Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Council Information Memorandum 09-06-2012
CITY OF PLYMOUTH rp) COUNCIL INFO MEMO September 6, 2012 EVENTS / MEETINGS Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) Agenda 09/12/12............................................................. Page 1 Park & Recreation Advisory Commission (PRAC) Agenda 09/13/12 ................................................ Page 2 September, October, November and December 2012 Official City Meeting Calendars .................... Page 3 Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings .................................................... Page 7 CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Property Owners RE: Rezoning & Preliminary Plat for the property between 5e Ave. and the Canadian Pacific Railroad (2012054)............................................................................... Page 8 Letter to Property Owners RE: Rezoning & Preliminary Plat for 4250 Holly Lane (2012063) ........ Page 9 Memo from Laurie Ahrens RE: Flashing Yellow Arrow Traffic Signal Retrofit .............................. Page 10 Letter from MN House of Representative RE: Poll results to legalize more fireworks .................... Page 16 Letter from Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission RE: Revised 2013 Assessment ... Page 18 News Release RE: Bass Lake shoreline restoration grants, City of Plymouth .................................. Page 26 REPORTS Park & Recreation Spring/Summer Update...................................................................................... Page 27 MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes, 08/15/12......................................................................................... Page 29 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE AGENDA September 12, 2012 WHERE: COUNCIL CHAMBERS Plymouth City Hall 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 CONSENT AGENDA All items listed on the consent agenda* are considered to be routine by the Environmental Quality Committee and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Committee member, or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. 7:00 P.M. CALL TO ORDER 2. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC FORUM — Individuals may address the Committee about any item not contained in the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the Forum. 3. 7:15 P.M APPROVAL OF AGENDA - EQC members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The EQC will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. 4. 7:20 P.M. PRESENTATIONS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION ANNOUNCEMENTS 5. 7:25 P.M. CONSENT AGENDA* A. Approve August 8, 2012, Environmental Quality Committee Meeting Minutes (Asche) 6. 7:30 P.M. GENERAL BUSINESS A. EQC Sponsored Project — Buckthorn Removal (Zieska) B. Adopt a Street Pick up Day in September/October (Asche) 7. REPORTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS 8. FUTURE MEETINGS — October 10, 2012 (DRAFT 2012 Annual Report and 2013 Work Plan) 9. 8:30 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 rp)City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life DATE Et TIME: LOCATION: 1. CALL TO ORDER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA Thursday, September 13, 2012 - 7pm PARKS MAINTENANCE FACILITY 1490023 R') Ave. No., Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3. OPEN FORUM: a. William Gimble - Three Ponds Issue 4. VISITOR PRESENTATIONS (NON -ACTION ITEMS): 4a. Small Dog Parks- Lowell Luebeck 4b. Forestry Operations Presentation - Dan Heitke 4c. Maintenance Operations Tour - Barb Northway, Dan Heitke, Lowell Luebeck 5. COMMISSIONER/STAFF UPDATE (NON ACTION ITEMS): 5a. 2013-2017 CIP Draft Review 5b. FieldTurf Replacement Status 5c. Maple Creek Park Renovation 5d. Yard Waste Site Operation 5e. Upcoming Community/Special Events 6. NEW BUSINESS (ACTION ITEMS): 7. ADJOURNMENT NEXT REGULAR MEETING - October 11, 2012 at the Plymouth Ice Center Page 2 r�Plymouth Adding Quality to Life September 2012 Modified on 08/29/12 '- Yard waste Site & Policy for tmergency Utility Kepairs CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION L LABOR DAY MEETING Council Chambers CITY OFFICES CLOSED 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 5:30 PM 7:00 PM 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK Ii REC MEETING* QUALITY ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room COMMITTEE COMMISSION (EQC) MEETING (PRAC) MEETING 7:00 PM Council Chambers Plymouth REGULAR COUNCIL Maintenance MEETING Facility Council Chambers 16 17 18 5:30 PM 19 7:00 PM 20 21 22 SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING** COMMISSION Medicine Lake Room MEETING Council Chambers 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL Rosh HoShanah MEETING Begins at Sunset Council Chambers 23 24 25 26 CANCELLED 27 7:00 PM 28 29 PLYMOUTH PLYMOUTH HRA MEETING FIREFIGHTERS 5K ADVISORY Medicine Lake Room Fire Station #2 COMMITTEE ON 11:30 AM TRANSIT (PACT) PLYMOUTH ON STUDY SESSION PARADE Yom Kippur Medicine Lake Room CELEBRATION ' Begins at Sunset City Center Area �:Z o ` NW Area Infa tructure Funding & Major itreet Funding Options Modified on 08/29/12 '- Yard waste Site & Policy for tmergency Utility Kepairs CHANGES ARE MADE IN RED Page 3 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life October 2012 Modified on 08/29/12 Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 6:30 PM 7:00 PM VOLUNTEER PLANNING RECOGNITION COMMISSION EVENT MEETING Plymouth Creek Council Chambers Center 7 8jjj� 9 7:00 PM 10 7:00 PM 11 7:00 PM 12 13 REGULAR COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL PARK It REC 12:00-3:00 PM MEETING QUALITY ADVISORY FIRE DEPT. COLUMBUS DAY Council Chambers COMMITTEE COMMISSION OPEN HOUSE Observed (EQC) MEETING (PRAC) MEETING Fire Station III Council Chambers Plymouth PLYMOUTH PUBLIC Ice Center WORKS DIVISION CLOSED 14 15 16 17 7:00 PM 18 19 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL HRA MEETING MEETING Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers 28 29 30 31 6:00-8:00 PM Halloween on the Creek Plymouth Creek Center Modified on 08/29/12 Page 4 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life November 2012 Modified on 08/29/12 Page 5 1 2 3 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE MEETING Lunch Room 4 5 6 MEE 7 8 9 10 7:00 PM GENERAL PLANNING ELECTION DAY COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers Daylight Savings Time Ends 11 12 13 7:00 PM 14 7:00 PM 15 7:00 PM 16 17 VETERANS DAY REGULAR COUNCIL. ENVIRONMENTAL HRA MEETING 10:00 AM -5 PM VETERANS DAY Observed MEETING QUALITY Medicine Lake Room PLYMOUTH