map (with soil boring and monitory well locations) and soil samples provided by Stuart Grubb. • More soil borings and one more monitoring well are in the process of being completed. • 6. Technical Advisory Committee (TA C) Report - Karen Kilberg: • Working on three or four main components; buffers,wetlands, and thermal impacts/volume approach. Performance standards have been agreed upon. Preliminary language has been agreed upon and draft for Board review should be ready by the next Board meeting. • Emmons and Olivier to coordinate additional commitment of time with Karen Kilberg. 7. Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) Report - Dan Potter: • An agenda has been prepared for the next meeting. Comments from the CAC to the Board will be available at the next BCWD Board meeting. • Louis Smith to provide the Board with Supreme Court ruling stating that anyone with a conflict of interest must disclose and abstain from voting. CAC members to sign an acknowledgement of such. • A motion that Jyneen Thatcher and Stuart Grubb continue with their duties on the CAC was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion passed unanimously 4/0 (in the absence of Jon Michels). 8. BCWD Concern re: City of Stillwater— Ned Gordon: • The City fells that they must fulfill the requirements of the AUAR and go forward. Standards from the BCWD must be very dear for the City of Stillwater to pay any attention. The Board must have Rules, and.a very clear implementation of the Second Generation Plan. 9. Treasurer's Report - Ned Gordon: • Tabled until next meeting. A special meeting to deal with the budget has been scheduled for Thursday, September 10, 1998. 10. H&H Status Report - Emmons and Olivier: • Cross sections have been done up-stream. • GIS mapping has been completed. • Emmons and Olivier is modeling existing conditions (1997)when water levels were fairly high. • H&H Study to be the keynote of the September 14, 1998 meeting. 11. Adjournment-A motion to adjourn at 10:12 p.m. was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion carried unanimously 4/0 in the absence of Jon Michels. Respectfully submitted by: )°.991$41‘ Kim eeves Recording Secretary 11111 fir@ 7E- 1 AGENDA SEP i ►998 BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED D Sept. 14, 1998 1. Call to Order @6:30 PM 2. Approval of prior meeting-minfps) 3. Treasurer's Report(Gordon) 4. Public Hearing on 1999 BCWD Budget fp 6:45 PM 5. H & H Status Report, Preliminary Results Presentation fE&0) 7:15 PM 6. LCMR Status Report(E&0)Oh 8:00 PM, approximately 7. FDR Status Report(Donsux) 8. Buyout parameters per FDR 9. Status Report of TAC andRu ) 10. Selection'of Costing Engineering Support(All) A. Criteria B. Request for Proposal,.Development C. Selection and Review Procedures 11. Communications to and from-board A. Washington County.Commiu oners=pre ation B. Other jurisdictions C. Water Governance report-(Mis s) 12.Old business 13.New Business 14.Adjournment Water Organization Fiscal Capacity Existing Boundaries and Four Options Summary The charts below summarize the total tax capacity for existing water management organizations and watershed districts in Washington County, and the capacity of new organizational structures, based on the four options identified by the Boundaries Subcommittee. Additional information on typical administrative budgets and project costs and their impact on average price homes under each option will be provided at the Work Group meeting on January 7. Existing Boundaries Organization Total Taxing Capacity Browns Creek $ 8,221,511. Browns Creek-Rice Creek* 23,719. Carnelian-Marine 3,927,817. East Mississippi 6,216,599. East Miss.-Ramsey-Washington* 24,438. Forest Lake 6,867,744. Lower St. Croix 3,622,947. Marine-on-St. Croix 2,990,886. Middle St. Croix River 19,155,266. Ramsey-Washington Metro (Wash. Co. only) 19,260,802. Ramsey-Wash.-South Washington County* 202,586. Rice Creek(Wash. Co. only) 16,597,480. South Washington County 35,041,301. Valley Branch 22,439,496. Areas not claimed** 2,290,519. *Boundaries are not clear **Small areas throughout the county that have not been assigned to a local unit. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 45 Option 1 Organization Total Tax Capacity Southeast Area $ 20,053,135 Northwest Area $ 16,597,480 North Area $ 7,620,344 Middle Area $ 23,745,172 Lower St. Croix Area $ 29,865,629 South Washington Area $ 40,692,591 Sunrise Area(Washington Co.portion) $ 8,938,760 *Option 2B (Work Group Preferred Option) Ramsey-Washington(in Washington County) $ 19,463,388 Rice Creek(in Washington County) $ 16,597,480 North Washington County Area $ 31,209,638 Middle Washington County Area(includes Lower St. Croix) $ 29,865,629 South Washington County Area $ 41,282,338 Sunrise River Watershed(in Washington County) $ 9,094,638 Option 2A Ramsey-Washington(in Washington County) $ 19,463,388 Rice Creek(in Washington County) $ 16,597,480 North Washington $ 12,116,245 Middle St. Croix Cities Unit $ 22,896,579 Lower St. Croix $ 26,062,443 South Washington County $ 41,282,338 Sunrise River Watershed(in Washington County) $ 9,094,638 Option 3 Ramsey-Washington(in Washington County) $ 19,463,388 Rice Creek(in Washington County) $ 16,597,480 All other Washington County $102,513,483 Option 4 Mississippi Basin $ 77,343,206 St. Croix Basin $ 70,169,905 Washington County Water Governance Study Page 46 B. Water Organization Functions Subcommittee—Summary Report Members: Craig Leiser, Brown's Creek Watershed District; Mark Doneux, Konrad Koosman, Washington SWCD; Judy Sventeck, Metropolitan Council; Phil Belfiori, BWSR; Kate Drewry, Rice Creek Watershed District; Sherri Buss,Project Consultant. PURPOSE: The Subcommittee met to address the following questions, and develop recommendations for the full Work Group: • What basic functions should each water organization in Washington County perform? • Are there optional functions that each could provide? • How does the basic set of functions relate to functions that other organizations involved in water management should perform? PROBLEM STATEMENT: The functions that water management organizations and watershed districts provide vary greatly across the County. It is difficult for local governments, citizens, and others to know what to expect from water organizations. The public, agencies and others are demanding a more comprehensive approach to water and natural resources management, and that organizations be effective in identifying and solving water quality and quantity problems. RESULTS (RECOMMENDATIONS): The subcommittee reviewed an analysis of current services provided by water management organizations in the county (August, 1998), discussed issues and service needs, and developed the following recommendations: I. Basic Functions to be provided by Local Water Organizations: Summary: Comprehensive assessment of water and associated natural resources Comprehensive Watershed Management Plan Special studies or research projects Monitoring and assessment of water and associated resources Set performance standards for local plans and regulations and technical assistance to meet standards Regulations to assure compliance with performance standards. Includes drainage ditches and wetlands management Project implementation Taxation, budgeting and fiscal management Public education Citizen participation Legal services Washington County Water Governance Study Page 47 • Complete a comprehensive assessment of water and associated natural resources within the watershed. Compile this information in mapped and other formats so that it is available for use in planning and can be provided to others. The assessment should consider recreation as well as other resource qualities. The local water organization should receive ground water assessment information from a regional ground water planning organization, and incorporate this information in its watershed assessment. Rationale: This information is critical for good planning and for developing performance standards (described below). • Complete a comprehensive watershed management plan. The plan should be based on the natural resources assessment. Stakeholder input and citizen involvement in developing the plan are critical. The plan should include assessment of problems, issues and opportunities, goals and policies, and an implementation plan. The plan should address the fiscal capacity of the watershed to implement the plan. Rationale: The work of the local water organization should be based on an adopted comprehensive plan. It should be grounded in the needs of the resource and stakeholders. • Complete special studies or research projects as needed. These should follow from the resource assessment and comprehensive plan, and may include project feasibility studies, environmental assessments, etc. • Complete ongoing monitoring and assessment of water and associated resources. This should include monitoring surface water quality and quantity, as well as monitoring of ground water resources that are related to surface water. The Subcommittee noted that many organizations are currently involved in water monitoring in the County, and that monitoring information is not coordinated well to meet needs for resource assessment and planning. The Subcommittee suggested that each water organization should have a Technical Advisory Committee. One of the roles of this TAC should be to identify and coordinate the available water monitoring information in the watershed, and identify gaps and strategies to obtain the needed information. The TAC should also assure that the local water organization is meeting state or other standards for water resource data collection. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 48 Rationale: Ongoing monitoring information is needed to develop plans and revise plans, and evaluate watershed management activities. • Set performance standards for local government land use plans and regulations, and provide technical assistance to local governments and landowners to help them meet these standards. Local water organizations should set quantified goals (i.e. phosphorus levels, zinc levels, etc.) for priority water resources. These should be provided to city and township governments as a basis for land use planning. Local water organizations would be required to provide technical assistance to local governments to identify strategies to meet the goals through land-use planning, zoning regulations, and management practices. Rationale: Land use management is the most important factor influencing water resource quality and quantity. Local water organizations need to influence land use management up-front to be effective, not just respond to land use decisions after-the-fact. Local water organizations should set specific standards based on actual resources conditions. Local governments can work from these standards to identify options to meet them that are appropriate to local conditions,values and needs. Local water management organizations should not be allowed to set arbitrary standards and demand that local governments meet them; they should be required to participate with local governments and landowners in identifying workable, practical approaches to meet the resource standards. Local water management organizations need to develop good working relationships with local governments for this structure to work. Local water management organizations should use their monitoring activities to determine that performance standards are being met. • Develop regulations and implement them as needed to assure that performance standards are met. This may include erosion control permits, shoreline and floodplain regulations, etc. This should include local regulations that protect ground water resources. Subcommittee members noted that it is particularly critical for local water organizations to develop effective working relationships with developers, cities, and townships as they carry out their permitting and review functions. