HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Information Memorandum 05-31-2012CITY OF PLYMOUTH
COUNCIL INFO MEMO
May 31, 2012
EVENTS/MEETINGS
May—September 2012 Official City Meeting Calendars..................................................................... Page 2
Public Meeting Notice - Hollydale 115 KV Transmission Line Project .............................................. Page 5
Notice of Certificate of Need for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line Project ........................... Page 8
Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ................................................... Page 15
CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Metro Cities, RE: 2012 Legislative Policy Committee .................................................. Page 17
Metro Transit May Expand Bus Service in Minnetonka, Star Tribune .............................................. Page 20
Metropolitan Council Population and Household Estimates............................................................. Page 21
Report from Minnesota Pollution Control on South Metro Cities TMDL......................................... Page 23
Clean Water Summit 2012, Thurs., Sept. 13...................................................................................... Page 45
Article from Finance Commerce Re: Hollydale Transmission Line ................................................. Page 47
MINUTES
Approved HRA Minutes 04/26/12.................................................................................................... Page 49
Page 1
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
May 2012
Modified on 05124112
Page 2
1 5:00 PM
2 7:00 PM
3 7:00 PM
4
5
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLANNING
HUMAN RIGHTS
MEETING
COMMISSION
COMMITTEE
Development Tour
MEETING
MEETING
With Planning
Council Chambers
Medicine Lake Room
Commission
Meet at City Hall
6
7
8 7:00 PM
9 7:00 PM
10 7:00 PM
11
12
8:00 AM -1:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK l3 REC
Plymouth
MEETING
QUALITY
ADVISORY
Fire Department
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
Annual Waffle
(EQC) MEETING
(PRAC) MEETING
Breakfast
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
Fire Station 3
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
7:00 PM
PLANNING
7:30 AM -2:00 PA
COMMISSION
SPECIAL
MEETING
DROP OFF DAY
Council Chambers
Plymouth
Maintenance Facility
20
21
22
2 3 7:00 PM
24 7:00 PM
25
26
5:30 PM
PLYMOUTH
HRA MEETING
SPECIAL COUNCIL
ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room
MEETING*
COMMITTEE ON
Medicine Lake Room
TRANSIT (PACT)
7:00 PM
MEETING
REGULAR COUNCIL
Medicine Lake Room
MEETING
Council Chambers
27
28
29
30
31
MEMORIAL
DAY
Observed
CITY
OFFICES
CLOSED
* Discuss 2011 General Funo
Surplus Allocation 8
Discu s1s
Loss Control Program
Modified on 05124112
Page 2
City of
Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
June 2012
Modified on 05124/12
Council Chambers
Page 3
1
2
6:00 PM
PLYMOUTH
3
4
5
ADVISORY
6
7
8
9
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
STUDY SESSION
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
10
11
12CANCELLED
13
14
15
16
7:00 PM
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
ENVIRONMENTAL
PARK It REC
MEETING
QUALITY
ADVISORY
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE
COMMISSION
(EQC) MEETING
(PRAC) MEETING
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
7:00 PM
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
24
2 5
26 5:30 PM
2 7CANCELLED
28
29
30 8:00 AM
SPECIAL COUNCIL
PLYMOUTH
7:00 PM
MUSIC IN
MEETING
ADVISORY
HRA MEETING
PLYMOUTH
Receive Transit Report
from Plymouth Advi-
COMMITTEE ON
Medicine Lake Room
5K FUN RUN
sory Committee on
TRANSIT (PACT)
Hilde Performance
Transit (PACT)
STUDY SESSION
Center
Medicine Lake Room
Medicine Lake Room
7:00 PM
REGULAR COUNCIL
MEETING
Modified on 05124/12
Council Chambers
Page 3
r,�Plymouth
Adding Quality to Life
July 2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
5:00 PM
MUSIC IN
INDEPENDENCE
PLYMOUTH
DAY
Hilde Performance
Center
CITY OFFICES
CLOSED
CANCELLED
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
8
9
10 7:00 PM
11
12
13
14
REGULAR
7:00 PM
COUNCIL MEETING
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY COMMITTEE
Council Chambers
(EQC) MEETING
Council Chambers
15
16
17
18 7:00 PM
19
20
21
PLANNING
COMMISSION
MEETING
Council Chambers
22
23
24 7:00 PM
25 7:00 PM
26 7:00 PM
27
28
REGULAR
PLYMOUTH
HRA MEETING
COUNCIL MEETING
ADVISORY
Medicine Lake Room
Council Chambers
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSIT (PACT)
STUDY SESSION
Medicine Lake Room
29
30
31
Modified on 05124/12
Page 4
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Issued: May 24, 2012
NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS
In the Matter of the Route Permit Application for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Line
Project in the Cities of Plymouth and Medina, Hennepin County
PUC Docket No. E002/TL-11-152
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that public information meetings will be held on behalf of the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (Commission) on the route permit application of Xcel
Energy and Great River Energy, for the proposed Hollydale 115 kilovolt (kV) transmission line
project. The purpose of the meetings is to provide information about the project and an
opportunity for public comment on the scope of the environmental impact statement (EIS) that
will be prepared by Department of Commerce Energy Facility Permitting (EFP) staff. The
meetings will be held at the times and location listed below. The meetings may conclude earlier
if all attendees have had the opportunity to comment and all other business has been concluded.
PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETINGS
Thursday, June 7, 2012 - 6 to 9 p.m.
Friday, June 8, 2012 - 1 to 4 p.m.
Wayzata High School
4955 Peony Lane North
Plymouth, Minnesota
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Eric L. Lipman will preside at the meetings. Any person who
would like to comment on the project or the scope of the EIS may do so at the meetings or in
writing to Judge Lipman. A comment period following the meetings will remain open until 4:30
p.m., Friday, June 22, 2012, for the receipt of written comments. Comments should be
submitted directly to Judge Lipman at:
The Honorable Eric L. Lipman
Office of Administrative Hearings
P.O. Box 64620, 600 North Robert Street
St. Paul, Minnesota, 55164-0620
Fax: 651-361-7936
Eric.Lipman@state.mn.us
This document can be made available in alternative formats (i.e., large print or audio) by calling 651-296-0391
(voice). Persons with hearing or speech disabilities may call us through Minnesota Relay at 1-800-627-3529 or by
dialing 711.
Page 5
The meetings will include a brief presentation of the state's permitting process, the proposed
project, and how the public can participate in the permitting process. Members of the public will
have an opportunity to ask questions and submit comments on the scope of the EIS that will be
prepared by EFP staff. Because of the widespread interest in this matter and the number of
persons who wish to offer testimony during the public meetings, those persons who have detailed
comments are strongly encouraged to submit written comments into the record. Submission of
detailed written comments permits many more persons to be recognized during the public
meetings and to be granted the opportunity to provide some oral testimony.
Project Description. Xcel Energy and Great River Energy (GRE) propose removing
approximately eight miles of an existing GRE -owned 69 kV overhead transmission line and
constructing a new 115 kV overhead transmission line in its place, constructing an additional
eight -tenths of a mile of new 115 kV overhead transmission line, constructing a new substation,
and modifying associated transmission facilities in the cities of Medina and Plymouth. Because
of its voltage and length, the project requires a route permit from the Commission.
Permitting Process. Xcel Energy and GRE (applicants) filed a route permit application with the
Commission on June 30, 2011. The Commission accepted the application and authorized review
under the alternative permitting process.
The environmental document created under the alternative permitting process is an
enviromnental assessment (EA). EFP staff held a public information and scoping meeting on
October 26, 2011, to gather public input on the proposed project and the scope of the EA, i.e.,
those issues and route alternatives which citizens and communities deem important to study in
the EA. The Department of Commerce issued a scoping decision for the EA on December 7,
2011. Since this date, EFP staff have been drafting and developing the EA.
On February 7, 2012, the applicants requested that the Commission convert the permitting
process for the project from the alternative process to the fall process. On May 4, 2012, the
Commission granted this request, and authorized review under the full permitting process,
pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 216E (Power Plant Siting Act) and Minnesota Rules
7850.1700 to 7850.2700. As a result, the environmental review document for the project will
now be an EIS.
The Department of Commerce has prepared a draft scoping document based on the EA scoping
decision of December 7, 2011, and concerns raised by citizens to date. This document can be
found on the websites listed below. All issues and route alternatives included in the December
2011 Hollydale EA Scoping Decision are included in the draft scoping document and will be
evaluated in the EIS. This public information meeting provides an opportunity for the public to
comment on the scope of the EIS prior to Department of Commerce issuance of the EIS scoping
decision.
Schedule. EFP staff anticipates that the EIS scoping decision will be issued in July, 2012, and
that the draft EIS for the project will be released in late summer 2012. A public meeting and
comment period on the draft EIS will be held after its release.
Page 6
Upon issuance of the draft EIS, an ALJ will preside over a contested case process which includes
both public hearings and an evidentiary hearing. Anyone may speak at the public hearing,
present evidence, ask questions of the applicants and EFP staff, and submit comments on the
proposed project. At the end of the process, the ALJ will recommend a route for permitting by
the Commission. The Commission will make a final decision on a route permit.
Eminent Domain. If issued a route permit by the Commission, the applicants may exercise the
power of eminent domain to acquire land for this project pursuant to Minnesota Statutes
216E.12,
Project Mailing List. Persons should contact the state permit manager or public advisor (noted
below) or register online at: httl2://nm.gov/commercc/energyfacilities/#meing to get their name
on the project mailing list. Persons on the mailing list will receive notices of meetings and
notices of document availability for this project. Project mailing list registration is voluntary and
may be done at any time.
Project Documents. Information about this project, including a draft scoping document and the
Commission's order granting the conversion to the full permitting process, is available on the
Department's energy facility permitting website:
h ://mn. ov/commerce/ener acilities/Docket.htmI?ld=32121. Documents are also available
on the cDockets system: https://www.edockets.state.mn.us/EFiling/search.isi2 (enter the year
"11" and the number "152").