ARTS CITY OFFICES Council Chambers COMMITTEE FAIR CLOSED (EQC) MEETING Plymouth Creek Council Chambers Center 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 CANCELLED 12:00-5 PM PLANNING PLYMOUTH ARTS COMMISSION THANKSGIVING THANKSGIVING FAIR MEETING HOLIDAY HOLIDAY Plymouth Creek Center Council Chambers CITY OFFICES CITY OFFICES CLOSED CLOSED 25 26 27 28 29 30 7:00 PM 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL PLYMOUTH MEETING ADVISORY Council Chambers COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) MEETING Medicine Lake Room Modified on 08/29/12 Page 5 City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life December 2012 Modified on 08/29/12 Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 7:00 PM 6 7 8 PLANNING 2:00-5:00 PM COMMISSION OLD FASHIONED MEETING CHRISTMAS Council Chambers Plymouth Historical Society Building Chanukah Begins at Sunset 9 10 11 12 7:00 PM 13 14 15 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL QUALITY PARK tt REC MEETING COMMITTEE (EQC) ADVISORY Council Chambers MEETING COMMISSION Council Chambers (PRAC) MEETING 7:00 PM Council Chambers CHARTER COMMISSION ANNUAL MEETING Medicine Lake Room 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Council Chambers 23 24 CHRISTEVE AS 25 26 27 7:00 PM 28 29 HRA MEETING CITY / Medicine Lake Room OFFICES CHRISTMAS DAY LOSE AT 12:00 P CITY OFFICES CLOSED NEW YEAR'S EVE Modified on 08/29/12 Page 6 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items September 18, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • Yard Waste Site • Policy for Emergency Utility Repairs September 18, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announce Plymouth on Parade on September 29 • Announce Plymouth Firefighters 5K Run on September 29 • Accept Utilities for Continual Maintenance for Taryn Hills 11th Addition (2010080) October 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Appoint additional election judges for the General Election • Announce Fire Department Open House on October 20 October 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announce Halloween on the Creek on October 31 • Announce Plymouth Pet Expo on November 3-4 • Announce Paint the Pavement 5K Fun Run/Walk on November 10 November 13, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Canvass 2012 General Election results • Announce Plymouth Arts Fair on November 17-18 November 27, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announce Old Fashioned Christmas on December 2 December 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Recognize Police Citizen Academy Graduates • Announce New Year's Eve Event on December 31 Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. Page 7 rp)City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life September 7, 2012 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED BETWEEN 54TH AVENUE AND THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILROAD (2012054) Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a development application submitted by US Homes Corporation dba Lennar, under file no. 2012054, requesting approval of the following items for a proposed plat to be called "KIRKWOOD II" for the roughly 32 -acre site: 1) a rezoning from FRD (future restricted development) to RSF-3 (single family detached 3) and 2) a preliminary plat to create 77 single- family lots. A map showing the location of the subject property is provided below. Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 750 feet of the site of this proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a public hearing to be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, in the Council Chambers at Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be invited to offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, or feel free to call the city planning department at (763) 509-5450 for more information. You may also submit comments in writing. All written comments will become part of the public record. INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the community development information counter (lower level of City Hall), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday fiom 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m, to 6:00 p.m., except holidays. Sincerely, Barbara G. Thomson, AICP Planning Manager PAPlanoing Anplicaliom'FC NolimA2DIA2012054 pmPimlicc.dau 3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.plymouthmn.gov ,LTi Page 8 irp) City of Plymouth Adding Quality to Life September 7, 2012 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR REZONING AND PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 4520 HOLLY LANE NORTH (2012063) Dear Property Owner: Pursuant to the provisions of the Plymouth Zoning Ordinance, this letter is to inform you of a development application submitted by Gary Anderson, under file no. 2012063, requesting approval of the following items: 1) a rezoning from FRD (future restricted development) to RSF-1 (single family detached 1) and 2) a preliminary plat to create two single-family lots to be called "Homeland" for the roughly 0.9 -acre site. Under the plan, the property would be split in half to allow a new home to be constructed south of the existing home. The existing home would remain. A map showing the location of the subject property is provided below. Hennepin County records indicate your property is located within 750 feet of the site of this proposal. You are hereby notified of, and cordially invited to attend a public hearing to be held by the Plymouth Planning Commission at 7:00 p.m., on Wednesday, September 19, 2012, in the Council Chambers at Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. The public will be invited to offer questions and comments concerning this application at that time, or feel free to call the city planning department at (763) 509-5450 for more information. You may also submit comments in writing. All written comments will become part of the public record. INFORMATION relating to this request may be examined at the community development information counter (lower level of City Hall), on Mondays and Wednesday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and Tuesdays from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., except holidays. Sincerely, ftAhN "A"W Barbara G. Thomson, AICP Planning Manager P:V 1...i•V Appli-li—TC Hotices52a 12r2n12 7 pmpwlim.