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 49 Local water management organizations should have local management and regulatory authority for Drainage Ditches and Wetlands. They may delegate wetland authorities to Local Governmental Units, as they do under the current governance structure. Rationale: Local water management plans will be meaningless unless local water organizations have effective controls for implementing the plans. Drainage ditches and wetlands should be managed as resources that are part of the watershed system. • Implement capital improvement projects that are identified in the comprehensive watershed management plan. Rationale: This function is needed to effectively implement the water management plan. • Have taxing authority necessary to finance watershed assessment, planning,plan implementation, and other required functions. Rationale: This function is needed to assure that the organization is effective in carrying out the basic functions of a local water organization. • Provide ongoing education on water resources issues and management to citizens, local governments, and other stakeholders. This is a critical, day-to-day function of local water organizations. There are many resources available to help organizations to carry out this role, the organization needs to devote resources to assure that it carries out this role. • Provide necessary legal services. Water organizations could purchase some of these services jointly to try to increase consistency and reduce costs. It may be possible for the County to provide some common services, though problems will arise if water organizations are involved in litigation with the county. Local organizations may want to retain the option to purchase services individually. II. Optional Functions • Use GIS to collect, map and analyze water resource assessment and related data. Subcommittee members indicated that it is highly desireable for local water organizations to use GIS to collect and analyze resource data, but not essential. Washington County may provide GIS services to water management organizations. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 50 • Natural resources assessment, planning and management. Subcommittee members indicated that local water organizations should be responsible for assessment, planning and management for natural resources that are tied to water resources. However, responsibility for inventory and management of other upland resources should be an optional function of water organizations. These functions could be designated to the County or to Cities. III. Organizational Size and Budget • Subcommittee members indicated that each local water organization will need 4-5 full-time staff or equivalent to provide the "basic" service package described above. The annual budget for administration and related activities, plus office, equipment, etc., was estimated at$300,000. Staff suggested include: Administrator(1 position) Technical assistance/outreach/education(1-2 positions) Monitoring/data management(1 position) Permitting/enforcement(1 position) There should be some permanent, full-time staff (particularly an "administrator") that are involved in development and implementation of the watershed plan, and in working with local governments and citizens on the day-to-day activities of the watershed, and assuring that questions are answered and work completed in a timely manner. Rationale: Paid staff are required to assure that these basic services are provided by local water organizations. One or more permanent staff associated with the local water organization are needed to make effective connections and develop trust with stakeholders. Consistency is needed as the organization moves through the process from resource assessment to planning and to implementation. Staff are critical to provide this consistency. IV. Regulatory Functions of Water Management Organizations • Ideally, local governments (cities, townships) would enforce water management regulations, so that citizens, developers and others can easily identify a one-stop location for permits and regulations. However, cities or townships may contract with water management units to provide this function. • Members noted that regulations exist at the federal, state, county and city level. Watershed districts may take on responsibilities for enforcing requirements under the federal NPDES permit system. The new management structure should not duplicate existing regulations. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 51 The need for additional regulations will vary based on the local area and nature of water resources. • Water units should seek the active involvement of cities and townships in development of the watershed plan and in coordinating this plan with local land use plans. • Cities and townships should adopt the plan as their local water plan. • Water units should audit or provide oversight to local government enforcement of the plan and rules. V. Common County-Wide Standards for Water Governance • Subcommittee members agreed that there are some areas where common, minimum standards should be developed across the County for managing water resources. (Some of these could probably be metro-wide standards. However, changes in state regulations would be required to give the Metro Council the authority to establish and enforce metro-wide standards.) • Subcommittee members recommended that the County lead an effort to identify common standards in the following areas: Erosion control Minimum standards for storm water ponds Wetlands management Land-locked basins Vegetated buffers for water resources • Members suggested that County ordinances should be consistent with these standards. • The County could create model ordinances for these issues to avoid duplication of effort by water and local government units. • The County should use existing federal and state standards and guidelines in developing these standards as much as possible. • County standards would be minimums. Local units could have higher standards if needed based on water resource conditions. • Standards should be performance-based. VI. Elected vs.Appointed Local Water Unit Board Members The full Work Group will make the recommendation on this issue. Subcommittee members listed the following advantages and disadvantages to assist in that discussion: Advantages of Appointment: • Members can be selected based on qualifications and expertise. Water unit board members are required to understand highly technical material. Having technical and scientific expertise on the Board is an advantage. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 52 • Board members can be replaced by the County Board if they are not performing adequately. A lengthy recall process is not required. • Board members can be held accountable to taxpayers through the County Commissioners. • Board members can have a "watershed" viewpoint, rather than representing particular local interests. • Board members can be a-political. Sometimes this is needed to represent the interests of the resource. • Board members do not need to campaign. This would be especially difficult if elections were on a water unit-wide basis. • Voter turnout for special elections is typically low. There is not much real public input into the selection of board members. Advantages of Election of Water Unit Board Members • Citizen input can be more direct. • If water units can tax,Board Members should be elected. • Election may better balance the interests and values of the residents of the water unit. • County Board Members may find the politics of removing water unit board members difficult. Recall represents an alternative. VII. Role of the SWCD in the new Water Governance Structure • A member suggested that the Work Group review the Nebraska model for Natural Resource Districts as the ultimate model for integrating surface water and natural resource governance in Washington County. Under this model, the SWCD's surface water management activities would be merged with those of local water units into the NRD units. • SWCD representatives indicated that they are concerned about being viewed as an "agriculture" agency. They have been involved in water management, particularly with the joint-powers WMO's, for nearly 20 years. • Members noted that the Work Group has the option to "start from a blank slate" in creating the new governance structure. Concerns were expressed that the group is not thinking broadly enough or willing to recommend major changes. • The group needs to look at the process for how the existing structure will move to a new structure. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 53 VIII. Phased Approach to Implementation of a New Governance Structure The Subcommittee considered possibilities for a phased approach to adopting a new water governance structure in the County. They suggested the following: Phase I: WMO's are combined into larger units with Watershed Districts. The Washington SWCD surface water management functions are merged into these units, or the SWCD continues to provide county- wide functions, such as water monitoring and resource inventories, while the water units develop the set of functions identified earlier by the subcommittee. Phase II: The success of the governance structure is evaluated after approximately 10 years. If it has not solved the problems identified, and these problems are occurring on a metro-wide basis, the County should recommend that a water governance study be completed on a metro scale to examine options for larger basin- side units, or other governance options. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 54 Watershed Organization Summary Organization Functions (Draft) Local Organizations Functions New County SWCD LGU's, State Regional Water (Cities, Agencies Unit Twnshps) L=Leads C=Collaborates S=Sets Standards E=Enforces • Comprehensive Assessment Water resources L C C C S S Natural resources L S C C S C Management Plans Comprehensive L C/S C C C/S C Subwatershed L C/S C C C/S C Local(Land Use,Development) C/S C C L C/S C/S Lake plans L C C C/E C/E C Wetlands L C C C/E C/E C Natural resources L C C C/E C/E C Ground Water C L C C/E S L Special Studies/Research Projects-ROLES WILL BE ISSUE SPECIFIC Project feasibility Data collection Mapping/GIS C L C C C L/S Hydrology Environmental assessments Ditches Other Monitoring-Groundwater C C C C S L Quality-Surface Water L C/S C C S C Quantity-Surface Water L C/S C C S C Natural resources L C/S C C S C Performance Standards for local plans and L S-some C C S-overall C regulations(Development of Standards) Technical Assistance-Depends on Issue Citizens L C C L C C Local governments L C C L C C Other Local Organizations County as E on behalf of Twnshps Regulations-ENFORCEMENT Storm water management L/S E/S C E C C Erosion control L/S E/S C E C C Shoreline and streambank alterations L/S E C E C C Stream and lake crossings L/S E C E C/E C Floodplain and drainage alterations L/S E C E C/S C Grading L/S E/S C E C C Landlocked basin standards L/S E/S C E C C Wetlands L/S E/S C E C/S C Drainage ditches L/S E/S C E C/S C Water quality L/S E/S C E C/S C Other Permit Program General construction S/C E/L Storm water S/C E/L Wetlands S/C E/L S Non-point source pollution control S/C E/L S Other Development Plan Review S/C L S Local Water Plan Review C C C L S C Local Comp.Plan Review/Comment C C/S C L C S Water Quantity Project Implementation L L Flood reduction L L Outlet controls L L Water diversion L L Other Water Quality Project Implementation Purple loosestrife L L S/C Milfoil L L S/C Other noxious weeds L L S/C Abandoned well sealing L L S/C Erosion control L S L S Other Habitat Improvement Project Implementation Lakeshore revegetation L C C L C C Habitat improvement L C C L C/S Lake restoration L C C L C/S Wetland restoration L C C L C/S Other Public Education L C C L C C Citizen Participation L C C L C C C. Natural Resources/Land Use Coordination Subcommittee Members: Phil Belfiori, BWSR; Louise Bergeron, Marine on St. Croix WMO,- Jane Harper, Washington County; Steve Kernik, City of Woodbury; Molly Shodeen,DNR; John Waller,District I NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY The subcommittee reaffirmed its support of a countywide natural resources inventory. A natural resources inventory allows for much better land use planning, because the planners then have information about the value of the resource in relation to the rest of the watershed. The inventory would provide information on the amount of the resource that exists in the watershed, the quality of the resource compared to other areas of the watershed, etc. This type of information is not always available when natural resource inventories are done on a site by site basis, as development occurs. Although the inventory should be done Countywide, the subcommittee felt it would not have to be done by the County, nor would it have to be done all at one time. Each watershed organization could do there own inventory, or possibly each city or township could do an inventory. The County should set the minimum standard for a natural resource inventory, to make sure that the various inventories can be meshed to provide a larger picture of existing conditions. The inventory should cover upland areas, as well as water resources, since these areas often perform important functions in the watershed. The water resource portion of the inventory should also include an assessment of the condition of the water resources. LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS The key goal is to get water resource issues and concerns included in the land use planning process. There presently seems to be a 'disconnect" between these two areas. The committee agreed that water resource issues should be considered a part of the land use planning process, rather than land use planning being considered a part of the water resource planning process. The rationale for this is that by its very nature land use planning has to consider many different things, such as economic development needs, affordable housing, infrastructure costs, etc. Natural resource and water resource protection is yet another aspect that must be considered in land use planning. Water resource planning, however, should not "drive" the land use planning. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 58 The committee believes that land use planning should continue to be done on the local level. The key to eliminating the present "disconnect' is to involve the local land use authority in designating priority water bodies and natural areas. The watershed organization and the local land use authority would agree upon which water bodies would be classified as high priority water bodies, taking into consideration all the parameters that must be considered in land use planning. These high priority areas would then be identified on the local land use plan, and the local authority would then designate appropriate land uses for tributary areas. In some cases, because of other considerations, high quality natural resources may not be designated as priority areas. Conversely, a lower quality area might be designated for higher protection, if it fits better with future plans for the area. Inevitably, there will be disputes between a water organization and a local government over what is classified as a priority area. The committee suggested mediation as one possible way to resolve disputes. The County could be a partner in any mediation session. ENFORCEMENT AND PERMITTING After the priority areas are identified and agreed upon, the local authority would then incorporate the water resource protection standards into their official controls, in the form of the Land Use Plan, City Code, or the Zoning Ordinance. These documents would reference the natural resources inventory, and would include the water quality standards for designated water bodies, and enforcement mechanisms. With the standards in the official controls of the local authority, any failure to enforce the standards could be legally challenged by anyone. Permitting would be the responsibility of the local authority. Ideally, the local authority would issue and enforce the permits. The most efficient method would be to have the water organization make comments during the local authority's review process, thereby eliminating the need for permit applicants to get two permits. In cases where there is insufficient staff at the local level to do this, however, the local authority would be allowed to transfer the actual permitting to another agency, such as the water organization. Even if the task of permitting were transferred, the local authority would still retain the responsibility to make sure that their local ordinance was being enforced. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 59 EXAMPLE PROCESS A close approximation of the proposed process is taking place in the Valley Creek Watershed District, in the Valley Creek sub-drainage district. Valley Creek is one of the few remaining naturally reproducing trout streams in the metro area. The trout stream watershed includes portions of the cites of Woodbury and Afton. The DNR has been coordinating an advisory committee made up of citizens, city staff, and members of the city councils and planning commissions. The advisory committee is developing recommendations for what would be necessary to preserve the trout stream. Both Woodbury and Afton are updating their comprehensive plans at this time. The cities of Woodbury and Afton are incorporating the information provided by the advisory committee into their comprehensive plans. Woodbury will likely alter its current land use plan in some areas to protect the trout stream, and both cities will likely adopt an overlay-zoning district with different requirements for storm water management in the trout stream watershed. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ROLES Water Management Organization • Develop Natural Resource Inventory for the watershed. • Classify water bodies and other natural resources in conjunction with the local authority. • Provide comments on local permit applications. • Assist local authority in developing official controls. • Insure local enforcement of local ordinances. • Issue permits and enforce local ordinances, if requested by the local authority. County • Set minimum standards for Natural Resources Inventories. • Set minimum standards for protection for various classifications of water bodies. • Participate in mediation sessions between water organizations and local authorities. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 60 Townships and Cities • Participate in classifying water bodies and natural areas. • Adopt local official controls providing adequate protection for the identified areas. • Develop land use plans, which work with the identified water bodies and natural areas. • Issue permits, or contract with another agency for this service. • Insure that local controls are enforced. D. Finance Subcommittee Recommendations and Comments Members: Barb Cobb, Doug Thomas, Cliff Aichinger, Cheryl Kohls, Jane Harper Special Assessments are based on'benefit' and must show a direct increase in value or use for property. Difficult to use on large area projects, but may be applicable for smaller local projects such as lake flood prevention for shore homes and property. Ad valorem taxes most commonly used presently. Best method to cover administrative expenses " bookkeeping, non-project related studies. etc.) Allows you to "bank roll". Stormwater Utility is probably the most equitable and you don't have to prove benefit. Washington County has many different and diverse land uses. Utility is probably more saleable. Guideline: If the cost to calculate contribution is higher than cost of the project. Stormwater Utility obviously doesn't make sense. Modeling and GIS data can help with this. Initially you will spend a lot of time on appeals,but over time this usually passes. Connection Fees, Area Charges, Utility Fees - Who collects and how? (Add to property tax statement through county or city?)Have to make sure not duplication with cities. Ad Valorem vs. Stormwater Utility Fees for Projects: "It will be a project anyway. It's just a matter of which way to pay". Discussion that examples need to generated with a project in various parts of county to determine whether or not one method is more or less expensive to the taxpayer. One advantage of Stormwater Utility - Concept of reducing fees based on best management practices. Example: Developer puts a larger pond than required near a parking lot. There are mechanisms to credit for this. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 61 State Contribution in Outstate Minnesota Watersheds - not significant amount of money - roughly $30,000. Initially started to help them get their plans done. However, once they are completed, the money continues to come. Need to investigate ways to increase base funding for metropolitan area. One way to do this is to show that Washington County is a major holder of state significant resources: borders St. Croix and Mississippi Rivers, trout streams, groundwater issues and leachable soils, quickest developing. Funding should be based on the percent of the dollar value of the area you are protecting. Question then becomes: "Should the state money go to the county or directly to water organizations? Need to investigate further potential funding sources for studies, operation and maintenance of facilities. Impact fees were discussed but presently not legal. Should they be? This would be similar to cities'park dedication - "If you build you will either give land or money toward park funds". This would be the Water Management Fee philosophy. There needs to be a better effort toward collaborative funding between cities, county,water organizations, state agencies. etc. Finance Subcommittee Recommendations and Comments Grant money from foundations takes a long time to get and is a lot of work involved in applying. Grant writing is an art and not every administrator can do it. Is this something that the Soil and Water Conservation District can help with? Could they be the agency that searches for and applies for grants for every water organization in the county? The state and Met Council should create an "Innovative Technologies Fund"for water organizations that are doing new and cuffing edge studies. A lot of money is spent collecting data and researching, then neighbors find out and money and time is spent sharing what was learned, while they didn't have to spend anything. Example: SWWD is doing an infiltration study that many other organizations are interested in. What is learned is to the benefit of the greater metro area and state. Shouldn't they pay for at least a portion of it? Fiscal oversight and accountability should go to the County Board. This takes care of the"taxation with representation"issue. Water organizations should be encouraged to put together budgets and financial data in common formats so that they may be compared across the county. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 62 Washington County Water Governance Study Finance Subcommittee Meeting Summary—February 1, 1999 Present: Barb Cobb;Doug Thomas; Cliff Eichinger; Cheryl Kohls; Jane Harper Summary by: Cheryl Kohls FINANCING OPTIONS CHART PROS CONS SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Use only if project would Need to prove benefit to permit establishment of each parcel. Deemed least special benefit to individual feasible for projects to serve parcels. a broad area. Anticipated to be used for isolated projects. AD VALOREM TAXES Simplest method. Simply Based solely on the tax spreads the cost out equally classification and value and based on the tax the tax paid is not related to classification and value of the runoff generated. the property. Least expensive to administer. STORM WATER Fee based on runoff More administration to UTILITY FEE generated. Provides create a storm water utility greatest flexibility for and for collection of funds. funding methods related to runoff. SUBWATERSHED Costs are borne by More administrative time to generators of runoff. Can create the subwatershed be used with ad valorem districts. Question of how taxes. Adds flexibility. the subwatershed will be defined. CONNECTION FEES Reasonable charge would Watersheds do not have AREA CHARGES be collected from new authority to collect. development that would Presently requires joint reduce charges to existing powers agreement. Possible properties. challenge to fees. * Copied from South Washington Watershed District document. NEW WATER Setting a flat fee for all residents and properties (similar to MANAGEMENT FEE Solid Waste Fee). Easy to administer. Recognizes that (FLAT FEE) water is everyone's resource. TAX INCREMENT Minimizes tax impact on Very complex. Loss of tax FINANCING(TIF) existing properties. revenue on schools and municipalities. 612/FINANCE OPTIONS CHART o 0 0 0 0 0 0 c � C 0 b b b b b b b w) .,. .5 � 5 � 50 .50 .5 U. cip oU .- Q ¢ 4• < 4 < 41¢ 4 da: ¢ a ¢ 4 i g`- 09 $ t0 1 + + + t + U z w > bym tz + + + + + O O + $ + U 442 d U fV ++ $ $ + $ + I i 0 + 124 la; 3 �z'l 'f O ''-' W $ t O $ + "7 �7 $ + I I I + A0 TT Fr F O A p b i > ' cb a 00 U a �" o 'er o g oa C w u N E 1.+ Zi i2. CD U .O Qr g O g U w b0 z o ' 7 o nH -o 0 . oby � � b => $.. t0 ho 0 o at Z .... „. b ...0 .. . a� 144 b0 o razz c., g z P w '. + x ; + c x w •II.. o O 3w p C7 W4 el g � �" wr.n wpb 2U 0 w U w� da � p �dWU "a4wQ > w wa0 2wH wt".. E. Groundwater Subcommittee Members: Pat Bloomgren, MDH; Jane Harper, Washington County Administration; Roger Lake, Ramsey-Washington WD; Chris Thornton, Washington County Physical Development & Transportation; John Waller, citizen; Cindy Weckwerth, Washington County PH & Environment Ql. Please discuss whether a multi-county level organization that follows groundwater-shed boundaries is needed to coordinate groundwater management. Provide a recommendation on whether such an organization should be established, and a rationale (pros & cons)for your recommendation. The group struggled to find a clear purpose for this level of organization. The subcommittee thinks it is premature to suggest another formal layer of government, even if it is non-regulatory. There is also concern about equal representation within such a group. The subcommittee contends the key is to focus on information sharing between SW and GW organizations and to improve what is already in place at the county level. Creation of a loosely affiliated information-sharing group, similar to MAGWA (Metro Area Groundwater Alliance) but on a more local scale, is desirable. It may be beneficial to form a multi-county affiliation on an issue by issue, or project by project basis - where the impacts cross county boundaries. Q2. If groundwater continues to be primarily managed by the county, how would effective coordination occur with water organizations that are not organized by county boundaries. Again,the subcommittee supports creation of an information-sharing group that includes SW and GW players; this would include the agencies that are not organized by county boundaries if they are stakeholders. Efforts should be put into enhancing current organizations such as encouraging staff of water management organizations to be members of and actively participate in the ground- water associations, and encourage more WD to participate in MAGWA, particularly districts whose groundwater issues are a high priority. Q3. If a multi-county groundwater organization is created, are there additional opportunities for state and federal funds to support the organization and groundwater management activities? What financing mechanisms should support groundwater management? Are changes needed from the current system? Page 66 Washington County Water Governance Study It was the consensus of the subgroup that funding is more often available for projects, rather than organizations. Possible funding sources include the LCMR, DNR Block grants, BWSR Challenge grants, and from the Met Council. Surface water organizations may have funding available for joint SW/GW activities. Q4. Please describe the typical path a citizen or local government with a groundwater question would follow to get an answer or get a problem solved, and evaluate whether this path is effective and efficient. The attached graphics were created several years ago to describe the citizen's path vs the ideal. At that time, the County Board authorized the Public Health and Environment Dept to act as the "point of contact" with regards to groundwater issues. The County needs to continue to improve its format as the "routing center" and obtain a higher profile and a better understanding of the role of SW agencies for referral. The system is still fragmented. Q5. Please idents the changes you are recommending from the existing water management structure, and why. The subcommittee recommends focusing on the County as retaining the clearinghouse function, and to work more with SW organizations to ensure they operate with a "groundwater conscience." This is an opportunity for better coordination. The idea is to 'inventory and improve what is in place." Q6. Please indicate if recommendations would change based on the various boundary options. Whatever the boundaries, the subcommittee recommends the County needs to retain staff to nurture, facilitate and coordinate on a county-wide base and to look at county-wide needs; also, to assist water organizations to develop an integrated SW and GW program. Larger organizations with more staff typically have more ability to hire staff that are technically knowledgeable in groundwater. Smaller organizations could rely on technical assistance from a larger organization, such as the county. Jane Harper led the subcommittee thru the 1996 discussion between Public Health & Environment, Administration, the SWCD, Extension and the County Board to look at the following in regards to groundwater. (SEE Handouts) Washington County Water Governance Study Page 67 1) What is the current situation? What is the ideal situation? Where are the system gaps? 2) Definition of Roles County—Regulatory&Planning role (land use/zoning, -ISTS, hazardous & solid waste; data and assessment), Emergency Services role (water supply, septic, emergency preparedness), and Leadership role (intergovernmental coordination/communication, citizen point of contact, knowledge of and ability to mobilize resources, policy development, convener of parties, sponsor training, advocacy) SWCD — Technical role in feedlots; consulting with WMO's on their plans; contaminant identification; monitoring of lakes and observation wells. Minnesota Extension — Washington County — Education role in nutrient management, pesticides, ISTS, non-point sources of pollution and environmental education. 3. Structural Considerations: Authority- - WD have legal authority but haven't exercised it in most of the County. Staff/Technical Knowledge— -WMOs and SWCD have traditionally focused on surface water issues. May be difficult to justify or maintain staff at a sub-county level because of the specialized nature of the knowledge. Intergovernmental Relationships— Need to be strong presence, need the ability to convene parties and meditate solutions to difficult problems. Washington County Water Governance Study Page 68 • • Minutes of Meeting Approved Brown's Creek Watershed District August 10, 1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Dan Potter Karen Kilberg Others Marc Doneux, SWCD Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Brett Emmons and Tony DeMars of Emmons & Olivier Resources Peter Schwarz, County Messenger Paul Nelson, Montgomery Watson Stuart Grubb, CAC Jason Moeckel, MNDNR Matt Moore, BWSR, Phil Belfiori, BWSR Page Weed, Grant Township City Council Roy Torelle, Brett Hartman, Vicki Hartman, and Bill Mey, citizens Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. Presentation by BWSR, Matt Moore and Phil Belfiori 2. Share information- Craig Leiser: • Presentation to LCMR Committee -favorable, funded Horizontal Water Infusion and Drain Tile Project. • Proposal for FDR (Flood Damage Relief)was given approval by the DNR. 3. Business meeting called to order at 7:35 p.m. 4. Approval of Minutes from 7/27 meeting-A motion that the minutes, as submitted, be approved was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion was approved 3/0 (in the absence of Jon Michels and Ned Gordon). 