Project Contacts. For more information on the project, please contact:
Scott Ek, State Permit Manager Raymond Kirsch, Public Advisor
Minnesota Department of Commerce Minnesota Department of Commerce
85 7th Place East, Suite 500 85 7th Place East, Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101.2198 St. Paul, MN 55101-2198
651-296-8813 651-296-7588
scott.ek@state.mn.us raymond.kirsch@state.mn.us
Page 7
�& Xce/Energy�
May 29, 2012
i RECEIV k
LBMAY 31 2012
Y:
TO: IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF NORTHERN STATES POWER
COMPANY, A MINNESOTA CORPORATION, AND GREAT RIVER ENERGY, A
NOT-FOR-PROFIT COOPERATIVE FOR A CERTIFICATE OF NEED FOR THE
HOLLYDALE 115 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT IN THE CITIES OF
PLYMOUTH AND MEDINA, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
Dear Local Official:
My name is Paul Lehman. I manage regulatory projects for Xcel Energy. I am
writing on behalf of Northern States Power Company, a Minnesota corporation
("Xcel Energy") and Great River Energy, a not-for-profit cooperative ("GRE") to
inform you of our proposal to rebuild approximately 8 miles of existing 69 kilovolt
("kV") transmission line to 115 kV capacity along existing right-of-way, construct
approximately 0.8 miles of new 115 kV transmission line, construct a new 115 kV
substation (Pomerleau Lake Substation), and modify associated transmission facilities
located in the cities of Medina and Plymouth, Hennepin County, Minnesota
("Hollydale Project" or "Project"). I also explain the regulatory process that the
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission ("the Commission") will follow in
determining whether the Hollydale Project is needed and the various opportunities
you will have to participate in the regulatory process.
Proposed Transmission Line Upgrade and NewFornerleau Lame Substation
We continuously repair, upgrade, and add facilities to our system in communities
throughout the state to maintain reliable service to their customers. The Hollydale
Project is needed to address feeder circuit overloads in the Plymouth area distribution
delivery system and to provide additional capacity for future growth. To meet area
electricity needs, we propose the following upgrades:
• Xcel Energy will rebuild approximately 8 miles of existing GRE 69 kV
transmission line BD to a 115 kV transmission line. The proposed
transmission line runs from the existing GRE Medina Substation to the existing
Xcel Energy Hollydale Substation, to the intersection with existing GRE 115
Page 8
kV transmission line \X_H-PB located north of Fernbrook Lane turnaround and
north of the Canadian Pacific Railway;
• Xcel Energy will construct a new 0.8 mile 115 kV transmission line on nese
right-of-way from the above described existing GRE line intersection location,
which completes the connection of the rebuild line to the proposed new
Pomerleau Lake Substation;
• Xcel Energy will construct the proposed new Pomerleau Lake Substation;
• ,cel Energy wGil7 construct new transmission line terminations within the
proposed new Pomerleau Lake Substation for an in -out for existing GRE 115
kV transmission line %X"H-PP to connect this line with the Pomerleau Lake
Substation;
•
Xcel Energy will modify the existing Hollydale Substation to accommodate the
proposed 115 kV transmission line rebuild; and
• GRE will modify the existing Medina Substation to accommodate the
proposed 115 kV transmission line rebuild.
Two locations in Plymouth are proposed for the new Pomerleau Lake Substation,
Substation Site A and Substation Site B. Substation Site A is located just southwest of
the intersection of Schmidt Lake Road and Interstate Highway 494 ("I-494") and
Substation Site B is located approximately one quarter mile west of the intersection of
Fernbrook Lane and the Canadian Pacific Railwav tracks. While either Substation Site
A or Substation Site B could be used for the proposed new Pomerleau Lake
Substation, Substation Site A is our preferred location for the new 115 kV substation
because of its proximity to existing utility and road right-of-way, the existing GRE
115 kV transmission line, future Xcel Energy transmission lines that would connect to
the new substation, and 1-494. The attached map illustrates the proposed Project.
The proposed structures for the Project are single pole, galvanized steel or weathering
steel poles. The height of the new single circuit poles will. range from 70 to 90 feet,
while the double circuit poles will range from 75 to 105 feet. %Ve propose to use
direct embedded galvanized steel or weathering steel poles with davit arms, braced
post, horizontal post, or cross arm Y -frames for the tangent structures if soil
conditions warrant. Rock -filled culvert or concrete drilled pier foundations may be
required in areas with poor soils. The average span will be about 300 to 500 feet, with
a maximum span of appro., 1,200 feet to keep the conductor within existing
right-of-way or to span wetland areas, where applicable.
Page 9
Need would be required. A map of all the route alternatives under consideration in
the route proceeding is attached.
Given the time necessary to complete the Certificate of Need process and the
anticipated in-service date of mid -2013, we intend to file a Certificate of Need
application for review while the Route Permit proceeding is underway. This
concurrent review will enable the efficient and timely Commission consideration of
the Certificate of Need application in the event it becomes likely that a route longer
than 10 miles long will be approved.
The Certificate of Need process emphasizes public participation. As part of the
Certificate of Need process, the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Energy
Facility Permitting ("EFP") staff will solicit public comment and prepare an
Environmental Report. There will be public meetings and hearings in your area
during the coming months so that you can participate in this important energy
infrastructure decision. Notice of these meetings and hearings will be published in
local newspapers and will also be available at the Commission's website.
The Certificate of Need Application, the notices and other related materials will also
be available at the Xcel Energy website (mayw.Ycelenergv.com click on Nlinnesota-
Company-Transmission-Transmission Pro)ects-Hoflydale Project). You can also add
your name to the official state agency mailing lists to receive information. The
mailing address and related information to do so is provided at the end of this letter.
The Certificate of Need process is governed by Minnesota Statutes § 216B.243, and
Minnesota Rules Chapters 4410, 7829, and 7849. The Route Permit process is
governed by Minnesota Statutes § 216E and 1rlinnesota Rules Chapter 7850. You can
review these regulations at ww-v.revisor.leg.state.mn.us. The Commission will
reference the Certificate of Need proceeding for our proposal as Docket No.
E002/CN-12-113, In the Matter of the Application of Northern States Power Company, a
Minnesota Corporation, and Great River Energy, a not forprofit cooperative for a Certificate of
Need for the Hollydale 115 kV Transmission Lzne Project in the Cities of Plymouth and .Medina,
Hennepin County, 1111innesota.
Biennial Transmission Planning
lNLinnesota statutes include a requirement that each electric transmission owning utility
in the state file a biennial transmission planning report with the Commission in the
fall of odd years. These reports provide an excellent source of background
information on the transmission planning process used by utilities in Minnesota. The
2011 Biennial Transmission Planning Report is available at: ,v�-w-,,v.minnelectrans.com.
C!
Page 10
In locations with existing right-of-way or other considerations, the Project may be
designed to fit within existing right-of-way (centered on the centerline of the
structure). The existing easements along the proposed route range from 70 to 100
feet wide. Xcel Energy typically requires a right-of-way of 75 feet wide (37'6" from
the centerline of the structure) for new 115 kV transmission line construction. If new
right-of-way is required, we will work with landowners to purchase property rights,
known as an easement. If easement terms cannot be reached, we can then submit the
dispute to the eminent domain process. Please note that the Certificate of Need
process and the Routing process are separate. In other words, decisions about the
need for the upgrade will be determined during the Certificate of Need process.
Decisions about the location of the transmission line will be made during the Route
Permit process. Although we plan to upgrade the existing transmission line along
existing right -of- way, the Commission roust ultimately determine if the existing right-
of-way or a new line location is in the public interest.
This letter is intended to provide you with notice of our plans so that you can discuss
this important energy project with your constituents and so you can participate in
public meetings and hearings that will be taking place as the Certificate of Need
proceeding moves along. We have also sent notice to all potentially affected parties
within the shaded area on the enclosed notice map. We hope you will consider taking
time to participate in the regulatory process that will ultimately determine if the
Project is needed.
Certificate ofNeed Process
On June 30, 2011, we filed an Application with the Commission for a Route Permit to
construct the Hollydale Project. In a route proceeding, the Commission determines
where a project should be built. The Route Permit application can be viewed at the
Commission's website at wv,.yvv.puc.state.mn.us in Docket No. E002/TL-11-152.
T innesota Statute § 216B.243, subd. 2 provides that "no large energy facility" shall be
sited or constructed in Minnesota without the issuance of a Certificate of Need by the
Commission. The definition of a "large energy facility" that is applicable here is "a
high-voltage transmission line with a capacity of 100 kV or more with more than 10
miles of its length in Minnesota." Minn. Stat. § 21613.2421, subd. 2(3). As neither our
proposed route for the Project nor the four alternate route segments analyzed in the
Route Permit Application is greater than 10 miles in length, we did not file a
Certificate of Need Application concurrently with the Route Permit Application.
On December 27, 2011, the Department of Commerce issued the Scoping Decision
for the Hollydale Project which included 13 route alternatives to be evaluated in the
Environmental Assessment. Several of these route alternatives are greater than 10
miles in length. If one of these routes were selected for the Project, a Certificate of
3
Page 11
Contact Information
Please feel free to contact any of the individuals below for more information.
Certificate of Need Process
Mike Kaluzniak
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission
121 7th Place E., Suite 350
St. Paul, MN 55101-2198
651-201-2257
-t\Iike.Kaluzniak@statc.n-tn.us
Xcel Energy Contact
Paul J Lehman
414 Nicollet Mall
Minneapolis, ININ 55401
612-330-7529
Paul.Lehman@xcelenera-.com
Routing & Environmental Review
Scott Ek
Minnesota Department of Commerce
Energy Facility Permitting
85 7th Place E., Suite 500
St. Paul, MN 55101-2198
651-296-8813
Scott.EkQstate.mn.us
Great River Energy Contact
Marsha Parlow
12300 Elm Creek Blvd
Maple Grove, IIN 55369
763-445-5215
mparlowRc .gien ra.com
If your constituents have questions, we would be happy to meet with you and other
local officials to discuss our proposal.
Sincerely,
/sl .Paul J Lehman
Paul J Lehman
Manager of Compliance and Filings
for Northern States Power Company
Enclosure
4442749x3
Page 12
Page 13
§
\
4
§
§
(
d
]
\
Q
2
0 LL
) §
Tentative Schedule for
City Council Agenda Items
June 26, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Receive Transit Report from Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit (PACT)
• Basketball structures in the right-of-way
June 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce 5k Run on June 30 and Music in Plymouth on July 3
• Public Improvement and Assessment Hearing for Plymouth Boulevard Mill and Overlay Project
(12006)
• Receive and accept the 2011 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
• Debt Study
July 10, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Appoint election judges for State Primary Election
• Announce "Night to Unite" on August 7
• Recognition of donation and support for the Parks and Recreation from Home Depot in
Plymouth, Heritage Woods Estates Homeowners Association and the Wayzata Youth Hockey
Association
• Public Improvement and Assessment Hearing for Kingsview Heights Edge Mill and Overlay
Project (12002)
• Accept and Recognize Donations and Support for the Parks and Recreation Department from
Home Depot, Heritage Woods Estates Homeowners Association, and the Wayzata Youth
Hockey Association
July 24, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Project and Assessment Hearing for the Revere Lane/6th Avenue/Kilmer Lane Mill and Overlay
Project (12005)
August 14, Regular, 8:00 p.m., Council Chambers
August 21, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room
• Budget
August 28, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
September 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Approve 2013 proposed budgets, preliminary tax levies and budget hearing date
September 25, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce Plymouth on Parade on September 29
October 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Appoint additional election judges for the General Election
October 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
Page 15
• Announce Halloween on the Creek on October 31 at Plymouth Creek Center
November 13, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Canvass 2012 General Election results
November 27, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Announce Old Fashioned Christmas on December 2
December 111, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers
• Recognize Police Citizen Academy Graduates
• Announce New Year's Eve Event at the Plymouth Ice Center
Page 16
METRO CITIES
Association of Metropolitan MunicipaR w� , VE
MAY 2 b 2Q1Z
May 25, 2012,q ,
Dear Metro Cities Member Mayors, Councilmembers and City Managers/Administrators:
Metro Cities is approaching the time of year when we begin preparing for our 2012 Policy
Committees. If you have participated in a policy committee previously, you will receive a
meeting schedule/form and solicitation for topics and speakers. If you have participated in the
past, we hope you will continue to participate this year.