&C., 3400 Plymouth Blvd • Plymouth, Minnesota 55447-1482 • Tel: 763-509-5000 • www.plymouthmn.gov Page 9 City or Plymouth 20=0100000000 -- Adding Qyolity to Life To: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager Prepared by: Doran Cote, Director of Public Works Reviewed by: Item: Flashing Yellow farrow Traffic Signal Retrofit 1. ACTION REQUESTED: A 2. BACKGROUND}: Recently the City Council discussed their desire to potentially implement flashing yellow arrows on our traffic signals. There are over 70 traffic signals in Plymouth, 12 of which are ours to operate and maintain. Attached is MnDOT, Hennepin County and Washington County literature that speaks to the benefits of the flashing yellow arrows. Hennepin County currently has ? signals with flashing yellow arrows, MnDOT states that the "most typical use will be at intersection and times -of - day that have lower volumes, lover speeds and other favorable conditions". 3. BUDGET IMPACT: Nhi-DOT estimates that retrofitting each signal can cost between S 10,000 and 525.000 or more depending on the age of the signal and the technology used to operate the signal. 4. ATTACHMENTS: Literature Page 10 A safer, more efficient left -turn signal Safer A national study demonstrated that drivers found flashing yellow left -turn arrows more understand- able than traditional yield -on -green indications (individual traffic signal lights). Less delay There are more opportunities to make a left turn with the flashing yellow left -turn arrow than with the traditional three -arrow, red, yellow and green indications. More flexibility The new traffic signals provide traffic engineers with more options to handle variable traffic volumes.. Minnesota Department of Transportation Office of Traffic, Safety and Technology 1500 West County Road B2 Roseville, MN 55113 Jerry Kotzenmacher Phone. 651-234-7054 E-mail: jerry.kotzenmacher@state.mn.us A safer, more efficient left -turn signal What the arrows mean Solid red arrow: Drivers intending to turn left must stop and wait. They should not enter an intersection to turn when a solid red arrow is being displayed. Solid yellow arrow: The left -turn signal is about to change to red and drivers should prepare to stop or prepare to complete a left turn if they are legally within the intersection and there is no conflicting traffic present. Flashing yellow arrow: Drivers are allowed to turn left after yielding to all oncoming traffic and to any pedestrians in the crosswalk. Oncoming traffic has a green light. Drivers must wait for a safe gap in oncoming traffic before turning. Solid green arrow: Left turns have the right of way. Oncoming traffic has a red light. Flashing yellow arrow benefits A flashing yellow arrow signal has the same meaning it always has: left turns may proceed with caution after yielding to oncoming traffic. In the past, flashing yellow arrows in Minnesota were only used when the entire traffic signal was in flash -mode, Use of the flashing yellow arrow has been shown to have several benefits includ- ing minimizing delays and enhancing safety by reducing driver errors. Flashing yellow arrow signals have been approved for widespread use by the Federal Highway Administration.. Where will the flashing yellow arrow be used? The majority of newly installed MnDOT traffic signals will have the flashing yellow arrow option. The flashing yellow arrow may be used at any intersection at any time but the most typical use will be at intersections and times -of -day that have lower volumes, lower speeds and other favorable conditions. A better left - turn signal Flashing yellow arrow signals have been shown to help drivers make fewer mistakes, They keep motorists safer during heavy traffic and reduce delays when traffic is light, age Flashing Yellow Arrow Traffic Signals Heimepin County, Nlinnesota Page l of? Flashing Yellow Arrow Traffic ® SHARE ©I•Q... Signals Hennepin County is installing flashing yellow arrow traffic signals in New Hope and St. Louis Park in late September. Flashing yellow arrow traffic signals provide the flexibility to restrict left turns for safety during heavy traffic, while still allowing yielding during off-peak conditions. Locations New Hope—at the intersection of County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 9 (Rockford Road) and Nevada Avenue. St. Louis Park—at the intersection of CSAH 5 (Minnetonka Boulevard) and Toledo Avenue (the east ramp of Trunk Highway 100). How they work • Flashing yellow arrow traffic signals feature a flashing arrow, in addition to the standard red, yellow, and green arrows. • When illuminated, the flashing yellow arrow allows waiting motorists to make a left-hand turn after yielding to oncoming traffic. The county will continue to install flashing yellow arrow signals where their use is appropriate. The common "Left Turn Yield on Green" design will no longer be used. Existing signals may also be retrofitted to flashing yellow arrow operations. Approved for use in 2006, by the Federal Highway Administration, the Minnesota Department of Transportation recently began installing flashing yellow arrow traffic signals. For more detailed information about the flashing yellow arrow traffic signal, please visit MnjDOT's website, or read their brochure (PDF 288kb). Contact Transportation Department Public Works Facility Email Phone: 612-596-0300 FAX: 612-321-3410 Office hours Monday - Friday from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Pae 13 http: he�nnepin.usrportal site HennepinUS inenuitem.b l ah754717-1oe�4Ofa() l dtb47ccfO649S, ... � 4 20 t 2 Washington County will be designing Flashing Yellow Arrow control into most new traffic signals, except in places that do not need any separate left turn signals and in places where yielding left turns cannot be safely accommodated. For existing traffic signals, Washington County will be prioritizing locations for installation of Flashing Yellow Arrow Control. Criteria for this prioritization will include traffic volume, lane configuration, and available sight distance. Converting existing traffic signals to use Flashing Yellow Arrow control requires a significant investment in new hardware and control equipment, and therefore will be subject to available funding and staff resources. An advantage of the flashing yellow arrow display is that it gives traffic engineers the flexibility to use specific indications during different times of day. This means that the flashing yellow arrow or steady green arrow may not be seen every time you approach the intersection. This can reduce your wait times at a signal using this display compared to traditional left turn signals. Sources: Minnesota Department of Transportation Missouri Department of Transportation National Cooperative Highway Research Program A Better Left Turn Signal Safer A national study demonstrated that drivers h, had fewer crashes with the flashing yellow left -turn arrow than with the traditional yield -on -green indications. Less Delay You have more opportunities to make a left turn