5. A motion to authorize Emmons and Olivier to proceed with result number one from the LCMR, by October 1, was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion was approved 3/0 (in the absence of Ned Gordon and Jon Michels). • A motion to approve signature of approval was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion was approved 3/0 (in the absence of Jon Michels and Ned Gordon). • ID • A motion to authorize an additional $800 to the survey costs for Emmons and Olivier was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion was approved 3/0 (in the absence of Ned Gordon and Jon Michels). 6. FDR Status Report- Marc Doneux: • A motion to authorize Marc Doneux to obtain three quotes for an appraisal of the Rice property was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion passed 3/0 (in the absence of Jon Michels and Ned Gordon). 7. Joint Review with City of Stillwater- Marc Doneux: All parties concerned are ready for discussions to take place. Craig Leiser to attend, as well as a representative from the technical committee. 8. Old Business- Craig Leiser: • CAC/TAC membership for Stuart Grubb and Janine Thatcher is tabled until next meeting. • CIP Amendment review is tabled until next meeting. 9. Adjournment-A motion to adjourn at 10:22 p.m. was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion carried 3/0 (in the absence of Jon Michels and Ned Gordon). Respectfully submitted by: Kim Reeves Recording Secretary • Minutes of Meeting Approved Brown's Creek Watershed District July 27, 1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Ned Gordon Dan Potter Karen Kilberg Others Mark Doneux, SWCD Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Brett Emmons, Tony DeMars, and Camilla Correll of Emmons & Olivier Resources Paul Nelson, Montgomery Watson Stuart Grubb, Citizen's Advisory Committee Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:30 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 2. Presentation from 6:30—8:30 p.m. by DNR. 3. Business meeting called to order at 8:45 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 4. Minutes of June 22. 1998 meeting.-A motion was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter that the minutes of the June 22 meeting, as amended, be approved. The motion passed 4/0 (Jon Michels absent). 5. Treasurer's Report- Ned Gordon: • A motion was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Karen Kilberg that the list of bills, as submitted, be paid. The motion passed 4/0 (Jon Michels absent). • Ned Gordon presented the BCWD financial summary to the Board. 6. Discussion of FDR Submittal- Craig Leiser and Mark Doneux: The grant request has been submitted and is being reviewed, however, a final decision has not been made. 7. Discussion of LCMR Proposal and Submittal- Craig Leiser and Mark Doneux: • Committee presentation of the proposal to be made on July 28, 9:00 a.m. 8. Review of TAC Meeting re Rules- Karen Kilberg: • First meeting has been held and second meeting scheduled. • • Proposal from Emmons and Olivier Resources to provide assistance with the Technical Advisory Committee: • • A motion to approve the work order, with the proviso that all work performed outside of TAC meetings be done only with prior Board approval,was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Karen Kilberg. Passed 4/0 (Jon Michels absent). 9. New Business-Mark Doneux: • Provided a memo to the Board regarding a letter from the DNR to the City of Stillwater in response to proposed new development. Craig Leiser to draft a letter to the city of Stillwater. 10. A motion to adjourn at 11:10 p.m. was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion carried 4/0 (Jon Michels absent). Respectfully submitted by: Kim Reeves Recording Secretary {E [E, E ENCLOSURE 6, D 21998 AGENDA BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT Re-Scheduled Workshop Meeting Tuesday May 26, 1998 1. Call to Order. Workshop Session @ 6:30 PM 2. Discussion of proposed rules ano rule enforcement 3. Discussion of Board objectives and prioritization 4. Close workshop session 8:45 PM 5. Call to order. Business Meeting 9:00 PM 6. Approval of minutes from prior meetings (Michels) 7. Treasurers report (Gordon) 8. Discussion of letter sent to City of Stillwater re AUAR (Michels) 9. Discussion of letters sent to City of Hugo and May Township (Leiser) 10. Discussion of letter received from Fletcher DriscolllArcadis 11. Resolution re Workers Comp and Insurance (Gordon) 12. Action re GIS license from Washington County (Doneux, Smith) 13. Action to accept responsibility for Kismet Basin from SWCD (Doneux) 14. Scheduling and content of water resources meetings (Leiser, Drewes) 15. Status report on H & H Study (Emmons & Olivier) 16. Status report re Goggins outlet proposal (Emmons & Olivier) 17. Discussion of Bills presented by Montgomery-Watson (Doneux, Leiser) 18. New business • 19 Publications, mail circulation. etc. 20. Adjournment 411 • • Minutes of Meeting Approved Browns Creek Watershed District • April 13, 1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Ned Gordon Dan Potter Karen Kilberg Jon Michels Others Mark Doneux, SWCD Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Brett Emmons of Emmons & Olivier Resources Matt Moore, BWSR Annette Drewes, MNDNR Jason Moeckel, MNDNR Molly Shodeen, MNDNR Dave Anderson, Montgomery Watson Alan Kemp, Citizens Advisory Committee Member • Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary Citizens: Peter Schwartz, Donald and Pauline Rice, Terry and Laura Henry, 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:43 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 2. Minutes of March 9. 1998 meeting A motion was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Ned Gordon that the minutes, as amended, be approved. The motion passed 4/0 (Dan Potter absent). 3. Treasurer's Repo - Ned Gordon: A motion was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels that the current account balance as submitted be approved. The motion passed 4/0 (Dan Potter absent). 4. Staff Reports and Issues - Mark Doneux: Washington County is asking for $2,200 from the watershed, or$4,400 from Emmons & Olivier for license of GIS letters. The Board will request licensing agreement for the GIS letters specifically for use by Emmons and Olivier to do the l.I&H study. 5. CAC Issues and Requests- Dan Potter Tour of the watershed district on April 25, at 8:00 a.m. set up with Mark Doneux, 11 members from the CAC expected to be in attendance, Board members Dan Potter and Craig Leiser to attend. Peter Schwartz and Jason Meockei, DNR will also be in attendance. Dan Potter • is to contact the Shimota's and Hoffman's to request permission to access their property. r w'r.21. 19'98 1 07c - - - _ : • • 6. Purpose Of and Issues Before the BCWD Board- Craig Leiser: • Issues: Flooding 110 * Environment * Growth/Development * Resource Management * Economics * Community * Taxpayers burden • Proposed Mission Statement to effectively manage and conserve natural resources through land use planning, flood control, and other water management efforts, based upon sound scientific principles, and community participation. • issues of Interest * Leiser ')Kismet Basin flooding; 2)Govemment response - "nada;" 3)lmportance of the environment; 4)Willing to work; 5)Willing to make Ulu tiara, 8)"Like" to rnarraga. * Kilberg: 1)Want to see the Board talk about some of the "knowns" for better or for worse. Board is too fragmented because agreement has not been reached on some issues; 2)Preserve Brown's Creek as trout • water resource; 3)Deal with problems (flooding); 4)Who do we please?; 5)Development problem; 6)Outside of meeting issues; 7)Govemment political positions; 8)Economic burden placed on taxpayers. * Gordon; 1)In most discussions Ned comes from a place that is either largely forgotten or ignored - Long Lake for example. It is regarded as a low quality lake, but it may be a bellwether indicating what may happen to the rest of the watershed; 2)Moet disturbing is the governmental "'sad1a" fautui - uurruerrra have been largely.Ignored by governmental agencies; 3)"People" of the valley - go to a place and be refreshed, go to a place that's undisturbed; 4)Areas of disagreement; 5)Communication vs. negotiation; 6)Storm run-off/development. * Potter 1)Moved to Grant- nice open area, good environmental characteristics • environmental protection from development; 2) Lack of futuristic planning; 3)Engineering solutions; 4)Dureaucratic flak. * Michels: 1)"Tale of Two Creekg" program:ion of failure; 2)Procorvo environmental resources; 3) Natural resource infrastructure; 4)Cutting edge focus. • r . :1. .__� • • • Areas of disagreement . * Do we have an obligation/responsibility to correct past errors that are currently affecting Goggins/School Section/Kismet Basin'? If we do not correct past errors, what if the situation worsens to the point of causing even more problems than a possible solution (such as draining)would have caused? * Philosophically, we should try to "tweak'the situation as little as possible. What if we could drain Goggins forever and let the developers develop? * What obligation does the Board have to fix current problems - beyond plan amendments? • Board members are to bring a revised list of issues, list of possible resources, and priorities on objectives to me eung. 7. Rulcs - Karen Kilberg: A motion th Smith Parker's Rule Makin Project e adopted as presented was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion passed unanimously. 8. Jon Michels and Ned Gorden are directed to work with Mark Doneux to come up with a Consulting/Engineering RFP. 9, Brown's Creek Resource Presentation -Annette Drewes, Molly Shodeen: • 1/2 day Saturday. • • Possibly in June. • 20 - 25 possible attendees. • Board members end Citizen's Advisory Committee members to look at list of possible topics (attached) and bring suggestions to next Board meeting. • Possible locations - Stillwater City Hall, Stillwater Area High School. (Craig Leiser to check on room availability.) • Decision to be made at June meeting. 12. Other Business: • Ned Gordon: 'teting of three lakes by the Met Council. payment to be made to Mark Doneux. • Mark Doneux Is directed to schedule Clayton Eckles for next Board meeting. 13. A motion to adjourn at 10:10 p.m. was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted by: Kim Reeves Recording Secretary Mt7;4 .a1. 1?'?'