If you have not previously served on a committee, or if it has been a while, please consider
serving on a Metro Cities policy committee this year. Descriptions of the committees with the
schedule and sign up forms are enclosed or you can see them online at www.MetroCitiesMN.org
City elected officials and staff are eligible to participate. The committee process is an important
opportunity for your city to have a voice in the development of legislative policies and priorities
that guide Metro Cities' work at the Legislature and Metropolitan Council. This is also a good
chance to meet city officials and staff from throughout the metro area, and to work together on
issues of interest to metro communities.
Each policy committee holds three meetings over the summer, and considers new policies as
well as modifications to existing policies. Committees usually host at least one speaker. Once the
committee process is complete, recommended policies are forwarded to the Metro Cities Board
of Directors for review and action, and then to our full membership for final approval.
We hope you will consider serving this year. If you are not able to join us this time, we would
still like to hear from you on any topics or issues you would like to see considered. If you have a
policy idea, please send information to Laurie Jennings at laurie rr metrocitiesmn.or . She'lI
forward this information to appropriate staff for consideration by the committees. We welcome
your ideas and suggestions.
Also, please share the word with others in your city. Our committees include a wide variety of
city staff (city administrators, public works staff, community development staff, finance
directors, and others) as well as elected officials.
We hope to see you this summer! Please contact Laurie Jennings at 651-215-4000 or
laurie@metrocitiesmn.org with any questions.
Sincerely,
/ je/fes
Doug Anderson
President, Metro Cities
Mayor, City of Dayton
145 University Ave W 0 St. Paul, MN 55103-2044 • Phone (651) 215-4000 0 Fax (651) 281-1.299 0 www.Me$Q 1t e� .org
Metro Cities 2012 Legislative Policy Committees
Metro Cities,policy corrimittees annually develop policy recommendations based on input from member city
represel tatives. Committees submit policy recommendations to the Board of Directors for review, modification
and distribution to the general membership. The membership meets in November, prior to the legislative
session, to debate and adopt Metro Cities' policies.
•Y,.x�:��:sir:��;,i<=�i=���=�l��nx^����k.k�=�x>,:re>k�xx���*k�x�r=*�x*>.:xx�Txk�;cr.-X�:a:kx3,aY�::��:��kexx�k�Yk��x:k;�:�:��x
Transportation & General Government
This comi-riatee considers all issues related to transportation and transit in the metropolitan area, including: funding
sources: The committee has.developed policies on.the metro -wide sales tax; photoenforcement of traffic lams,
street improvement districts, rental housing ordinances, and. administrative fines:
Municipal Revenues
This committee considers any matter.relating to city revenues, property taxes and city expenditures, including state
aids and credits, levy limits, property tax relief programs, assessments, fiscal disparities and the state and local fiscal
K.
relationship:
15r � ��,�
3r
'Tuesday
Tuesday.
Tuesday
July 24, 2012
St. Croix Room
August 21, 2012
St. Croix Room`
September 1$;:2012 .
- St. Croix Room
11:00 am — 1:30 m
11:00 am — 1:30 pm
11:00 am. -- 1:30pm
4 Metropolitan Agencies
I. III .cQinrtelUce conslderS issues t'elat d to Li 1l cvilklfctiQlsQiiiai7 L 4EinC11 and Irtanitar5 Lite. Structure a,ru iciauvrFahlp
between local and regional units of government. The committee has developed policies regarding land use planning;
inflow and infiltration, water supply, the sewer availability charge (SAC), .the Met Council's. selection process,
livable communities, and density.
151
Housino, &Economic Development
This committee considers all issues related to econolni.c development, redevelopment, and housing. It has developed
policies around government's roles in affordable housing, foreclosures. and neighborhood stabilization, Met
Council's housing goals, and tax increment financing.
2 iid
3r
��ednesday
Wednesday.
,
�'4edesdav
r
J-uly 25, 2012 .:
.
Aum s�' 22, 2'12
i
September 19, 2012
St, Croix Room
Board Room ..'
St. Croix. Room::
11:00 arli = 1:30 rri . '
1 C:00 am -.1:30 pm
11:00 am - 1:30 Iii
p
Housino, &Economic Development
This committee considers all issues related to econolni.c development, redevelopment, and housing. It has developed
policies around government's roles in affordable housing, foreclosures. and neighborhood stabilization, Met
Council's housing goals, and tax increment financing.
2
a ..
Tht,rsdag
Thursday.
F'rrdrty
July 26, 2012
august 23, 2012
September `21, 2012
St. Croix. Room
St. Croix Room
St.. Croix Room
__ 11:00 affil— 1:30 pm '
11:00 am — 1:30 Pm
l
11:00 am 1::30 pm . i
METRO
CITIES
Association of Metropolitan Monicipallllas
Name:
Title:
City:
(Street Address or P.O. Box)
(Daytime Phone, please list type ofphone e.g. cioJ, home, cell)
(E-mail)
Committee Choices:
Transportation & General Govt. (Mondays)
July 23rd 11:00-1:30 lam
Aug. 20th 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 17th 11:00-1:30 pm
Municipal Revenue and Taxation (Tuesdays)
July 24th 11:00-1:30 pm
Aug. 21st 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 18th 11:00-1:30 pm
Issues which should be studied:
(ZIP code)
(fax)
Metropolitan Agencies (Wednesdays)
July 25th 11:00-1:30 pm
Aug. 22nd 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 19th 11:00-1:30 pm
Housing & Economic Devel. (ThursfFri)
July 26th 11:00-1:30 pm
Aug. 23rd 11:00-1:30 pm
Sept. 21st 11:00-1:30 pm
Please _mail, fax or email completed form to:
ATTN: Laurie Jennings, Metro Cities
145 University Avenue West, St. Paul, MN 55103.2044
Laurie a{1�MetroCitlesAMorg I Fax: 651-281-1299 I Phone: 651-215-4000
Page 19
Metro Transit may expand bus service in
Minnetonka
Article by: KELLY SMITH , Star Tribune
Updated: May 26, 2012 - 6:51 PM
More Metro Transit buses may be in Minnetonka in the near future.
As in other outer -ring suburbs, most of the buses serving the city are for commuters or students
heading to downtown Minneapolis or the University of Minnesota during peak travel times. Fourteen
of 17 bus routes serving Minnetonka go downtown. The rest of the routes mostly serve eastern
Minnetonka during the day.
That leaves residents like Yelian Akpovo, who lives in an apartment on the north side of the city,
wanting more mid-day bus options so she can run errands or shop. "The transit here is pretty good,
but I'd like to go more places," said Akpovo, who was one of several residents at a public input
session last week.
Fewer than 4 percent of Minnetonka households don't have access to a car, but Metro Transit
senior planner Steve Mahowald said there are places, such as low-income apartment complexes or
senior housing, that could benefit from more mid-day options. "We know there's a need," he said.
Metro Transit paid $78,000 to national company, Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates, to analyze
bus services in other similar cities -- Eden Prairie, Plymouth, Blaine and six suburbs of Denver, Los
Angeles, Seattle, Cleveland and Boston. It's the first time Metro Transit has conducted such a
national review of local suburban services, Mahowald said.
Years ago, Eden Prairie tried local busing beyond routes to downtown Minneapolis, but couldn't
sustain it and it was cut, he said. Other cities have had success by anchoring bus routes to major
destinations. For example, in Minnetonka, that could mean more routes between Ridgedale and a
future Southwest Corridor light rail station in Eden Prairie. "It tends to be a challenge in communities
like Minnetonka," Mahowald said of adding public transportation.
In a city questionnaire, 19 percent of Minnetonka residents said in 2011 that they'd taken a bus in
the past two years, with 13 percent riding a bus daily. Of bus riders, 28 percent took it to work, 51
percent took it to special events, the State Fair or sports events and 11 percent took it shopping.
While the transit study isn't complete yet, consultants are considering possible new local mid-day
routes and extended or adjusted current routes.
By the end of June, they'll present recommendations to the Met Council and the city of Minnetonka.
Then, they'll work on cost estimates and continue to get public input, he said. No changes would
take effect before next March.
While resident James Lorenzen mostly uses Metro Transit buses to go to downtown Minneapolis for
work every day, all the proposed routes would go by his house in west Minnetonka.
"Would I use it? Probably not, but it's an option," he said. "I think it would be helpful for a lot of
people."
Page 20
Metropolitan Council
May 29, 2012
Laurie Ahrens
City Manager
City Of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Blvd
Plymouth, MN 55447-1482
Dear Ms. Ahrens:
--e,- ;SAVED
MAY 3 0 2012
Each year, the Metropolitan Council prepares population and household estimates as of April 1 of the previous
year. Local governments are invited to review and comment on the preliminary estimates. The Council will
certify final estimates by July 15 for State government use in allocating local government aid and local street aid.
The Metropolitan Council estimates that the City of Plymouth had 71,263 people and 28,886 households as
of April 1, 2011. Household size averaged 2.42 persons per household.
With this Ietter, the Council is reporting the data inputs used to develop the preliminary estimates for your
community. Starting with Census 2010 counts, the Council estimates current population and households through
changes in the housing stock, occupancy rates and persons per household. input data sources include the U.S.
Census Bureau's American Community Survey, and housing stock data, manufactured home parks, and group
quarters data collected by Metropolitan Council Research. For more information on the CounciI's population
estimates model, please visit the Council's website at http://stats.mete.state.mn.us/stats/pdf/EstimatesMethod.pdf ,
or contact Baris Gumus-Dawes at 651-602-1331.