with the flashing yellow left -turn arrow than with the traditional three -arrow indications, which keeps you moving. More Flexible The new display provides traffic engineers with more options to handle variable traffic volumes. Washington +bounty Washington County Public Works Department 11660 Myeron Road North Stillwater, MN 55082 Phone: 651-430-4300 Fax: 651-430-4350 www. co, wash i ngton. mn. u s Rev 1.2 - October 2010 Wa hngytoncio .00onftkamoo tY LASHING Traffic Signal Control Page 14 A flashing yellow arrow signal has the same meaning it always has: Left turns may proceed with caution after yielding to oncoming traffic. In the past, flashing yellow arrows in Minnesota were only used when the entire traffic signal was in flash mode. However, use of the flashing yellow arrow as part of normal operation has been shown to have several benefits by reducing delays while enhancing safety by reducing driver errors, and has now been approved for widespread use. Both types of control allow left turns to proceed after yielding to oncoming traffic. Flashing Yellow Arrow control, however, provides the flexibility to restrict left turns for safety during heavy traffic, while still allowing yielding during the off-peak conditions. "Left Turn Yield on Green" signals do not allow this type of flexibility, because left turns are therefore allowed whenever the adjacent through lanes have a green light. This problem currently prevents the use of Left Turn Yield on Green in many locations, resulting in higher delays. Absolutely. This system has been used in other parts of the country and has also been successfully tested and implemented at several locations in the Twin Cities area. Research also shows that drivers make fewer mistakes when flashing yellow arrow control is used. For more details on this research, please visit: trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp rpt 493.pdf This type of signal arrangement, with five Solid Green Arrow: lights, can provide a green arrow for left Left Turns have the right of way. turns that otherwise might not have enough Oncoming traffic has a red light. gaps to turn in heavy traffic, and still allows drivers to turn left after yielding to oncoming traffic when only the green circle is lit. However, this arrangement has been shown r; to have a higher risk of driver mistakes, so it Solid Yellow Arrow: - is only used on low -speed roads or where The left turn signal is about to change turning traffic is light. It is also not flexible, to red, and drivers should prepare to because left turns cannot be prevented if stop, or prepare to complete your left the adjacent through lanes are being shown turn if you are legally within the a green light. intersection and there is no conflicting traffic present. This type of signal arrangement, with three The solid yellow arrow will always arrows, allows left turns only when the display after the green arrow AND oncoming traffic is stopped by a red light. It after the flashing yellow arrow. A is well understood and allows left turns to be solid yellow arrow will always be controlled independently, but it also results followed by a red arrow. in high delays. It can be very frustrating to wait for a green arrow when it is obvious Flashing Yellow Arrow: that there is no oncoming traffic, or to be Drivers are allowed to turn left after stopped so that a single oncoming vehicle yielding to all oncoming traffic and to can make a left turn. any pedestrians in the crosswalk. Oncoming traffic has a green light. Drivers must wait for a safe gap in �. Flashing Yellow arrow Control allows the oncoming traffic before turning. .�u -� best of both worlds. It has been shown to have less probability for driver mistakes, and it can use the most optimal type of Solid Red Arrow: Cdepending on traffic conditions, Drivers intending to turn left must stop keeping traffic flow safe during heavy and wait. Do not enter an intersection traffic while reducing delay when traffic to turn when a solid red arrow is being is light. This flexibility allows it to be used displayed. in places where the restrictive three -arrow signal would have otherwise been required. Page 15 PUBLIC INFORMATION SERVICES 1..�•1'fl;.til. Minnesota 175 State Office Building 100 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. House of St. Paul, MN 55155.E ,° 651-296-2146 Fax: 651-297-8135 _Jr �` Representatives 800-657-3550 ►rs. Kurt Zellers, Speaker FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: Sept. 4, 2012 Contact: Mike Cook 651-296-1341 mike.cook@ house.mn 2012 State Fair Poll Results Polltakers almost evenly split on legalizing more fireworks Those taking the 2012 nonpartisan House Public Information Services Office State Fair Opinion Poll are almost evenly split on the legalization of firecrackers, bottle rockets and other consumer fireworks. Of the more than 9,000 people participating in this year's poll, 47.8 percent believe such fireworks should be legalized, while 45 percent are against the idea. More than 7 percent are undecided or have no opinion. The poll is an informal, unscientific survey of issues discussed in prior legislative sessions and may be topics of discussion in 2013. Gov. Mark Dayton vetoed a bill in 2012 to expand legal fireworks in Minnesota to include bottle rockets, firecrackers and other fireworks classified by the American Pyrotechnics Association as consumer fireworks. "Most Minnesotans are responsible enough to ignite and explode those inherently dangerous devices properly and safely. Unfortunately some are not," Dayton wrote in his veto message. Current Minnesota law allows for the use of party poppers, snappers, toy smoke devices, snakes, glow worms or sparklers, but supporters note that many Minnesotans already cross into neighboring states to spend their money for other consumer fireworks and will continue to do so. A number of items that are taxable in stores, such as books, movies and music, are not subject to sales tax when downloaded from the Internet. Polltakers are also nearly split on the state collecting sales tax on these items with 47 percent in favor of the idea and 44.6 percent against. A pair of education issues received support of polltakers. Nearly 72 percent believe school districts should be authorized to use performance evaluations in making teacher layoff decisions, rather than basing the cuts on seniority. More than 56 percent support the idea of all school districts being permitted to start classes before Labor Day. Two questions received overwhelmingly positive responses from people who took the poll. Nearly 93 percent believe that employers should not be allowed to require employees to provide their social media passwords, such