= 1L' ?F!'' MC.3 2 P.:: 5 • • Minutes of Meeting Approved Browns Creek Watershed District • April 27, 1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Ned Gordon Karen Kilberg Others Mark Doneux, SWCD Konrad Koosmann, SWCD Louis Smith of Smith Parker. RCWD Legal Counsel Brett Emmons of Emmons & Olivier Resources Cecilio Olivier of Emmons & Olivier Resources Annette Drewes, MNDNR Jason Moeckel, MNDNR Paul Nelson, David Truax, Klayton Eckles, Lee Miller, Jyneen Thatcher, Stuart Grubb, The meeting was called to order at 6:36 p.m. by Craig Leiser. • Review of AUAR- presentation by Klayton Eckles to provide background on AUAR (Alternative Urban Area-wide Review), a type of proactive environmental impact st3temont. a Looked at comparative impacts of dovolnpmont and coneitiva rGeourcoe ultimately designed a mitigation plan. • Completed EAW and ultimately formed a Technical Advisory Committee. Identtfied the following issues regarding Brown's Creek: • Trout stream * Flooding * Wetland protection • Four(4) studies completed al a cosi of$300,000 (two of Long Lake). * The main strategy for protection of the creek was to take water out of the system and divert to Wetland complex and Lake McKusk.k, .I'I:c seyuenwu is as follows: Improve Long Lake Add diversion structure and pipr:, to Lake MuKusick = Build now dike and channel to bypass creek and pass water through Lake McKusick with outlet to the St. Croix • MAY.21 . 199; t :t 1AF'h1 rli i_ ? P. e,c • • * City of Grant would like the BCWD to answer the following questions: • What plans does the BCWD have for the watershed? Does the BCWD endorse the AUAR plan? Are other plans in effect that would negatively impact the AUAR plan? Business Meeting called to order 7:56 p.m. 1. Minutes of 4/13/98 Meeting-Tabled in the absence of Board members Michels and Potter. To be discussed at 4/27/98 Board meeting. 2. Treasurers Report- Ned Gordon: A motion that the April 7, 1988 memo of payments be approved was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion passed 3/0. 3. Review ofRules- Louis Smith: Draft of Rules to be developed for review at 5/11/98 Board meeting. 4. Discussion of Amendments for Capital Improvements: Tabled in the absence of Board members Michels and Potter. To be discussed at 4/27/98 Board meeting. 5. Kismet Basin Solution - Mark Doneux: Discussion on history and status of project. • Konrad Koosmann to draft formal letter to the BCWD requesting that the project be turned over to the BCWD Board. 6. Other Business: • Workshops-two (2) hour workshops to discuss issues scheduled for June 22, 1998 and June 27, 1998. • Workers Comp. - Ned Gordon will provide the Board with a suggested resolution for the 5/11/98 meeting. • Rules-A motion that the BCWD provide up to four(4) hours for Emmons and Olivier to assist Louis Smith with a draft of the Rules was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion passed 3/0. 13. A motion to adjourn at 10:22 p.m. was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Karen Kilberg. The motion carried 3/0. Respectfully submitted by: , Kim Reeves Recording Secretary • ENCLOSURE 13 • . (lb 1 illvvater I , - � -g TJI� 01 ,-( : hp , 2 -- ' "' THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA • i[ \ 111 I I May 20, 1998 Mr. Tom Melena,City Administrator City of Oak Park Heights 14168 57th Street N Oak Park Heights,MN 55082 Subject: Proposed Feasibility Study at the Kerns Center Dear Mr. Melena: It has come to my attention that the City of Oak Park Heights is contemplating a feasibility study involving additional improvements at the site known as the Kerns Center. The City of Stillwater has an interest in what happens at this site, particularly regarding storm water management. The Kerns Center is part of the Valley Branch Watershed. However, modifications to the hydraulic boundaries have changed the drainage of the Kerns Center so it now drains into the Browns Creek Watershed. As I am sure you are aware, the Browns Creek Watershed has a number of significant environmental issues surrounding trout habitat protection. Also, the Kerns Center currently drains into Long Lake. This water body is one that has experienced high water levels due to development in the Long Lake subwatershed. The City of Stillwater has completed the Alternative Urban Areawide Review (AUAR), which is a type of environmental impact statement, a Trout Stream Mitigation Plan, and two hydrologic studies of Long Lake. The total cost of these studies amounted to approximately$300,000. They have resulted in a comprehensive storm water management plan for the Stillwater Annexation Area and surrounding areas. As part of these studies, the Kerns Center area was modeled since it flows into both Long Lake and Browns Creek. Proper management of the Kerns Center area is crucial to the success of the Long Lake Flood Protection and Trout Stream Mitigation Plan. Our studies showed that there are essentially two options for managing the Kerns w JCenter water. O•tion 1 involves r-•' in. the water in the Kerns Center area back to its 5 , j�/'�`, c original watershed- cyh. O'tion 2 wo . C . ma ika.-in,._i.Tiii - storm water V' sys em to signs scantly retard the rate of runoff from the site. Stillwater is using this f method o water management for the Stillwater Industrial Park, as well as the Stillwa e��� 4 ►, Annexation Area. flpitaud"' i I pi , CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 612-439-6121 I1 � iiiffid , , �►a. wtbur 1 , -00 • • Mr. Tom Melena May 20, 1998 City of Oak Park Heights Page Two In the coming years the City of Stillwater will invest over$3 million in trout stream mitigation and flood control. In addition, developers within the annexation area will be held to strict design standards for storm water systems. These mitigation plans will reduce impacts caused by properties throughout the subwatershed. This means properties in developed areas of Stillwater, Oak Park Heights, Grant Township, and Lake Elmo who all contribute to flooding problems and impacts on the trout stream will gain benefit from the mitigation plan. The City of Stillwater requests that City of Oak Park Heights explore the two options above and work cooperatively with the City of Stillwater and the Browns Creek Watershed District to ensure that increased development, or changes in storm water management,will not cause adverse impacts downstream. I look forward to working with you or your technical personnel working on the proposed feasibility study. Sincerely, O Klayton H. Eckles,P.E. City Engineer KHE:dfw cc: Craig Leiser, Browns Creek WMO cc ; • 4110 BROWN'S CREEK • WATERSHED DISTRICT r@T. w ai\._ QI=C 1998 t Mailing Address/inimical Advisor: Meethtp: Board of Matta GU Washington Soil and Water Conservation District 6:30 p.m..2nd&4th Monday of the Craig Leiser.Presidad 1825 Curve Crest Boulevard.Suite 101 at Washington Soil and Water Consuv • [ g Viop.Presidmt Stillwater,MN 55082 District oftiive. Edward Gordon.Treasurer Jon Micheli,Seerdary Daniel Potter 1998 Annual Meeting Dec. 14, 1998 LOCATION : County Board Room 1. Call Meeting to Order 6:30 PM Washington Co. Government Cente 14900 61st Street, North 2. Approval of Minutes from Nov.23, 1998 Meeting(Michels) Stillwater, M N 3. Introduction of Board Members,Legal Counsel,Engineering Support,Recording Secretary,Facilitator 4. History of BCWD up to establishment on Oct.22, 1997(Leiser) 5. Objectives of the BCWD Board of Managers and the District for 1998(All) A. Alleviate flooding on personal and governmental property as and where identified in the district B. Protect all the environmental resources of the district,land,water,wildlife,and vegetative C. Maintain and enhance the trout habitat of Brown's Creek D. Provide a structure and control for reasonable development,particularly in the Stillwater Annexation area E. Develop and implement a next generation watershed management plan to interface with all agencies F. Identify and apply for applicable financial assistance from state and federal agencies 6. Significant Accomplishments from 1998 Activities A. Administrative development(Leiser) B. Citizen's Advisory Council(Potter) C. Rules development Milberg,Smith) D. Hydraulic and Hydrologic Study(Leiser,Emmons) E. Fisheries and habitat(Michels,DNR) F. Trout Habitat Protection Program, LCMR(Michels,DeMars) G. Budgetary development and assistance grants(Gordon) H. Washington County Water Governance Study(Leiser) I. City of Stillwater AUAR Annexation development(Leiser,Michels) J. DNR Flood Damage Relief project(Gordon) K. Water monitoring results(Doneux) 7. Specific Expectations for 1999(All) A. Adoption of the Rules and implementation by and through appropriate agencies B. Development of the 2"Generation Plan through circulating DRAFT for comment C. Completion of the Trout Habitat Protection Plan(Goggins/School Section Lake area) D. Completion of the Kismet Basin stabilization project(Approved by BWSR as CIP Amendment) E. Continue to improve inter-agency cooperative processes F. Implement the final recommendations of the Washington County Water Governance Study G.' Utilize the results of the H&H study to facilitate any and all development plans in the district 8. Questions from the Audience 9. Adjournment • • Approved Minutes of Meeting Brown's Creek Watershed District October 26, 1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Ned Gordon Dan Potter Jon Michels Karen Kilberg Others Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Cecilio Olivier, Tony DeMars, and Stuart Grubb of Emmons & Olivier Resources David Truax, Citizens Advisory Council Rocky and Collie Hoffman, citizens Molly Shodeen, MNDNR Jerry Tumquist, City Council Member— Oak Park Heights Paul Nelson, Montgomery Watson Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:37 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 2. Approval of Minutes of 10/12/98: A motion to approve the Minutes of the 10/12/98 meeting was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Treasurer's Report— Ned Gordon: • Review of payables. A motion that all items be paid as presented was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed unanimously. • Budget analysis distributed by Ned Gordon. Detailed discussion tabled until next meeting. 4. HMGP Grant- Craig Leiser: • The Hoffmans are planning to go ahead with the grant request. 5. Engineering Firm Selection Process — Craig Leiser: • RFP was sent out on October 14, 1998. • Screening process to review written proposals to be developed by the Board. • Presentations to be made at the November 23, 1988 meeting. • Proposals to be received by the Board no later than November 4, 1998. • Discussion of eight items listed. • • 6. /-i&H Study - Cecelio Olivier: • Report to be completed by next week. Ready for formal review at the next Board meeting. 7. LCMR Project Review - Tony DeMars: • Discussion of project overview. • Project recommendations presented. • A motion that the feasibility report be accepted and that both property owners involved be contacted by whatever means possible was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion passed unanimously. • Lewis Smith to draft a letter to the Luecks. • Jon Michels and Tony DeMars to contact Keith DeWolf to discuss report and any concerns he may have. • Emmons and Olivier to schedule meetings with all permitting agencies. • Public information meeting to be scheduled at Withrow School (if possible) in order to inform the public of options and take questions and comments. • Karen Kilberg to deliver copies of the report to Hugo and May townships. Emmons and Olivier to provide extra copies to Mark Doneux for distribution. • Kudos to Emmons and Olivier for an excellent report. 