Importantly, the Council has redesigned our estimation process this year to use Census 2010 counts as a base
year, or starting point. Thus, Census 2010 largely governs the estimates we share today. If you think that some
aspect of the Census 2010 counts is in error, the Census Bureau has established a Count Question Resolution
process. Questions and appeals to the Census Bureau must be submitted by the end of May 2013. For more
information on Census 2010 counts, please visit the Bureau's website at
http://2010.census.gov/20I Ocensus/about/cgr.php
Council staff welcomes discussion of the 2011 preliminary estimates. Under Minnesota Statutes 473.24, the
Metropolitan Council must receive your comments, questions or specific objections, in writing, by June 25.
Please send any written comments or questions to Baris Gumus-Dawes, Metropolitan Council Research, 390
Robert Street North, Saint Paul, MN 55101; or by e-mail to baris.dawes@metc.state.mn.us
Sincerely,
Todd Graham
Principal Demographer
www.metrocouncit.org
390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 . (651) 502-1000 e Fax (651) 602-1550 • TTY (651) 2N-QQ42
An Equal Opportunity Employer �c
2011 Annual Population Estimates
Plymouth city. Hennepin County, Minnesota
Households: 28,886 Population in Households: 69,968 Average Household Size: 2.422
Housing Total: 30,089 Population in Group Quarters: 1,295
Occupancy Rate: 96.00% Total Population:
71,263
The Council's Annual Estimates account for housing stock changes since April 1, 2010. These include housing units permitted and other changes.
Other changes are due to demolitions, building conversions (units added or lost), city boundary changes (units annexed in or out), and other changes
reported by city and township staff. The Council assumes that 85% of multifamily and 95% of single -family -detached units permitted in 2010 were
completed by April 1, 2011; the remainder are assumed occupiable later.
Manufactured homes are counted each year from Metropolitan Council surveys of manufactured home park operators and local governments. Other
housing (boats, RVs, etc. used as housing) is an estimate from the most recent American Community Survey estimates.
Housing Stock
Newly built
Other changes
Housing Stock
April 1. 2010
since 2010
since 2010
April 1, 2011
Single -family -detached: 16,084
89
-15
16,158
Townhomes: 5,052
35
0
5,087
Duplex, 3-, 4-plex units: 715
0
0
715
Multifamily units: 8,071
0
0
8,071
Manufactured homes: 60
58
2.088
58
Other (boats, RVs, etc. used as housing): 0
0
1.400
0
Housing Stock Total: 29,982
30,089
Each housing type will have a specifically estimated occupancy rate and
average household size.
Starting with the 2011-12 cycle,
the primary data are
the most recent American Community Survey estimates, calculated and
adjusted as described in
the Council's methodology, available online at
http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/stats/a boutestimates. aspx
Total Population:
Definitions: A household is a group of people (or one person alone) occupying a housing unit.
The number of occupied housing units and the number of households are equivalent.
Population in Group Quarters (or institutional housing) is counted separately through an annual Metropolitan Council survey.
Single -family -detached:
Townhomes:
Duplex, 3-, 4-plex units:
Multifamily units:
Manufactured homes:
Other:
Housing Total
Housing Stock
April 1, 2011
16,158
5,087
715
8,071
58
IC
9=1
Occupancy
Occupied with
Persons Per
Population
Rate 2011
Households
Household
in 2011
96.90%
15,657
2.646
41,433
96.90%
4,929
2.646
13,044
93.88%
671
1.803
1,210
93.80%
7,571
1.870
14,160
100.00%
58
2.088
121
Counted only if
0
1.400
0
occupied
Households:
28,886
In Households:
69,968
In Group Qtrs:
1,295
Total Population:
71,263
Atmetropoutan co,nt Page5M/2012
Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition
Municipal Stormwater professionals
working together for clean water
Steering Committee:
Robert Finley
2011-2014 Term:
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2165
Scott Anderson
Mankato, MN 56001
City of Bloomington
Matt Durand
City of Owatonna
May 29, 2012
Jim Hafner (Chair)
City of Blaine
Dear Mr. Finley:
John Paulson
City of Hutchinson
The League of Minnesota Cities and Its Minnesota Cities Stormwater
Chris Kleist
Coalition (collectively referred to as LMC) submit these Public
City of Duluth
Comments and this Petition for Contested Case Hearing in response to
the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's (MPCA) Public Notice for the
2009 — 2012 Term:
Draft South Metro Mississippi River Total Suspended Solids Total
Andy Bradshaw
Maximum Daily Load Report (TMDL Report).
City of Moorhead
Rebecca Haug
The comments listed below are intended to be the LMC's Written
City of Elk River
Comments (as per the Public Notice) and the basis treasons or proposed
Anne Weber (Vice Chair)
findings) for the LMC's Petition of Contested Case Hearing.
City of St. Paul
2010-2013 Term:
Statement of Interest
Sharon Doucette
City of Woodbury
LMC's membership includes almost all municipalities located in
Paul Drotos
Minnesota. Many of these cities are in the drainage area for this TMDL.
City of Red Wing
In addition, certain of the LMC's members with a special interest in
Cara Geheren
stormwater matters have coordinated under the auspices of the LMC to
City of Victoria
form the Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition (MCSC). Many of the
Staff:
member cities of MCSC are in the drainage area for this TMDL and, thus,
Randy Neprash
are directly affected by its findings.
Bonestroo
2335 west Highway 36
Relief Requested in Contested Case Hearing Proceeding
St. Paul, MN 55113
'
(651) 604-4703
rneprash@bonestroo.com
Comments
MCSC is an affiliate of the
League of Minnesota Cities
1. Fatal flaws: This TMDL, through the linkage to the MS4 permits,
creates immense new legal obligations and liabilities for regulated
M54 cities. The simplest example of this is the $850 million cost
�EAG;uEor
estimate to achieve the MS4 WLA. These obligations and liabilities
j11NMINE50TA
TI€5
Page 23
are not controllable by the MPCA. The MPCA has limited enforcement discretion
under the Clean Water Act and State statutes and rules. Independent third parties
are encouraged and empowered to act as private attorneys general to sue either the
MPCA or the permitted parties to ensure compliance. There is a history of such suits
under the TMDL and stormwater permitting programs in Minnesota and the United
States.
The power to create such significant new legal obligations and liabilities should be
exercised with restraint, responsibility, and based on rigorous science, research,
modeling, and analysis. These standards have not been met by this TMDL study and
report.
Statement of Action #1
This TMDL should be withdrawn and redone. The flaws listed below, along with
others, should be addressed and corrected.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #1
A list of some of the flaws of this TMDL is provided in the comments below. They
include:
• Inadequate consideration of the fact that the TSS concentrations upstream of
Lock & Dam 1 meet or exceed the TMDL target of 30 mg/L.
• The boundaries for the areas served by the MS4 conveyance system are
significantly inaccurate throughout the TMDL
• Insufficient consideration of factors related to the distribution of particle sizes
in various sources of stormwater runoff
• Improperly not using the results of the Minnesota River Turbidity TMDL as an
input boundary condition for this TMDL
• Improperly setting the MS4 WLAs according to flow conditions in the river
• Improperly setting the MS4 baseline year at 2002
• Not meeting the statutory requirement to provide cost estimates for the
implementation of the TMDL (for all sources and sectors)
• Providing no model calibration or sensitivity analysis for urban discharges
• Improperly setting a 25% MS4 load reduction that is arbitrary and ineffective
• Not providing sufficient information or MPCA commitment to trading,
including for MS4 permitted cities
• Not accounting for the water quality benefits of high-density development in
the process of setting the MS4 WLAs
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 2
Page 24
• Not providing for the deferral of the MS4 WLA load reductions until actual
reductions from the large unregulated sources can be demonstrated and
confirmed
• Insufficient consideration of the fact that most stormwater and stabilization
BMPs (urban and non -urban) are effective under low and moderate flow
conditions but are not effective under high and very high flow conditions
• Providing insufficient information about the cost estimate to achieve the MS4
W LA
• Improperly requiring an MS4 load reduction that is much smaller than the
MOS for the TMDL, and thus within the margin of uncertainty for the study,
modeling, and the TMDL.
Many of these items are significant flaws individually. Taken together, they make the
TMDL fatally flawed. With these flaws taken into consideration, the MPGA cannot
say that the significant new legal obligations and liabilities created by this TMDL are
the product of rigorous science, research, modeling, and analysis.
2. Insufficient attention to urban discharges: The development of this TMDL posed
significant challenges for the MPGA. One of the fundamental conclusions of the
TMDL is that the large majority of the load comes from non -urban sources. Based on
conversations with MPGA staff and discussions at the public information meetings
for this TMDL, it appears that the MPCA decided to focus the large majority of its
resources to addressing issues and questions related to the loading from non -urban
sources.
From one perspective, this seems like a sound decision. Unfortunately, this TMDL
creates immense new legal obligations and liabilities for regulated MS4 cities. The
decision to focus on the non -urban sources meant that scant attention and
resources were given to the issues and questions related to the discharges from
urban sources. The results of this fact can be seen throughout the comments listed
below.
Statement of Action #2
This TMDL should be withdrawn and redone. Sufficient attention and resources
should be given to the issues and questions related to urban discharges. A proper
and sufficient stakeholder process should be conducted with all the MS4 cities in the
drainage area. The problems enumerated in the comments below should be rectified
and resolved.
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 3
Page 25
Additionally, the MPGA TMDL program should work directly with the permitted MS4
cities to correct the problems in this TMDL and ensure that such flaws are not
perpetuated in other TMDLS.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #2
The MPCA should not create new legal obligations or liabilities of this magnitude for
the permitted MS4 cites without allocating sufficient and appropriate staff and
funding resources to prepare this TMDL or any other TMDL with urban discharges in
the drainage area.
3. Flexible expression of the MS4 WLA: The M PCA is to be commended for the manner
in which the MS4 VILLA is expressed in this TMDL It is presented as numbers in
metric tons per year for average flow conditions, and in metric tons per year and
kilograms per day for the five flow conditions. The MS4 WLA is also expressed as a
25% reduction. Finally, it is also expressed as target loads for built-up areas (169
lbs/acre/year), newly developed areas, and open -space developed areas (112.5
lbs/acre/year). These multiple expressions of the MS4 WLA allow for appropriate
flexibility for MS4s in designing and implementing urban stormwater management
programs to meet the MS4 WLA for this TMDL.
4. TSS concentrations upstream of Lock & Dam 1 meet or exceed the TMDL target:
The TMDL Report States that the TSS concentrations upstream of Lock & Dam 1
meet or exceed the TMDL target of 30 mg/L. The following text is from page 28 of
the TMDL Report:
"the long-term TSS concentration is 24 mg/L in the Mississippi River at Anoka,
compared to 20 mg/L 24 miles downstream at Lock & Dam 1, in the heart of the
Twin Cities metropolitan area"
In fact, the flows in the Mississippi River above Lock & Dam 1 are improving the
water quality, helping to attain and maintain the water quality standard, and are not
contributing to the impairment (in a manner similar to the wastewater treatment
plants that are discharging at concentrations less than 30 mg/L (see page 53 of the
TMDL Report)).