as those for Facebook and Twitter, as a condition of employment. Additionally, 85.1 percent of those filling out the opinion poll believe Lao -American and Hmong-American veterans who fought with the United States during the Vietnam War should be eligible for burial in the state cemetery near Camp Ripley. More than half of the polltakers (53.4 percent) believe a higher legislative threshold should be established when it comes to getting constitutional amendments on the ballot, such as this year's photo identification and defining marriage questions. Currently, a simple majority in the House and Senate is needed to put a question before state voters. Polltakers also believe: • motorcyclists should be required to wear a helmet (69.9 percent); • companies violating environmental laws should be ineligible for state tax breaks or subsidies (66.8 percent); • liquor stores should be permitted to open on Sundays (63 percent); • the right to defend oneself should not be expanded so that a person must no longer retreat before using force, including lethal force, against an attacker in a public place (47.9 percent); and • each parent in a child custody dispute should not be guaranteed at least 45.1 percent of parenting time (45.5 percent). However, more than 27 percent had no opinion or were undecided on the issue. Here's a look at the questions and results. All percentages are rounded to the nearest one-tenth. Totals are for those that actually voted on the question. Page 16 1. Should employers be allowed to require employees to provide their social media passwords as a condition of employment? Yes............................................ 3.9%0..................... (353) No ............................................. 92.6% ................ (8,326) Undecided/No Opinion............ 3.5% ..................... (317) 2. A number of items that are taxable in stores, such as books, movies and music, are not subject to sales tax when downloaded from the Internet. Should the state collect sales tax on these digital goods? Yes............................................47.0%................ (4,218) No.............................................44.6%................ (4,006) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 8.4% ..................... (755) 3. Minnesotans can now legally purchase and use sparklers, toy smoke devices and glow worms. Should other consumer fireworks, such as bottle rockets and firecrackers, also be legalized? Yes............................................47.8%................ (4,298) No.............................................45.0%................ (4,045) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 7.1% ..................... (640) 4. Should motorcyclists be required to wear a helmet? Yes ............................................ 69.9% ................ (6,277) No ............................................. 25.0% ................ (2,242) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 5.1% ..................... (460) 5. Should Hmong-American and Lao -American veterans who fought on the U.S. side during the Vietnam War be eligible for burial at the Minnesota State Veterans Cemetery near Camp Ripley? Yes ............................................ 85.1% ................ (7,640) No............................................. 6.8% ..................... (615) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 8.0% ..................... (720) 6. Currently, when schools need to lay off teachers, they must determine who will lose their jobs based on seniority. Should school districts be authorized to use performance evaluations in making layoff decisions? Yes ............................................ 71.9% ................ (6,450) No.............................................20.4%................ (1,828) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 7.8% ..................... (697) 7. Should liquor stores be allowed to be open on Sundays? Yes ............................................ 63.0% ................ (5,670) No ............................................. 29.9% ................ (2,687) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 7.1% ..................... (634) 8. In child custody disputes, a parent is currently entitled to receive at least 25 percent of parenting time. Should each parent be guaranteed at least 45.1 percent of parenting time? Yes ............................................ 26.9% ................ (2,408) No.............................................45.5%................ (4,076) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 27.7% ................ (2,483) 9. Should companies that violate environmental laws be ineligible for state tax breaks or subsidies? Yes............................................66.8%................ (5,996) No.............................................25.5%................ (2,290) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 7.7% ..................... (693) 10. A simple majority of both bodies of the Legislature is required to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. Should there be a higher threshold? Yes............................................ 53.4% ................ (4,778) No.............................................36.3%................ (3,250) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 10.3% ................... (923) 11. Should the right to defend one's self be expanded so that an individual would no longer have a duty to retreat before using force, including lethal force, against an attacker in a public place? Yes............................................ 39.5% ................ (3,537) No.............................................47.9%................ (4,297) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 12.6% ................ (1,128) 12. Should all school districts be permitted to start classes before Labor Day? Yes ............................................ 56.4% ................ (5,066) No.............................................32.1%................ (2,881) Undecided/No Opinion ............ 11.6% ................ (1,042) 13. Every 10 years, legislative boundaries are reconfigured to ensure equal representation. Do you know which district you are in? If, not stop by the Senate booth next door to find out! Yes............................................ 81.4% ................ (7,257) No.............................................15.4%................ (1,372) Undecided/No Opinion............ 