8. Rule Distribution Process — Lewis Smith: • Rules are ready to be distributed. • Buffer zone language to be changed. 9. Communications—Craig Leiser: • Proposed developments, three in Grant and one in Oak Park Heights, to be included in packet for next meeting. • BCWD will share the cost of sending Mark Doneux to MAWD in Alexandria. A motion to split the cost with SWCD in order for Mark Doneux to attend the MAWD meeting in Alexandria was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion passed unanimously. • Public hearing and annual meeting to be held on December 14. 30 day advance notice of annual meeting is necessary. A motion to schedule the meeting was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed unanimously. • A public hearing must be held on Rules. A motion to schedule a public hearing on the Rules for November 23, 1998 was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion passed unanimously. • • 10. New Business— Craig Leiser: • • Jon Michels to check into the cost of having signage prepared with the statement: "You are now entering the Brown's Creek Watershed District." 11. Adjournment- A motion to adjourn the regular meeting at 10:34 p.m. was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed unanimously. The regular meeting was adjourned to an executive session to discuss 12. Executive Session - Executive Session called to order at 11:05 p.m.; Discussion ensued on purchase of the Rice property. A motion to formulate an offer to purchase the Rice property for$193,750, less the cost to restore the property to predevelopment condition (which costs shall be determined), was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion was amended to state: such an offer shall be made by the Brown's Creek Watershed District Board for its concern for the health and safety of citizens in the watershed. The motion passed unanimously. Louis Smith is to draft a letter of proposal. The Executive committee meeting adjourned at 11:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted by: Kim eeves Recording Secretary • • Minutes of Meeting Approved Brown's Creek Watershed District November 9, 1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Ned Gordon Dan Potter Jon Michels Others Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Cecilio Olivier, Tony DeMars, Brett Emmons, Stuart Grubb, and Camilla Correll of Emmons & Olivier Resources John Gulliver Mark Doneux and Konrad Koosman, BWSR Jerry Turnquist, City Council Member— Oak Park Heights Anders Rasmussen, HDR Engineering Jyneen Thatcher, CAC Paul Nelson, Montgomery Watson Julie Westerlund, MNDNR Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 2. Approval of Minutes of 10/26/98: Tabled until information is provided to Kim Reeves by Jon Michels and Ned Gordon. 3. Treasurer's Report— Ned Gordon: • A motion to table the budget analysis was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion carried 3/0 in the absence of Dan Potter and Karen Kilberg. 4. H&H Study— Emmons and Olivier: • Presentation of final report. • Thermal report by Professor John Gulliver 5. Status Review of LCMR Project:—Tony DeMars: • Continuation of talks with DeWolfs. • A motion that authorization for Emmons & Olivier to proceed with work order# 6 was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Karen Kilberg). • Presentation of project to CAC. Tony DeMars to attend with Jon Michels standing in for Dan Potter • • 6. Selection of Finalists— Engineering RFP - Board Members: • Review of scoring for engineering RFPs. Three finalists are: Barr Engineering, Emmons & Olivier, and Montgomery Watson. • Presentations to be made at the November 23 meeting in the following order: #1 Montgomery Watson, #2 Emmons and Olivier, and #3 Barr Engineering. 7. Pending Developments - Mark Doneux: • Senior Life Community Center: • Bear Farm • Steeplechase 8. Watershed Plan Amendments— Craig Leiser • A motion to incorporate the BWSR plan amendments into the BCWD plan was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Karen Kilberg). 9. Rules Distribution Process— Louis Smith: • Cover letter and notice of hearing for meeting on November 23, 1998. • Statement of Needs and Reasonableness completed. Storm water management and Buffer Zones are the most comprehensive. Work order #5 relating to technical support on BCWD Rules development— held in abeyance for future meeting. A motion will wait for Karen Kilberg's attendance. 10. Adjournment: A motion to adjourn the regular meeting at 10:34 p.m. was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Karen Kilberg). Respectfully submitted by: Kim eeves Recording Secretary BROWN'S CREEK OWATERSHED DISTRICT Maillna Addresstechnical Advisor: Board of Managers C C)W'ashrngut Sail acid Water C0f1WINNSItIO Diana ('.30 p.m..2nd&4th Moods) urf'thc Month Craig Lo»er,Presidan 18:5 Curve Crest Suite 101 at W'aslrinp}cn Sail aril Water Censendlii Karel Kilhcrq Vi c-PMidatt Stilhwata.MN 5cMR2 1:traridAloe. EdwardG"rdon;lrcasurer Jal Michels.Seat.ary Dank l R*ticr -aaatttttttatow, at1rav I 1. can to order (u. 6:30 PM 2. Approval of Minutes, Oct. 26, 1998 Meeting(Michels) NOV 6 le 3. Revision and amendment to prior minutes, Oct. 12, 1998 Melo 4. Treasurer's Report (Gordon) 5. Review and Discussion of Budget Status(Gordon) 6. Receipt and Acceptance of'H & H Study(E &O) 7. Status Review of LCMR Project (E & 0) 8. Review, Comments and Selection of Finalists, Engineering RFP 9 Review of Pending Developments(Donna) 10. Report on Watershed Plan Amendments (Doneua, Moore) 11. Report on Washington County Water Governance(Leiser) 12. Report on Rules Distribution Process(Doneux, Smith) 13. Report on Community Interface Committee, Stillwater ALTAR(Leiser) 14. Communications 15. Old Business 16. New Business 17. Recess, Public Board Meeting 18. Convene, Executive Session 19. Adjournment BROWN'S CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT• Malting Add/vas/Technical advisor: Mret6)gs: Hoard of Managers (.()14"ashingtun Soil and 1A aux Cnrlkan+dwn Diana 1;:.10 p.m..2nd R 4th Monday'oftlw Nlunth Craig!.Claw,Proxidarrt 1 R2$Curve Crag Houlevard,Suite 111 at Washmgon Soil and W.tcr C ortsrr atiai Karen "ii -Praida+t Md1 atcr.k.IN ts0$2 OtYnx. EdwardC'wrdon, Crrasura Jon Midtrls.Sc'rotary panic!Yana Aaaaarar AGENDA mo© CEOWE October 26, 1998 D 1998 I. Call to Order f<< 6:30 PM ( 2 6 2. Approval of Minutes from October 12, 1998 meeting (Michels) -' 3. Treasurer's Report (Gordon) A. Accounts Payable B. Year-to-date Review of Financials 4. Engineering Firm Selection Process (All) A. Initial Screening B. Final Selection 5. H&H Study Presentation of Final Report ? (E & 0) 6. LCMR Project Status and Review (E & 0) 7. HMGP Status; Go or No-go? 8. Rule Distribution Process and Review of Comments 9 Communications 10. Old Business 11. New Business 12. Adjournment, Regular Meeting 13. Executive Session, (Managers and Legal ONLY) 14. Adjournment, Executive Session • • Minutes of Meeting Approved Brown's Creek Watershed District September 28,1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Ned Gordon Karen Kilberg Dan Potter Jon Michels Others Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Jason Moeckel and Molly Shodeen, MNDNR Jerry Turnquist, City Council Member— Oak Park Heights Cecilio Olivier, Brett Emmons, Tony DeMars, Camilla Correll, Jon Lennandre, and Stuart Grubb of Emmons & Olivier Resources Jyneen Thatcher, Angela Anderson, and David Truax, Citizens Advisory Council Dave Anderson, Montgomery Watson Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. The meeting was called to order at 6:35 p.m. by Karen Kilberg. 2. Approval of Minutes of 9/14/98: A motion to approve the Minutes of the 9/14/98 meeting, as amended, was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Craig Leiser). 3. Treasurer's Report— Ned Gordon: • A motion to approve the Treasurer's report as presented was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Craig Leiser). 4. Discussion of Plan Amendment— Louis Smith: • Presentation of memo re: Plan Amendment Revision. • A motion to accept the revisions as presented was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed 4/0 in the absence of Craig Leiser. • A vote on the actual revisions will be taken later in the meeting. 5. Review and Approval of the LCMR Contract — Louis Smith: • BWSR amenable to first three changes. • Fourth and fifth changes not acceptable. Discoveries to be provided to BWSR in a timely manner. • A motion that the LCMR contract be accepted with the first three changes as discussed was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Craig Leiser). ` • • 6. Review of LCMR Status - Stuart Grubb: • Three alternatives to lowering lake levels were presented to the Board. • Discussion of possible additional alternatives discussed. • Total cost estimate of infiltration project = $412,000. Final lake elevations and flow rate will be major factors in cost of project. • Present alternatives to the DeWolfs and the Luecks. • A motion that the revised version of the watershed plan amendment be accepted and prepared for submission to BWSR was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed 4/0 in the absence of Craig Leiser. 7. Review of H&H Study Matrix - Members of Emmons and Olivier: • Issues matrix and impact tables discussion led by Brett Emmons • Presentation and discussion of thermals. • Presentation and discussion of erosion factors. • Identification of wetlands. • Discussion of modeling • Recommendation of final steps for E&O from Board. Comments and questions to E&O in time for answers to be made at the next Board meeting. 8. HMPG Status Report — Ned Gordon: • Very long lead time —six month process. The Board will not pursue these funds for the Rice property. Funding is still available and may be a good program to pursue to mitigate the problems of other property owners. 9. FDR Project—Ned Gordon: • Both appraisals have been received. • A motion that Smith Parker and Ned Gordon begin negotiations with the Rices made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. Motion passed 4/0 (in the absence of Craig Leiser). 10. Rules— Louis Smith: • Discussion of changes. • A motion to incorporate the new language was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Ned Gordon. Motion passed 4/0 • A motion to accept language regarding buffers as presented was made by Dan Potter and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion did not pass. • A draft of the Rules is to be sent to municipalities, DNR, and BWSR with a 45 day deadline for comments. A public hearing to be scheduled for October 26, 1998. • • Items 11 — 15 to be tabled until the next meeting. • Response to plea from the Long Lake homeowners association to be drafted for Craig Leiser. 