Statement of Action #4
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TM DL — May 29, 2012 Page 4
Page 26
The WLA for MS4 stormwater sources should be revised to reflect the facts above.
The form of these revisions requires discussion and negotiation among MPGA,
USEPA, and the affected regulated stormwater sources. Options could include:
• Exclude the entire drainage area for the Mississippi River above Lock & Dam 1
from the TMDL study area
• Consider the permitted discharges from the regulated MS4 permittees above
Lock & Dam 1 to be similar to the discharges from wastewater treatment
facilities that are below the 30 mg/L target. Adopt TMDL language similar to
that on page 53 of the TMDL Report: "Because this effluent concentration is
less than the water quality standard of 32 mg/L, discharge from these facilities
will remain below the water quality standard, thereby helping to attain and
maintain the standard. For such facilities, which are listed in Appendix A,
compliance with NPDES permits will be interpreted to constitute compliance
with the TMDL".
• Eliminate the 25% load reduction for all permitted MS4s above Lock & Dam 1,
in light of this fact and other reasons. This approach could be similar to the
approach taken for the M54 dischargers in the Upper Vermillion River in
deciding not to impose load reductions on them as part of the Lower
Vermillion River Turbidity (TSS) TMDL. This language is from page 7 of that
report: "No load reductions are necessary for the Upper Vermillion River,
although the planned movement of the Empire wastewater treatment plant
effluent to the Mississippi River is expected to have a beneficial impact on
water quality within the LVR. Despite the fact that no load reductions are
required for these sources, a load allocation for the Upper Vermillion River and
wastelood allocations for its NDPES permitted municipalities (MS4s) were
computed to meet the requirements of a comprehensive TMDL."
At a minimum, the MPCA should explain why, in light of these facts, the drainage
area above Lock & Dam 1 should be included in this TMDL study area and/or why the
permitted MS4s above Lock & Dam 1 should have a required load reduction.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #4
The facts supporting this comment are included in the TMDL Report. We recommend
a detailed review and discussion with stakeholders of the research, studies, and
reports that were executed or prepared in the course of developing this TMDL and
the Lake Pepin model. Details from these materials would serve as the basis for a
contested case hearing on this comment. Precedent is available in other TMDLs.
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi. River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 5
Page 27
5. Incorrect boundaries for MS4 cities: The boundaries and land areas for the
permitted MS4 cities used in this TMDL study are incorrect and significantly flawed.
The TMDL Report is based on the 2002 National Land Cover Data (NLCD). Please see
this excerpt from page 56 of the TMDL Report:
"To calculate the wastewater waste load allocation for regulated MS4
stormwater, the MPCA estimated loads using 2002 National Land Cover Data
(NLCD) and TSS export coefficients for the NLCD land use classifications. The NLCD
includes four developed land uses. These were assumed to represent urban land
use. The four classes are based on ranges of impervious cover, as indicated below.
Using a Geographic Information System (GIS), NLCD developed land uses were
clipped using the regulated MS4 boundaries. The following acreages were
determined for the South Metro Mississippi watershed:
• Developed, low intensity (20 to 49 percent impervious) — 248,750 acres;
• Developed, medium intensity (50 to 79 percent impervious) —140,000 acres;
• Developed, high density (more than 79 percent impervious) — 65,750 acres; and
• Developed, open space (less than 20 percent impervious) —154,600 acres."
Statement of Action #5
The TMDL should be revised using the accurate boundaries for the permitted areas
within MS4 cities. The modeling should be revised using these boundaries. These
boundaries can be provided by the cities. The boundaries for the MS4 WLA should be
set to include only the land areas covered by the MS4 permit. The modeling should
be redone based on these corrected MS4 boundaries.
Reasons or Proposed Finding
The boundaries for the permitted cities are flawed in at least three significant ways:
• The outside boundaries of the areas covered under the MS4 permit are not
accurate. These outside boundaries are determined by the land areas served
by the cities' MS4 conveyance systems. The cities have these areas mapped,
but the MPCA never requested this information in the course of preparing the
TMDL. The NLCD does not include any information about the extent of the
land areas served by any of the MS4 cities' conveyance systems. The actual
boundaries of the land areas served by the conveyance system and, therefore,
covered under the MS4 permit were not used in the course of developing the
TMDL or any of the underlying models. Only the permitted areas of the MS4
cities should be included in the WLA.
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 6
Page 28
• Some of the cities in the drainage area for this TMDL have significant land
areas within their boundaries that have never discharged urban stormwater
outside the city boundaries or to the Mississippi River or its tributaries. In
some cases, these landlocked areas constitute one-third or one-half of the
land area served by the cities' MS4 conveyance systems. The land areas used
to develop the TMDL and the underlying models did not include this
information and are, therefore, significantly inaccurate. The MPCA never
requested this information from any of the permitted cities in the drainage
area.
There are portions of every permitted MS4 city that drain overland (sheet
flow) directly to receiving waters without passing through the cities' MS4
conveyance systems. Depending on the density and types of receiving waters
in each city, this land area can be as much as 30% of the land area within the
outside boundary of a city's MS4 conveyance system. The loading from this
type of land, immediately adjacent to receiving waters, corresponds to near -
channel loading that was found to be a very significant type of contribution to
the loading for the Minnesota River. The land areas used to develop the TMDL
and the underlying models did not include this information and are,
therefore, significantly inaccurate. The MPCA never requested this
information from any of the permitted cities in the drainage area.
Taken together, these flaws mean that the land areas for the permitted MS4 cities
used to develop the TMDL and the underlying models were significantly inaccurate.
This means that the WLA for the permitted cities is inaccurate. Establishing the
correct boundaries is one of the most fundamental starting points for any water
quality modeling project. The fact that the MS4 cities' boundaries are significantly
inaccurate in this TMDL study is unacceptable and inexcusable.
6. Variations in particle size distributions: Information about variation in the
distribution of particle sizes in runoff from various sources is missing from this TMDL.
Information about the relationship between the particle size distribution of runoff
and the resulting turbidity in the receiving waters is also missing. Without addressing
these factors, the MS4 WLA cannot be accurate.
Statement of Action #6
Please revise the TMDL study to include information about the distribution of
particle sizes in runoff from various sources. Revise the TMDL to address issues
related to the relationship between particle sizes and turbidity. Address the
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 7
Page 29
differences in the particle size distributions between urban stormwater discharges
and discharges from non -urban sources. Address these differences and relationships
in the modeling for the TMDL. Revise the load allocations with particle size
distributions included as factors.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #6
It is widely recognized that the sizes of particles is a significant factor in the
relationship between TSS loading and turbidity in receiving waters. Smaller particles
more greatly influence higher turbidity. It is also widely recognized that there are
significant differences between the particle size distributions for urban runoff
compared to non -urban runoff. Without addressing these factors, the MS4 WLA
cannot be accurate. Saint Anthony Falls Laboratory, of the University of Minnesota,
is a source of excellent information and research on these subjects.
7. I IN River TMDL loading should bean input boundary condition: This TMDL should
be revised to include the results from the Minnesota River Turbidity TMDL as an
input boundary condition. As written, the loading from the Minnesota River Basin in
the modeling that supports the final allocations does not match the loading targets
for the basin in the Minnesota River Turbidity TMDL.
Statement of Action #7
Revise the TMDL to include the results from the Minnesota River Turbidity TMDL as
an input boundary condition. Revise the underlying models and revise all the
allocations accordingly. The Minnesota River modeling Scenario 5 should be linked to
the South Metro Mississippi modeling system (instead of Scenario 4, see page 45)
and the new model results should serve as the basis for a new set of allocations for
this TMDL. The same action should be taken for the Cannon River Basin and
Vermillion River Basin, based on the text on page 47 of the TMDL Report.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #7
The study area for the Minnesota River Turbidity TMDL matches the Minnesota River
Basin included in this TMDL. The results of the MN River TMDL should be used as
input for this TMDL. This is customary practice for "nested" TMDLs. It was clearly the
intent described on page 45 of the TMDL Report, but the wrong scenario was used.
Scenario 5 from the MN River TMDL should be used because it is the basis for the
allocations in the MN River TMDL. Without this revision, all the allocations in this
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 8
Page 30
TMDL are incorrect. The load reduction in the MN River TMDL is 90%. The load
reduction for the MN River Basin in this TMDL Report is 50% to 60/®. There is a
significant difference between these two load reductions.
The same reasons or proposed findings apply to Cannon River Basin and Vermillion
River Basin, based on the text on page 47 of the TMDL Report.
8. Setting MS4 WLAs in relationship to flow conditions: There are multiple questions
regarding the appropriateness of determining and setting the MS4 WLAs according
to five flow conditions. These include, but are not limited to :
• There is relatively little correlation between the TSS loading in urban
discharges and the flow condition in the river. In a river system the size of the
Mississippi River, the flow conditions are frequently determined by large-scale
rain events over large land areas and long durations of time. TSS loading
accumulates on urban impervious surfaces at a fairly constant rate over time.
This load is then washed off and discharged to the receiving water during
intense rain events. These rain events can be short, localized events that have
minimal effect on the flow in the river but result in significant TSS loading
from the urban land. In the event of a heavy, long -duration rain event, the
loading in the urban discharge is typically much greater early in the event
than later in the event. The amount of time between intense rain events is
more important than the size or duration of each event. The large portion of
impervious surfaces serves to armor the surface from the impact of raindrops,
thus making the loading in the urban discharges much different from the
loading in non -urban settings with low percentages of impervious surfaces.
The timing and amount of TSS loading from urban land behaves in very
different ways than TSS loading from non -urban land.
• TSS loading from urban land during snowmelt and floods is very different
from the loading from non -urban land. Cities have addressed flood control in
their jurisdictions for many years. They commonly have significant flood
control structures and BMPs in place within their jurisdictions, Many of these
structures impound water, thus changing the flow regime and settling out
significant amounts of solids. The armoring of urban surfaces also results in
loading during the large rain events that may cause floods to be much
different from the loading for non -urban land. The saturation of the soils is
much less a factor in urban settings. Floods and snowmelt are conditions that
result in a significant portion of the total TSS loading to the river system.
• In a river system the size of the Mississippi River, the flow condition in the
river will frequently be determined by a rain or snowmelt event that has
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 9
Page 31
occurred far upstream of a given MS4 city. In that circumstance, the city could
have little loading in its discharge during a flow condition when a larger
loading would be allowed under the MS4 WLA. Conversely, a city can have an
intense localize rain event that causes heavy loading in its discharge but does
not change a low flow condition in the river. This could be viewed as a
violation of the MS4 WLA that is set according to low flow conditions.