3.3% ..................... (290) -30- Page 17 August 30, 2012 Ms. Sandra Engdahl, City Clerk City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 RECEIVED AUG 91 2012 BY:_��_ Re: 2013 Assessment due 2/1/13 to Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Dear Ms. Engdahl: Enclosed for your reference are the final 2013 operating budget and member -city assessment table of the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC). The final budget, adopted by the BCWMC at its August 15, 2012, meeting, had two changes from the proposed budget sent to your city in June 2012 for review. The changes reduced the budget for line item 22 for the Administrator to $50,000 from the previously proposed $100,000 and reduced the budget for line item 31 for the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program to $17,000 from the previously proposed $25,000. The amount of your City's assessment of costs associated with the BCWMC's fiscal year 2013 is $235,310. The bylaws of the BCWMC call for payment by February 1. The assessment payment should be sent to: Sue Virnig, Deputy Treasurer Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission c/o City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Golden Valley, MN 55427 Thank you for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please call me at 952-832--2552. Sincerely, t Amy Herb t, Recording Administrator Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Encl. cc: Ginny Black, Chair, BCWMC Derek Asche, B WMC TAC Sue Virnig, Deputy Treasurer Page 18 A F F G H I J K L 1 Final 2013 Operating Budget Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - August 16, 2012 2 3 4 Item 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Adopted 2012 Estimated Budget Budget 2013 Proposed Budget 5 JENGINEERING Technical Services 119,832 127,840 120,000 125,000 120,000 Plat Reviews (funded by permit fees) 2012-48,000 53,128 50,971 60,000 60,000 60,000 Commission and TAC Meetings 12,316 9,919 14,250 15,000 14,250 Surveys and Studies 17,899 21,411 10,000 10,000 10,000 _TTWater Water Quality l Monitoring 24,489 29,957 20,000 20,000 40,000 Quantity 8,264 8,532 11,000 11,000 11,(100 12 Inspections IT Watershed Inspections 10,842 4,827 7,000 7,000 7,000 Project Inspections 5,714 2,291 91000 9,001) 15,000 77 Municipal Plan Review 7,927 0 2,000 2,000 2,000 16 Subtotal Engineering $260,411 $255,748 $253,250 $259,000 $279,250 17 PLANNING 18 Watershed -wide XP-SWMM Model 70,000 70,000 19 Watershed -wide P8 Water Quality Model 135,000 135,400 20 Next Generation Plan 40,000 40,000 40,000 21 Subtotal Planning $0 $0 $245,000 $245,000 $40,000 22 Administrator 30,297 24,099 50,000 50,000 50,000 23 Legal 17,331 16,953 18,500 18,500 18,500 Financial Management 3,054 3,100 3,045 3,045 3,045 25 Audit, Insurance & Bond 13,328 12,771 15,225 15,225 15,225 Meeting Catering Expenses 4,609 3,940 2,750 2,750 2,750 7 Administrative Services 42,578 39,303 40,000 40,000 40,D00 Public Outreach 29 Publications/ Annual Report 5,169 2,410 2,000 2,000 2,000 30 Website 1,031 214 2,500 2,500 2,500 1 Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP 6,818 9,106 10,000 10,000 17,001) 3 Demo nslrationlEducation Grants 3,140 0 0 IT Watershed Education Partnerships 16,150 19,055 13,000 13,000 15,000 34 Education and Public Outreach 2,911 0 5,775 5,775 14,775 35 Public Communications 692 1,443 3,000 3,000 3,000 36 Erosion/Sediment (Channel Maintenance) 25,00025,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Long -Term Matnt. (Flood Control Project) 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 5 0 Subtotal Other $182,394 215,795 215,795 233,795 TMDL Studies A 10,000 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 Subtotal TMDL Studies 10,000 1 so 10,000 1 10,000 10,000 42 GRAND TOTAL 1 $467,5191 $438,142 1 $724,045 1 $729,795 $563,045 43 Financial Information . .................................................. Audited fiscal year fund balance at January 31, 2012 ................... 392,707 Expected income from assessments in 2012 " ' ' " '-------- 461'aly. Transfer from Long-term Maintenance Fund for XP SWMM Model* """"""'""'""'"""""""""""""""""""""""""""------`-- ` Transfer from Long-term Maintenance Fund for P8 Model* """"""..... '""'`"""'""'""'""''""""""""''""""""'--------- " 9- '�a5,aa�- Expected interest income in 2012........................................................................---------------�- Expected income from project review fees --------- �3$-aoa- Estimated funds available for fiscal year 2012 """"""'." ` " ""......_"'".'"""""""""""""""" ..____""- ................... . .. .................................. Estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2012 ....'""""" 729,785 Estimated fund balance as of January 31, 2013 -------- 37$,�$$f- -..................................................... 2013 Budget Proposed 2013 Capital Projects....................................................................... 1,000,000 Proposed 2013 Operating Budget _ ..........................................-------- �a�,0d5 Proposed total 2013 Budget.......................................................................ddb ................................. 2013 Assessments and Fees """"`-""""""` 2013 Operating Budget ......................... I ............ . 563,045_ Estimated 2013 permitfees(80% of permit expenditures) d$:aab Transfer from Lang -term Maintenance Fund for XP SWMM Model "' p Transfer from Long-term Maintenance Fund for PB Modelp - Use of TMDL Studies Fund....................................................................... Assessment proposed for 2013 Operating Budget Proposed Budget Reserve on January 31, 2013 (1) Review municipal local plan amendments and adjoining WMO amendments (2) Review municipal comprehensive plan amendments (3) Grant program for demonstrations and education (4) 2012 budget - CAMP ($5,000) River Watch ($2,000) Watershed Partners ($3,000) Metro Blooms ($2,000) Blue Thumb ($1,000). In 2011, WMWA projects and administration were combined into line item 34 -Education and Public Outreach. (5) 2012 budget includes brochures, factsheets, display materials, education articles and WMWA administration and projects. (6) Will be transferred to Channel Maintenance Fund. (7) Will be transferred to Long -Term Maintenance Fund. Page 19 44 TV tib IST IT 71- 17- 715- 54 28 79 34 86 40 44 46 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Final 2013 Assessment Juane 2012 Community For Taxes Payable in 2012 Net Tax Capacity* 2012 Percent of Valuation Current Area Watershed in Acres Percent of Area Average Percent 2011 Assessment $434,151 2012 Assessment $461,045 Final 2013 Assessment $515,045 Crystal $6,765,157 5.56 1,264 5.09 5.32 $23,433 $24,941 $27,424 Golden Valley 1 $28,618,722 23.53 6,615 26.63 25.08 1 $109,230 $115,080 $129,156 Medicine Lake $871,870 0.72 199 0.80 0.76 $3,301 $3,484 $3,909 Minneapolis $8,369,231 6.88 1,690 6.80 6.84 $31,375 $32,661 $35,236 Minnetonka $8,020,340 6.59 