11. Adjournment- A motion to adjourn at 11:35 p.m. was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion carried 4/0 (in the absence of Craig Leiser). Respectfully submitted by: t Iti- 6 2ttttQ Kim eeves Recording Secretary • . . Brown's Creek Watershed District Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting minutes DRAFT Date: 10/15/98 Time: 6:30pm Location: SWCD office Committee members present: Angela Anderson, Pam Bjorum, Jyneen Thatcher Board members present: none Other individuals present: none Due to a conflict in room scheduling,the meeting was held in the SWCD office, rather than in the conference room. Unfortunately, some of the committee members did not find the meeting. The committee members present listed the properties known to have experienced some damage from the high water. This list will be provided to the BC managers, and added to as other sites are identified. The committee began review of the Brown's Creek Watershed Management Plan, starting with Section III: Existing and potential problems. Rather than re-writing details,the group took a broader view, noting that sub-sections A and B (Flooding and Erosion) still exist, but need revision to include the new sites identified, and to exclude those that are no longer an issue. Under Subsection C (Surface water quality),the group felt that instead of the general explanation of threats to water quality, more detail be provided on the specifics in the watershed. This should include both a baseline of the current levels and target levels. The overview should explain how these problems fit into or threaten the watershed. Much of this information can probably be taken from either the H&H study or the Draft Rules. Thermal impacts should be added. Sub-section D(recreation and fish& wildlife habitat)needs to be revised, following the current level of information on the trout habitat. But this section should also address other wildlife and recreation concerns including the upstream fishery areas (such as School Section Lake ice fishing pressure) and County Biological Survey sites along the Creek corridor. On a detail level: the correct name of the trail is "Gateway Segment of the WIllard Munger State Trail." The section on Groundwater needs updating, again possibly from the H&H study. Another detail: "irrigation" does not seem to be a growing demand. On Section IV: Goals, Objectives and Policies, we expect there will be a correlation between these and the Rules. This section will need to be revisited after we've seen the Draft Rules written by the Board. However, a few direct comments were made. In A.Water Ouantity. the goal and objectives need to be reworded. and possibly reconsidered • • for priority. Suggested was a switch from emphasis on "capital expenditures" to emphasis on resource protection. Objective 1 and several of the policies seem to emphasize or rely on a piped outlet as a solution for water quantity issues. This is contrary to the actions taken so far by the Board. Other policies refer to specific engineering standards, and should be revised along the lines of the Rules. Policies l a and lb refer to levels of importance. Greater definition is needed. One suggestion for prioritization of waters of importance is mainstem and immediate subwatershed as district importance, and outlying basins as local importance. Those present did encourage District involvement in all waters of the watershed, not relying on local units of government. The policies dealing with wetlands should be revised to conform with the Wetland Conservation Act at a minimum, and further restrictions included in the Rules. In Section B Water Quality,the term "water quality" should be defined by explaining the current and target level of"quality." The objectives and policies for wetlands should be revised to conform to WCA and MPCA standards. Objectives and policies for wastewater treatment need to be updated, and mention of"urban" runoff concerns needs to be added. Objectives pertaining to thermal impacts and buffers need to be added, following the Rules. Meeting was adjourned at 8:30. At our next meeting, we will continue in this manner unless the Board re-directs the Committee. Items to be brought to the Board: 1. Please review the above comments on the Watershed Plan, and make any suggestions or requests on our approach toward the 2nd Generation Plan. Next meeting date,time and place: Thurs November 12, 6:30; SWCD office building (probably the usual conference room) Submitted by: Jyneen Thatcher • TO: Brown's Creek Watershed District Board FROM: Citizens Advisory Committee DATE: October 26, 1998 RE: List of properties affected by the high water levels This list is intended to inform the Board of properties in the Watershed District that have been affected by the high water levels. It is not an all-inclusive list, nor is it a request for assistance for these property owners. But these are felt to be significant locations that might be pertinent in future studies of the District. As sites are brought to our attention, we will add them to the list, and update you periodically. Keller/Keystone Road turn-around at Goggins Lake - road under water decreasing the area for safe vehicle turning Green residence driveway, 12799 Keller Ave Pierre residence driveway, 12863 Keller Ave Driveway at 13195 Manning Trail N Kuehn farm 10820 N 140th St- access to ag fields Farragher residence driveway, Keystone at turnaround Shimota residence driveway - 9824 N 140th St Cammack field road - 9052 N 140th St City of Grant- park land west side'of Bass Lake Francois residence 12020 July Ave, septic system # BROWN'S CREEK • WATERSHED DISTRICT { Malkin Address/Technical Advisor. Meetings: Board of Mnnagera C C)Washinaina Soil and Witty Conservation l)tstria C•30 p.m..2nd d 4th Mcedav of the%Iorr.. Craig l.nsa.1'rcstdan 1 br.S L ur a Crest Lwulcv:rrd.butte 1l 1 at Washington Suil and Rater Caoxrv:a:.irt Karn Kilbarg.Viur-Prsstde nt Stilhrarix.MN c'flf{: !)ii rid rata. Edward(iordnn.'I rcasurcr Jun Michels.Saxdary Daniei Wein. IEOWEI DAGENDA OCT. 12. 1998 C IB j Cali to order ci b 30 PM OCT - 9 I Approval of Minutes from Sept. 28. 1998 Meeting(Michels) 3 Treasurer's Report (Gordon) 4. FDR Status Report.Buyout Proposal (Gordon.Smith) 5. LCMR Contract with BWSR Plan Revisions.(Smith) 6. Rina Devsloolstent. Re-coder"Buffer"Rule with Conditions Milberg..Smith) 7. LCMR Project Review(E & 0, DeMars,Grubb) A. Technical Evaluation Report, Water Disposal Capacity B. Budgetary Considerations C. Impacted Citizen Considerations 8. HMGP Status Review(Doneuz)(Hoffman property) 9. H& H Study, Finalization of Expected Format Presentation and Results(E& 0) 10. Discussion of Draft RFP for Engineering Services(Michels, Doneui,Smith) 11. Scheduling of AUAR/BCWD/DNR/SWCD Meetings(Westerlund) 12 Status Report on Washington County Water Governance Project (Leiser) 13 Communications(Doneuz,All) A Lona Lake Property Owners Association B C. Leiser Response to City of Stillwater regarding ALTAR Review 14 Old Business 15 New Business 16 Adjournment NOTE: All items in "Bold" and "Underli.! ed" are time and event sensitive. We must make every effort to resolve on the meeting night as indicated. • Minutes of Meeting Approved Brown's Creek Watershed District September 14,1998 In Attendance: BCWD Board of Managers Craig Leiser Ned Gordon Karen Kilberg Dan Potter Jon Michels Others Louis Smith of Smith Parker, BCWD Legal Counsel Mark Doneux, SWCD Jason Moeckel, Molly Shodeen, and Julie Westerlund of MNDNR Jerry Tumquist, City Council Member—Oak Park Heights Cecilio Olivier, Brett Emmons, Tony DeMars, Camilla Correll and Stuart Grubb of Emmons & Olivier Resources Jyneen Thatcher, Citizens Advisory Council Diane Desotelle, Peterson Environmental Paul Nelson, Montgomery Watson Citizens: Donald and Pauline Rice, Rocky and Collie Hoffman Kim Reeves, Recording Secretary 1. The workshop meeting was called to order at 6:43 p.m. by Craig Leiser. 2. Approval of Minutes of 8/24/98: A motion to approve the Minutes of the 8/24/98 meeting, as amended, was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Public Hearing on 1999 BCWD Budget—Ned Gordon: • Presentation of budget made by Ned Gordon. • No questions from citizens attending meeting. • A motion to approve the 1999 budget and certify for 1999 tax levy (attached)was made by Ned Gordon and seconded by Jon Michels. The motion passed unanimously. 4. Presentation of H& H Study— Emmons and Olivier Resources: • Overview of data gathering process, Diane Desotelle. • Land use map, BCWD soil map, topography and GIS mapping; flow monitoring; land locked areas; groundwater input; sub-watersheds; to become the Thermal Model and the H&H Model. • • t • Cecelio Olivier discussed existing conditions (1997 and 1998) and five different scenarios. • Tony DeMars and Brett Emmons presented potential impacts (Issues Matrix), as well as, specific issues and questions for the Board: Issues Matrix provided to the Board for review. 5. FDR Grant Discussion—Mark Doneux • Memorandum from Smith Parker re: FDR grant—concern that language for reimbursement tied to completion of two specific projects. The board should respond to the intent. • Agreement that was presented at the last Board meeting is acceptable. A motion to approve execution of the DNR Flood Damage Relief Grant was made by Jon Michels and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion passed unanimously. Copy for execution presented for signature to Craig Leiser by Mark Doneux. • Two proposals to do appraisals have been received: Robey and Remington. A motion that the Robey billing for appraisal be paid was seconded b Jon Michels. Motion passed 4/0 Gordonand made byNed Y (with Craig Leiser abstaining). • A motion to proceed with an appraisal from Remington was made by Ned Gordon, and seconded by Dan Potter. The motion passed unanimously. Remington to complete the appraisal within the next fourteen days. 6. LCMR Status Report -Tony DeMars: • Soil borings completed. • Ground water and surface water modeling to be done. • Analyzing data captured. Preliminary design to be completed by October 1, 1998. Tony DeMars to make another attempt to gain access to the Lueck property. 7. Status Report on the TAC and Rules Committee - Karen Kilberg/Mark Doneux. • Meeting tomorrow night (September 15, 1998)to finalize the Rules. • Final draft for agency review to be presented as quickly as possible. A final draft will be brought forward to the BCWD Board at the next scheduled meeting. • A motion to accept the amendment to Work Order#4 was made by Karen Kilberg, and seconded by Jon Michels. Motion passed unanimously M • • 8. Selection of Engineer— Craig Leiser: • An RFP will be presented at the next scheduled meeting. 9. Adjournment-A motion to adjourn at 10:53 p.m. was made by Karen Kilberg and seconded by Ned Gordon. The motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted by: Kim Reeves Recording Secretary