There is no indication that these factors were considered in the process of setting
the MS4 WLAs according to the flow conditions in the river.
Statement of Action #8
If these factors and other related factors were considered in the course of
developing the TMDL model and allocations, please provide a complete explanation
in the TMDL Report. If they were not, please revise the TMDL methodology, model,
and allocations to address these factors. Please evaluate and reconsider whether the
MS4 WLAs should be expressed in relationship with the flow conditions in the river.
If it is determined that this approach is poorly supported, please revise the
methodology, modeling, and/or allocations appropriately.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #8
There are significant and multiple differences between TSS loadings in urban and
non -urban settings. There are very different relationships between rainfall,
snowmelt, and TSS loadings in urban and non -urban settings. If these differences
were addressed in deciding to link the MS4 WLAs to the flow conditions in the river,
a complete and comprehensive explanation is needed in the TMDL Report. If these
differences were not addressed and the linkage between the MS4 WLAs and the
river flow conditions is not appropriate, the MS4 WLA are expressed inappropriately
and the TMDL is setting the MS4 cities up for failure and violations.
9. Baseline set at no BMPs: The baseline for the MS4 WLAs for this TMDL should be set
with no BMPs in place at all. The baseline condition should not be set based on the
year of the 86th percentile flow condition.
Statement of Action #9
Please revise the baseline for the MS4 WLAs as the condition with no BM'Ps in place.
Please disconnect the baseline from a specific year.
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 10
Page 32
Reasons or Proposed Findings #9
The HSPF model, as described in the TMDL Report, did not include BMPs for the land
use inputs. As listed on page 56 of the TMDL Report, the model used NCLD
developed land uses. It appears that there were only four types of land uses
included. They are differentiated only by the percentage of impervious area. They
were:
"Developed, low intensity (20 to 49 percent impervious) — 248,750 acres;
Developed, medium intensity (50 to 79 percent impervious) —140,000 acres;
Developed, high density (more than 79 percent impervious) — 65,750 acres; and
Developed, open space (less than 20 percent impervious) —154,600 acres."
In the following scenario, it appears that the following two land areas would be
identical model inputs:
+ Two residential developments
• Same total land area
+ Same percentage of impervious area
• One built in 1960 with no stormwater BMPs at all
+ The other development built in 2001, with a stormwater pond and multiple
rain gardens and infiltration BMPs included.
If this is correct, this means that the baseline condition used for the model was
urban land use with no BMPs in place. This, then, should be the baseline condition
for the MS4 WLAs.
Furthermore, the MS4 WLA (expressed as either the 25% load reduction from the
baseline or the target loading rates) is stated as being for the average flow condition
(page 57). In light of this fact, setting the baseline for the MS4 WLA at 2002, because
it corresponds to the 86th percentile flows condition, is inappropriate.
The baseline year set for the MS4 loadings is of immense importance for the
regulated MS4s. Cities in Minnesota have been making sure that stormwater
controls and BMPs have been implemented in significant numbers since the 1980s.
As TMDLs and the MS4 permit are currently interpreted, setting the MS4 baseline
year at 2002 would mean that a very large number of BMPs could not be counted
toward meeting the TMDL. This would be of enormous financial consequence for the
regulated MS4s.
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 11
Page 33
10. Insufficient cost estimates provided: This TMDL Report includes a cost estimate only
for achieving the MS4 WLA. This does not meet the statutory requirement for the
preparation of a TMDL.
Statement of Action #10
Include "a range of estimates of the cost of implementation of the TMDL" in this
TMDL Report. This range of estimates should include the cost to achieve all the
allocations, including the LA.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #10
MN Statute 114D.25 includes the following text:
"{b) A TMDL must include a statement of the facts and scientific data supporting
the TMDL and a list of potential implementation options, including:
(1) a range of estimates of the cost of implementation of the TMDL; and
(2) for point sources, the individual wastelood data and the estimated cost
of compliance addressed by the TMDL."
By including a cost estimate only for achieving the MS4 WLA and only addressing
item b.2. in the statute listed above, this TMDL Report does not fulfill this statutory
requirement. This TMDL Report should be revised to include the cost to achieve all
the allocations, including the LA.
11. No model calibration or sensitivity analysis for urban discharges: It appears that the
modeling for this TMDL did not include any calibration to validate or check the
reliability of the model results for the loading from permitted MS4s. It also appears
that no sensitivity analysis was performed for the loading from permitted MS4s to
identify which variables had more or less influence on the model results.
Statement of Action #11
Perform calibration and sensitivity analysis for the elements of the model directly
related to the permitted MS4 loading. If it is impossible to separate these elements
in a model of the scale and/or type used for this TMDL, use a separate type and/or
scale model to address loading from permitted MS4s.
Reasons or Pr000sed Findings #11
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 12
Page 34
Calibration and sensitivity analysis are essential elements of water quality modeling.
Without calibration and sensitivity analysis for the various types of loading included
in this TMDL, the reliability and accuracy of the modeling results for each type of
loading cannot be evaluated sufficiently. The results of a large-scale and coarse
model that cannot support calibration and sensitivity analysis for the permitted MS4
loading are not sufficient to support the MS4 WLAs in this TMDL that result in an
$850 million set of legal obligations and liabilities for the permitted MS4 cities.
12. Past results for the Minnesota River: In 1992, Governor Arne Carlson issued a
famous challenge: to make the Minnesota River fishable and swimmable in 10 years.
The challenge resulted in:
• Improving water quality in the MN River became a high priority for a wide
range of state agencies and local/regional entities
• State and local funding was directed toward improving water quality in the
Minnesota River
• The effort was focused on a range of voluntary practices and incentives to
achieve changes in the drainage area for the river.
In the 20 years since then, little discernible progress has been made, according to
the MPCA's most recent biological assessment. A recent MPCA report titled
"Revisiting the Minnesota River Assessment Project: An Evaluation of Fish and
Invertebrate Community Progress (MPCA, May 2011, page 23) included the following
text:
""in order to address the deteriorating conditions within the Basin, several
advisory committees were formed, conservation programs were developed, and
best management practices (BMPs) were implemented. To date, these efforts
have led to only modest improvements to no change to the overall biological
condition of rivers and streams within the Minnesota River Basin."
Other data indicates that TSS concentrations have diminished in the river but that
flow rates have increased. When the lower concentrations are multiplied times the
higher flows, the total loading in the river is roughly the same compared to 20 years
ago.
Under the TMDL, the vast majority of the loading in the Mississippi River will come
from the LA in the Minnesota River. The State's approach to achieving load
reductions for this LA can be accurately described as follows:
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 13
Page 35
• Improving water quality in the MN River will be a high priority for a wide
range of state agencies and local/regional entities
• State and local funding will be directed toward improving water quality in the
Minnesota River
• The effort will be focused on a range of voluntary practices and incentives to
achieve changes in the drainage area for the river.
Please note the similarity of these bullet points to the bullet points in the paragraph
just above.
Statement of Action #12
Please include, in the TMDL Report, an explanation of how the exact same approach
that has yielded little or no improvement in the Minnesota River in the last 20 years
can be expected to result in a 90% load reduction for the LA for the MN River. Please
be specific and detailed.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #12
Please see above.
13.25% MS4 load reduction is arbitrary and ineffectual: The 25% load reduction for all
permitted MS4s in the entire TMDL study area appears to be arbitrary and
ineffectual. This load reduction also serves as the basis for the target loading rates.
This load reduction is not supported by scientific evidence or modeling results.
Statement of Action #13
Please reconsider whether the 25% loading reduction is warranted and/or
sufficiently supported by scientific data or modeling results. Please conduct a
contested case hearing to make this determination.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #13
The 25% load reduction was the subject of some discussion with MS4 stakeholders
during the development of this TMDL. At that time, many elements of the TMDL
Report were either not known or not conveyed to the municipal participants. These
elements included:
• The immense estimated cost to achieve the WLA
• The load reductions for the MN River TMDL
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 14
Page 36
• The fact that the TSS loading in the Mississippi River above Lock & Dam 1 met
or exceeded the TMDL target loading of 30 mg/L.
These stakeholder conversations also included only a very small percentage of the
cities included in the drainage area. The implications of the decision to impose a 25%
load reduction on all the MS4s was poorly understood by the participants in the
stakeholder process. In light of these facts, the stakeholder process used, in large
part, to arrive at the 25% load reduction was fatally flawed.
Finally, page 82 of the TMDL Report includes the following text, in the context of
considering contingency measures if load reduction milestones are not met in the
future:
"Contingency requirements for this TMDL will not include ratcheting down further
on point sources by reducing their waste load allocations, be they permitted MS4s
or permitted wastewater treatment facilities. As this document attests, these are
very minor sources of sediment to the South Metro Mississippi River, and further
reducing their waste load allocations will not help to accomplish the goals of the
TMDL in any measurable way."
The TMDL Report states that the permitted MS4s are only very minor sources of
sediment". Additionally, the Report states that reducing the load from the permitted
MS4s ""will not help to accomplish the goals of the TMDL in any measurable way."
The stakeholder process was flawed. The science and the modeling in the TMDL do
not support the load reduction. The load from the permitted MS4s is insignificant.
Load reduction from the permitted MS4s will be ineffectual toward meeting the
TMDL goals. The 25% load reduction for all permitted MS4s should not stand.
1.4.Trading: There are huge cost differentials between BMPs on urban land compared to
BMPs on non -urban land. This difference in cost-effectiveness calls out for a viable
trading program that includes permitted MS4 cities.
Statement of Action #14
The TMDL Report should be revised to include more detail about the potential of
trading. The MPGA should commit to the development of a viable trading program
that includes permitted MS4 cities. The trading program should also include funding
efforts to address non-CWA-mandated activities (stream bank erosion control, ravine
stabilization, hydrologic controls, etc.) that are far more cost-effective than many
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 15
Page 37
urban BIV1Ps. The MPCA's trading development commitment should include specific
timelines and interim milestones.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #14
Trading could result in a much more cost-effective set of responses to meet the
TMDL goals. A specific commitment form the MPCA to develop a trading program
that includes permitted MS4 cities is necessary and appropriate in the context of this
TMDL.
15. Density: In 2006, USEPA published a guidance document titled "Protecting Water
Resources with Higher -Density Development". The conclusions from this guidance
document should be incorporated into this TMDL, especially for the MS4 WLAs for
permitted MS4 cities with higher -density development.