1,108 4.46 5.53 $22,558 $24,920 $28,464 New Hope $6,929,451 5.70 1,252 5.04 5.37 $23,840 $25,533 $27,648 h $54,265,680 44.61 11,618 46.77 45.69 $196,201 $209,101 $235,310 dale $2,315,719 1.90 345 1.39 1.65 $7,672 $8,022 $8,479 Park L $5,491,385 4.51 752 3.03 3.77 $16,541 $17,303 $19,420 1 $121,647,555 1 100.00 1 24,843 1 100.00 I 100.0:0:]l $434,15011 $461,045 $515,045 9.96% 12.23% 12.19% 7.88% 14.22% 8.28% 12.53% 5.69% 12.24% 11.71% Page 20 Item 2010 Actual 2011 Actual 2012 Adopted Budget 2012 Estimated Budget 2013 Final Budget Revenue: Member Contributions 414,150 434,151 469,045 461,045 503,045 Permit Fees 22,000 35,300 48,000 48,000 48,000 Met Council (WOMP) 5,000 Property Taxes 933,527 850,947 998,000 998,000 1,000,000 Page 21 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 2013 Budget and Levy August 2012 The Joint and Cooperative Agreement establishing the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (BCWMC) sets forth the procedure required to adopt the annual budget. Article VIII, Subdivision 3, provides that each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund to be used for administrative purposes and certain operating expenses. Half of the annual contribution of each member is based on assessed valuation of property within the watershed and the other half on the ratio of area of each member within the watershed to the total area of the Bassett Creek watershed. Subdivision 5 of Article VIII further provides: "On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a detailed budget for the ensuing year and decide uponthe total amount necessary for the general fund." Budget approval requires a two-thirds vote (six Commissioners). Further, the Secretary "shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member governmental unit, together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member." Each of the nine members then has until August 1 to file an objection to the budget. The 2013 budget was prepared by the BCWMC Budget Committee consisting of the four Commissioners of the Executive Committee and one watershed resident as appointed by the Commission. The BCWMC's most recent Watershed Management Plan was approved by the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources on August 25, 2004, and adopted by the BCWMC on September 16, 2004. That plan includes a capital projects budget, which is funded by ad valorem taxes and has been amended to include channel restoration and other projects. Commission activities have focused on implementation of the Watershed Management Plan. The final 2013 budget was adopted by seven commissioners voting in favor of and zero commissioners voting against the budget at the BCWMC meeting on August 16, 2012. The final 2013 budget is enclosed. Specific items in the budget are discussed below. • Engineering services are budgeted at $279,250 in 2013. Many of the individual items have remained the same from the 2012 budget. The following paragraphs summarize each of the Engineering budget items. • Technical Services (line 6) - this item covers the day-to-day technical operations, such as preparing for the Commission and TAC meetings, performing preliminary site reviews and correspondence, and communications with the Commissioners, watershed communities, developers, agencies, and other entities. The proposed 2013 budget is $120,000, the same as the 2012 budget. • Plat Reviews line — This item covers the cost of reviewing plats submitted to the Commission for review. These costs are largely offset by a permit fee instituted by the Commission at its December 15, 2005, meeting, and effective January 1, 2006, and reviewed annually and revised as needed. The proposed 2013 budget is $60,000, the same as the 2012 budget. • Commission and TAC Meetings (line 8) - this item covers the cost for the engineer to attend 12 monthly Commission meetings and six bimonthly TAC meetings. The proposed 2013 budget is $14,250, the same as the 2012 budget. • Surveys and Studies line 9 - the proposed budget for 2013 is $10,000. The intent of this budget item is to cover the costs of conducting special studies, and addressing unanticipated issues, questions, etc. that can arise during the year. This item is the same as the 2012 budget. • Water Quality/Monitoring (line 10) -the proposed 2013 budget is $40,000. This budget item includes detailed lake monitoring of the lakes within the watershed, on a four-year monitoring cycle, and biotic index monitoring on Bassett Creek on a once -every -three-year monitoring cycle. This item also includes funding to allow the engineer to respond to requests from the BCWMC, watershed cities, or other regulatory agencies to review water quality information and studies, and to address water quality questions from residents. In 2013 the Commission is proposing to monitor Northwood Lake and North and South Rice Lakes. • Water Quantity (line 11) - the proposed 2013 budget is $11,000, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers the work associated with the BCWMC's lake and stream gauging program. The readings have proved valuable to member communities for planning future development and as documentation of the response of surface water Page 22 bodies to above normal and below normal precipitation. The program also includes periodic surveys of benchmarks to ensure consistency with past readings. o The 2013 lake gauging program will consist of measuring water levels on Medicine Lake, Sweeney Lake, Parkers Lake, Westwood Lake, Crane Lake (Ridgedale Pond), and Northwood Lake. The Bassett Creek Park Pond and Wirth Park storage areas will also be included for monitoring. Two readings per month will be taken during the period April 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013. One reading per month will be taken during the period October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014. o The 2013 stream gauging program will consist of periodically reading stages, or gauging the stream, at the new tunnel entrance, at the Theodore Wirth Park/T.H. 55 outlet structure, at Highway 100 (main stem), at Wisconsin Avenue, at Sweeney Lake, at Medicine Lake outlet, at Winnetka Avenue (north branch), at 26th Avenue (Plymouth Creek fish barrier), and at other selected locations during periods of high flow. • Inspections (line 12) =there are two separate budget items under this task: a. Watershed Erosion Control Inspections (line 13) - The proposed 2013 budget is $7,000, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers the BCWMC's construction site erosion control inspection program. The inspections have been valuable for correcting erosion and sediment control practices which are not in conformance with BCWMC policies. The inspections