Statement of Action #15
The M54 WLAs (load reductions and target loading rates) should be revised for MS4
cities with higher -density development. Higher -density development should not be
viewed as a stormwater management BMP. Instead, the WLA numbers should be
revised to reflect the value of higher -density development in protecting water
quality.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #15
The USEPA guidance document includes the following text:
"CEPA examined stormwater runoff from different development densities to
determine the comparative difference between scenarios. This analysis
demonstrated:
• The higher -density scenarios generate less storm water runoff per house at
all scales—one acre, lot, and watershed—and time series build -out
examples,
• For the some amount of development, higher -density development
produces less runoff and less impervious cover than low-density
development, and
• For a given amount of growth, lower -density development impacts more of
the watershed.
LMC & MCSC Comments —South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 16
Page 38
Taken together, these findings indicate that low-density development may not
always be the preferred strategy for protecting water resources. Higher densities
may better protect water duality—especially at the lot and watershed levels. To
accommodate the some number of houses, denser developments consume less
land than lower density developments. Consuming less land means creating less
impervious cover in the watershed. EPA believes that increasing development
densities is one strategy communities can use to minimize regional water quality
impacts."
The WLAs for permitted MS4 cities with higher -density development should be
revised to reflect the value of higher densities in protecting water quality, as
described by USEPA. In considering density, the MPCA should include density factors
beyond population. High-density development can also include office, commercial,
industrial, and other types of land uses.
16. Defer the MS4 WLA loan reductions: The vast majority of the TSS loading to the
Mississippi River is from unregulated, non -urban sources. Imposing load reductions
on the regulated urban sources should be deferred pending confirmation that the
large unregulated sources can be effectively reduced.
Statement of Action #16
Defer the imposition of the TMDL load reductions on the regulated sources until
after it has been demonstrated that reasonable progress can be made in reducing
the much larger loads from the unregulated sources. If such reasonable progress
cannot be demonstrated, consideration should be made to declare certain sources
"irretrievable" under applicable federal rules and to restructure the applicable
standards and TMDL requirements accordingly.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #16
The estimated cost to achieve the TMDL goals for the permitted MS4s is immense:
$850 million. The TMDL Report states that the Load from the permitted MS4s is
insignificant and that the load reduction from the permitted MS4s will be ineffectual
toward meeting the TMDL goals. It would be a waste of public funds to compel the
permitted MS4s to expend these monies if it proves to be impossible to achieve the
much larger load reductions needed from the unregulated sources. It is appropriate
to defer the imposition of the TMDL load reductions on the regulated sources until
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 17
Page 39
after it has been demonstrated that reasonable progress can be made in reducing
the much larger loads from the unregulated sources.
17. Address the challenges of controlling loading during high flow conditions: The
TMDL has a special focus on the need to control TSS loading during high and very
high flow conditions. Controlling TSS loading during such conditions poses unique
challenges.
Statement of Action #17
Revise the TMDL to address the unique challenges of controlling TSS loadings during
high and very high flow conditions. Discuss the fact that most stormwater BMPs are
effective only during small and medium-sized storm events and are overwhelmed
during large storm events. Discuss the fact that many stabilization BMPS are
effective under low and moderate flow conditions and are not effective during high
and very high flow conditions. Please specifically address the question of whether
existing BMP technologies are capable of addressing the challenges specifically
related to high and very high flow conditions.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #17
The proposed revisions to the TMDL should be made because many of the known
control BMPs have only limited effectiveness during high and very high flow
conditions.
18. Additional information for the MS4 WLA cost estimate: The estimated cost to meet
the MS4 WLA is immense, $850 million. For a cost of such magnitude, there is a
remarkable lack of information regarding the method used to derive this estimated
cost.
Statement of Action #18
Please provide additional information about the method used to derive the
estimated cost to achieve the MS4 WLA. Specifically, please address the following
questions:
• How was the estimated cost to reduce TSS loading from urban land derived
from the study by Weiss et al (2007)?
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 2g, 2012 Page 18
Page 40
• Were the authors of this study consulted in the process of deriving the cost
estimate?
• Were there other sources, studies, research, or papers used to derive or
confirm the cost estimate?
Does the cost estimate reflect the high cost of reducing TSS loads in urban
areas that are already built -out? Does the cost estimate reflect the fact that
stormwater BMPs are much more expensive to implement as retrofits
compared to implementing them during new development or
redevelopment? Did the methodology for deriving the cost estimate include
an estimate of the portion of the MS4 cities where BMPs would have to be
implemented as retrofits?
• Does the cost estimate include the cost of Land for stormwater BMPs? Does it
reflect an estimate of the higher cost of land for BMPs in retrofit situations?
• Does the cost estimate include the full life cycle costs of the proposed BMPs
(maintenance, operations, mapping, documentation, reporting, inspections,
decommissioning, etc.)?
• Was the methodology used to derive the cost estimate, in the view of the
MPCA, sufficiently rigorous considering the magnitude of the cost,
obligations, and legal liabilities that will be imposed on the regulated MS4 s
because of this TMDL?
After considering, at a minimum, the questions listed above, the MPCA should
consider revising the method used to derive the cost estimate to achieve the MS4
WLA. The revised number, along with a full explanation of the methodology used to
derive it, should be included in a revision of the TMDL.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #18
Based in information provided during the public informational meetings, the
methodology used to derive the estimated cost to achieve the MS4 WLA was not
sufficiently rigorous considering the magnitude of the cost, obligations, and legal
liabilities that will be imposed on the regulated MS4 s because of this TMDL.
19. Margin of Safety vs. MS4 WLA: The total load reduction for the permitted MS4s in
this TMDL is approximately 1.5% of the total load to Lake Pepin. The estimated cost
to achieve this load reduction is $850 million. The TMDL, through linkage to the MS4
permits, creates an immense new set of legal obligations and liabilities for all the
permitted MS4s.
LMC & MCSC Comments — south Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 19
Page 41
The Margin of Safety (MOS) is defined as "on accounting of uncertainty about the
relationship between pollutant loads and receiving water quality." (page 2) The
TMDL also states that the MOS is included "to account for any lack of knowledge
concerning the relationship between load and waste load allocations and water
quality." (page 60) The MOS for this TMDL includes two portions: implicit and
explicit. The implicit portion of the MOS is described but not quantified in the TMDL
Report. In addition to the implicit margin of safety, an explicit margin of safety of 6%
is included in the TMDL.
Thus, the total load reduction required of the permitted MS4s is significantly less
than one quarter of the uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the relationship
between the loads and the load reductions and the receiving water quality.
Statement of Action #19
Please provide a detailed explanation of the MPCA's rationale for creating such a
large new set of legal obligations and liabilities for the permitted MS4s when the
entire proposed MS4 load reduction is only a small portion of the uncertainty in the
underlying study and modeling. Please reconsider whether this is appropriate or
justified. Please do not limit this explanation to "the Clean Water Act requires it".
Please consider redoing the study, with more attention to urban loadings, in order to
strengthen the support for the MS4 WLA.
Reasons or Proposed Findings #19
Typically, the strength of the research or analysis in a study that supports the
creation of new legal obligations and/or liabilities is commensurate with the
magnitude of those obligations or liabilities. This is not the case, in this example.
Based on the stated relationship between the MS4 load reduction and the
uncertainty in the study, either the load reduction needs to be revised or the study
needs to be improved.
20. Second largest TMDL in the United States: This TMDL, when approved, will be the
second largest TMDL, in terms of drainage area, in the United States. Only the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL is larger. The drainage area for this TMDL is approximately
45,000 square miles, compared to approximately 65,000 square miles for the
Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
Statement of Action #20
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL — May 29, 2012 Page 20
Page 42
The MPCA should ascertain the total amount of federal funding that has gone to
support the development of and implementation for the Chesapeake Bay TMDL. The
MPCA should then work with the federal elected officials for Minnesota and the
USEPA to secure a commensurate and proportional amount of federal funding
support for the development of and implementation for this TMDL.
Reasons or Proposed Findings
Commensurate and proportional federal funding support for this TMDL is fair and
appropriate.
Conclusion
LMC asks that the MPCA take the requested actions set forth in this submittal. LMC
further requests that MPCA consider the comments raised in this submittal and revise or
redo the TMDL Report. Finally, LMC respectfully requests that MPCA hold a contested
case hearing to understand and address the serious issues raised in this submittal.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and this contested case
hearing petition.
Jim Hafner
Chair, Steering Committee
Minnesota Cities Stormwater Coalition
Randy Neprash, P.E.
Staff
on behalf of League of Minnesota Cities
& Minnesota Cities Stormwater Steering
Committee
c: Craig Johnson, League of Minnesota Cities
Commissioner John Linc Stine, MPCA
Brian Bensen, MPCA Citizens' Board
Daniel Foley, MPCA Citizens' Board
Eric Gustafson, MPCA Citizens' Board
Dennis Jensen, MPCA Citizens' Board
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TM DL — May 29, 2012 Page 21
Page 43
David Newman, MPCA Citizens' Board
Mary Riley, MPGA Citizens' Board
Donald Schiefelbein, MPCA Citizens' Board
Chester Wilander, MPGA Citizens' Board
LMC & MCSC Comments — South Metro Mississippi River TSS TMDL— May 29, 2012 Page 22
Page 44
1 �
Minnesola Landscape
ARBoRETvm
EDUCATION OFFICE
3675 Arboretum Drive
Chaska, MN 55318
Save the date!
CLEAN WATER SUMMIT 2012 - Thursday, September 13
Green Infrastructure for Clean Water: The Essential Role of Soil
Photo by Julie Vigness-Pint, Ramsey -Washington Metro Watershed District
Page 45
Summit Overview
Soil is our foundation, and an essential
component of green infrastructure in stormwater
management. It provides structure beneath our
feet, stores nutrients for plant growth, filters
contaminants from runoff, and regulates the
movement of water. The 2012 Clean Water
Summit will focus on the concept of "living" soil,
how it functions, and the connection between
healthy soil and clean water in our communities.
Featured presentations will address policies and
practices related to soil, from a landscape scale
to an individual site, and motivate participants
to protect our soil systems, rejuvenate disturbed
soil, and use soil effectively for stormwater
management.
http://finance-commerce.com
Finance & Commerce
Proposed suburban power line to get closer look
by Drew Kerr
Published: May 30th, 2012
Xcel Energy's plans to upgrade an eight -mile power line that runs through
Medina and Plymouth will get a more thorough review as the company tries
to address concerns raised by residents.
The company filed plans to replace the so-called Hollydale transmission line
with the Public Utilities Commission last year but requested a more stringent
review in February after residents petitioned for further study.
The PUC granted the company's request earlier this month. An
environmental impact statement (EIS) and an evidentiary hearing will now
have to be completed before the PUC can consider Xcel's application for a
route permit.
Two public meetings will be held at Wayzata High School, 4955 Peony Lane
N. in Plymouth, to discuss the scope of the new environmental review. The
meetings are scheduled for 6 p.m. June 7 and 1 p.m. June 8.
PUC officials say they hope to have a draft EIS finished by the end of this
summer. That document would be put up for review and public comment
and finalized by December, according to a timeline put forward by the Public
Utilities Commission.
Dan Wolf, the commission's assistant executive secretary, said Wednesday
that it's too early to say how soon evidence about the project could go
before an administrative law judge, who will be asked make a
recommendation to the PUC, or when the PUC could take up the company's
route permit application.
Xcel Energy has said in its filings with the state that the Hollydale line, now
owned by Great River Energy, needs to be upgraded to improve distribution
and reliability in the rapidly developing area.
The company is seeking to replace the existing 65 -kilovolt power line with a
115 -kilovolt line and to upgrade two electric substations that could
accommodate the additional load. A new substation and a mile -long
connection between the rebuilt line and an existing 115 -kilovolt line owned
by Great River Energy are also included in Xcel's proposal.
The project was estimated to cost $23.1 million as of last year.
Page 47
Residents who live along the existing transmission line — which runs from
Willow Drive and County Route 24 east to Fembrook Lane — have expressed
safety concerns and fears that an upgraded line will hurt their property
values.
Residents have lobbied for the line to be moved away from residences,
possibly along Highway 55 and Interstate 494. Xcel's preferred route follows
the existing right of way, which cuts through several housing developments.
"The goal is to keep it out of the neighborhoods, if at all possible," said Judy
Johnson, a Plymouth City Council member who worked on a local task force
that studied the issue.
Plymouth officials have also resisted plans that call for the purchase of city -
owned land off Schmidt Lake Road that would be used for the new
substation. The property had been targeted for recreational uses in
Plymouth's comprehensive plan.
Johnson said that despite the concerns, Xcel has acted in good faith and has
been open to working with residents. Inevitably, though, she said some
property owners will be affected if the upgrades are approved.
"We all know there is a need for reliable electricity and capacity to serve not
just our city but the greater suburban community," Johnson said. 'It's just a
question of who is going to suffer the consequences."
Xcel leaders had originally said they wanted to begin construction on the
project this year, and for the new line and substations to be in service by the
third quarter of 2013.
Patti Nystuen, a spokeswoman for Xcel, said the company now hopes to see
the PUC take up
Page 48
APPROVED MINUTES
PLYMOUTH HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
April 26, 2012
PRESENT: Chairman Jeff Kulaszewicz, Commissioners Paul Caryotakis, Carl Runck and Jim
Willis
ABSENT: Commissioner Bob Stein
STAFF PRESENT: Housing Program Manager Jim Barnes and Office Support Representative
Janice Bergstrom
OTHERS PRESENT: Paul Tucci, Grace Management Representative Jody Boedigheimer
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Kulaszewicz called the Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority meeting to
order at 7:00 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approve HRA Meeting Minutes from March 22 and April 10, 2012.
Commissioner Runck changed verbiage in the March 22, 2012 minutes on page 4, paragraphs 5
and 6, to read as follows:
• Paragraph 5: "Commissioner Runck stated that making an office use work is pretty tough
unless you have an anchor tenant lined up."
• Paragraph 6: "Commissioner Runck said that with the lakeside park, that would seem to
be logical."
B. Plymouth Towne Square. Accept Monthly Housing Report for March, 2012.
C. Vicksburg Crossing. Accept Monthly Housing/Marketing Report for March, 2012.
MOTION by Commissioner Willis seconded by Commissioner Caryotakis, to approve the
consent agenda with amendments. Vote. 4 Ayes. MOTION approved.
3. OLD BUSINESS
A. Oppidan Development. Review and approve the development agreement with Oppidan
for TIF District 1-3 for redevelopment of the Plymouth Shopping Center located on State
Highway 55 just west of County Road 73.
Page 49
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
April 26, 2012
Page 2
Housing Program Manager Barnes gave an overview of the staff report. Housing Program
Manager Barnes noted the interest rate is now 6%, which is one-half percent less than August,
2011 assumption. He reviewed the two issues which have now been resolved satisfactorily
between Shelter Corporation and the HRA. Housing Program Manager Barnes said the language
in the development agreement is now specific that Oppidan will be responsible for the public
improvements. Housing Program Manager Barnes said language in the Declaration of
Covenants was changed to say that any entity at this site must either pay taxes or enter into an
agreement with the City for payment in lieu of taxes in an amount sufficient to meet the HRH's
obligations at a minimum.
Commissioner Willis asked the proposed date of the payment schedule.
Housing Program Manager Barnes responded the first payment would be December 31, 2012
provided improvements have been verified as completed.
Commissioner Willis asked when the interest begins to accrue.
Housing Program Manager Barnes said interest on the entire note will begin to accrue on
December 31, 2012, and any interest accrued in the first couple years will be added on to the end
of the note.
Commissioner Willis asked who would hold this note.
Housing Program Manager Barnes said the note will be issued to Oppidan, or their LLC which is
KTJ 198 who will assign it to Minnwest Bank who will hold note.
Commissioner Willis asked how many people are involved with the TIF note.
Housing Program Manager Housing Program Manager Barnes introduced Paul Tucci,
representing Oppidan Development. Mr. Tucci said there are two parties involved — Oppidan,
Inc. and the owner of Oppidan, Inc.
Commissioner Willis asked if either of those parties ever been subject to bankruptcy
proceedings.
Mr. Tucci said not in their existing format.
Commissioner Willis said the City is not at risk in respect to its credit, but the City's name is on
this. He said it would create a lot of problems for the community if any part of this project goes
"south" because one of the three developers does not develop it. He asked Housing Program
Manager Barnes if he is comfortable that everything has been covered.
Housing Program Manager Barnes stated he is comfortable with the tax increment that if
something happens and a portion of this development does not occur, the City would be able to
Page 50
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
April 26, 2012
Page 3
capture any of the tax increment and complete the public improvements including the demolition
of the building and have the site ready for a viable project. Housing Program Manager Barnes
concluded that after discussions with the City Attorney, financial advisors and Executive HRA
Director Steve Juetten, the City is protected and we are comfortable going forward.
Commissioner Willis asked if the developer is late in any aspect of the project, that would delay
the increment which in turn means the interest on the note will increase at 6%.
Housing Program Manager Barnes clarified that if timelines were not met they would be in
default and the interest stops accruing.
Commissioner Willis asked if McDonald's has signed a purchase agreement.
Mr. Tucci said they received the final version today but neither Davis' nor McDonald's
agreements are executed yet. He said Shelter Corporation has executed documents. Mr. Tucci
said Davis expects to be in the ground by August or September to accommodate their anchor
tenant. Mr. Tucci concurred with Housing Program Manager Barnes' statement regarding their
obligations and said their intention is to build the road in two phases. He said the first phase
would be done by November, 2012. Mr. Tucci said 2015 is the outside date; they plan to have
the second phase completed by 2013.
Commissioner Willis asked if the utilities will go through the area being surcharged.
Mr. Tucci stated they would not.
Chairman Kulaszewicz asked if the contractual date is 2015.
Mr. Tucci said the contract with the end users is 2015. He said from the tax increment
standpoint there are minimum values that will commence whether we build or not. Mr. Tucci
explained that everyone is aware that if you buy the lot, you take your share of assessments on
interim value and full final value, and you are taxed on the full value in two years.
Commissioner Willis asked if the City Assessor has signed off on that. Housing Program
Manager Barnes answered affirmatively.
Chairman Kulaszewicz said these improvements are necessary anyway, whether they build or
not.
Housing Manager Barnes said Community Development staff concurs that removing the
building makes it a more marketable site. He said putting the new road on the north side of the
site makes the most sense because of wetlands and the amount of soil correction needed on the
south side would make it too expensive.
Commissioner Willis concurred; he said the medical lot will have the most soil issues.
Page 51
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
April 26, 2012
Page 4
Mr. Tucci agreed and said $750,000 will be used for soil corrections. He said most of the soil is
piling on the building site, and some top soil would be used for berming on the site. Mr. Tucci
said there will be a floating parking lot.
Chairman Kulaszewicz asked for clarification of the two changes in the documents.
Housing Program Manager Barnes said revisions include replacing the term "Master
Developer/Developer" with "Developer", which is Oppidan. Housing Program Manager Barnes
said the Declaration of Restricted Covenants where amended to remove the list of types of
corporations or entities that would not be able to own one of the parcels.
Commissioner Willis asked if there is any loophole on the issue of the covenant and its legality.
Housing Manager Barnes said the City's bond attorney was comfortable with the legality
because the Declaration of Covenants is a recordable document that runs with the property. He
said the attorney was unable to find any other case law findings that this document would not be
supported. Housing Program Manager Barnes said the attorney reviewed this with the County
who also felt this would be supported.
Commissioner Willis said if there was a litigation on this, the City would be party to it - not the
County.
MOTION by Commissioner Willis, seconded by Commissioner Caryotakis, to approve the
development agreement with Oppidan for TIF District 1-3 for redevelopment of the Plymouth
Shopping Center located on State Highway 55 just west of County Road 73. Vote. 4 Ayes.
MOTION approved.
Chairman Kulaszewicz introduced Grace Management Representative Jody Boedigheimer, who
gave an overview of activity at Plymouth Towne Square and Vicksburg Crossing. Grace
Management Representative Bodigheimer said Officer Angela Haseman visited Plymouth
Towne Square and gave a refresher course on security issues and awareness of scams that target
seniors. She said it has been quiet at both senior buildings, and they are at full capacity and
turning apartments quickly.
Commissioner Caryotakis asked about the market and if rents are strengthening a bit.
Grace Management Representative Boedigheimer said she did not feel we are at the bottom end
of the market in terms of our rates. She said they rarely have vacancies and the past 16-17
months have been a positive experience.
Commissioner Runck asked how many tenants have early onset Alzheimer's or dementia. He
said people who can be vulnerable to scammers tend to be in that group. Commissioner Runck
said they tend to live independently longer than they should, on average.
Page 52
Approved
Plymouth Housing and Redevelopment Authority
April 26, 2012
Page 5
Grace Management Representative Bodigheimer said they see other issues such as a resident not
being able to take care of themselves with cooking or bathing become too difficult. She said in
both buildings they have 6-8 residents who receive some personal care support. Grace
Management Representative Bodigheimer said once a year staff may need to talk with family
members regarding a better suited environment.
4. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION by Chairman Kulaszewicz, without objection, to adjourn the meeting at 7:26 p.m.
MOTION approved.
Page 53