also verify that sites are developed in accordance with approved plans. The program consists of inspecting active construction sites in the watershed once every month. Erosion control inspections will begin April 2013 and extend through October 2013. Selected sites may be inspected on two-week intervals to verify that requested erosion control modifications have been completed. Critical work such as wetland or creek crossings and work adjacent to lakes and sensitive wetlands are inspected as necessary. The new conduit inlet in Minneapolis will also be inspected for accumulation of debris. BCWMC staff coordinates the inspections with respective contacts from each city. Following each inspection, a letter listing the construction projects and the improvements needed for effective erosion control will be sent to the inspection department at each city. b. Annual Flood Control Project Inspections (line 14) - this item covers the BCWMC's annual inspection of the flood control project features completed by the Commission between 1974 and 1996. The objective of the inspection program is to find and address erosion, settlement, sedimentation, and structural issues. In accordance with the Bassett Creek Flood Control Project Operation and Maintenance Manual (except as noted), the following project features require annual inspection: Minneapolis: ❑ Conduit (Double Box Culvert) — inspect double box culvert every five years (2004, 2009, 2014, 2019 ...) ❑ Deep Tunnel — dewater and inspect tunnel every 20 years. This inspection was performed during 2008; the next inspection will be 2028 ❑ Old Tunnel (not included in BCWMC inspection program) ❑ Open Channel Golden Valley ❑ Highway 55 Control Structure & Ponding Area ❑ Golden Valley Country Club Embankment (Box Culvert, Overflow Weir, and downstream channel) ❑ Noble Avenue Crossing ❑ Regent Avenue Crossing ❑ Westbrook Road Crossing ❑ Wisconsin Avenue Crossing ❑ Minnaqua Drive Bridge Removal Crystal ❑ Box Culvert and Channel Improvements (Markwood Area) ❑ Edgewood Embankment with Ponding ❑ Highway 100Bassett Creek Park Pond ❑ 32nd Avenue Crossing C Brunswick Avenue Crossing ❑ 34th Avenue Crossing ❑ Douglas Drive Crossing ❑ Georgia Avenue Crossing ❑ 36th -Hampshire Avenue Crossing ❑ Channel Improvements Plymouth ❑ Medicine Lake Outlet Structure C Plymouth Fish Barrier Page 23 In addition to inspection of the above projects, the Commission proposes to conduct a sediment survey of Bassett. Creek Park Pond. The proposed 2013 budget is $15,000, $6,000 more than the 2012 budget and will be funded through the Long -Term Maintenance fiord for flood control projects. Municipal Plain Review (line 15) _ for 2013, the budgef for this item is $2000 to review amendments to member cities' local water management plans and amendments to adjacent WMO plans, for conformance with the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan. In addition, State Law requires the Commission to update its Water Management Plan every 10 -years. The Commission has started that process. Once complete member Cities must update their plans to be in conformance with the Commission's Plan. To buffer the increase in funds needed to review member cities Watershed Management plans, the Administrative Services Committee recommends that the Commission start a fund to be used exclusively for those reviews. • Planaung • Watershed Modeling lines 18-19 -these tasks will be completed in 2012, so this budget is zero for 2013. • Next Generation Plan (line 20) the budget for this item is $40,000 the same as the 2012 budget. This task is the budget required to conduct the 10 -year update to the Commissions Water Management Plan. This is generally a two - to three-year process, so continues in 2013. • Administrator (line 22) - In 2010 the Commission, for the first time, contracted for administrative services to assist the Commission in developing the budget, agendas, coordinating capital improvement projects, be the first point of contact for developers and local, state and federal agencies. The Administrator left the Commission in September 2011..The Commission's experience with the Administrator reinforced the Commission's view that an Administrator is needed to perform the services listed above as well as other activities such as the development of the Watershed Management Plan, The Commission is actively looking at options and has decided to maintain the Administrator budget at its 2012 level of $50,000 for 2013. • Legal (line 23) - the proposed 2013 budget is $18,500, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers routine legal services including attending commission meetings, reviewing agendas, and contracts. • Financial Manaizement (line 24) - the proposed 2013 budget is $3,045, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers services provided by the BCWMC Deputy Treasurer at the City of Golden Valley. • Audit Insurance Bond(line 25 - the proposed 2013 budget is $15,224, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers the cost of the annual audit, required by state law, plus liability insurance and bonding. • Meeting catering ex erases line 26 - the proposed 2013 budget is $2,750, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers the cost of the monthly meetings. • Secretarial Services line 27 - the proposed 2013 budget is $40,000, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers secretarial services, including scheduling and public noticing meetings of the commission and its subcommittees, mailings, copying, travel, attending the monthly commission meetings and taking care of the details of the meeting, working with the chair and commission staff to prepare the agenda for the monthly meeting. • Public Outreach line 28 - there are two budget items under this task: a. Publications/Annual Report (line29) — the proposed 2013 budget is $2,000, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers costs for preparing the BCWMC's annual report. b. Website (line 30) — the proposed 2013 budget is $2,500, the same as the 2012 budget. This item covers costs for maintaining, updating, and making improvements to the BCWMC Website. WOMP (line 31) - $17,000 is budgeted for 2013, which is intended to cover the BCWMC's costs related to the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) station on Bassett Creek. The WOMP monitoring program has been in place since 2000. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) has been running the WOMP station for the last several years, in a cooperative effort with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) and the BCWMC. In this role, the MPRB has been handling the sample and data collection tasks, while MCES performs maintenance, and BCWMC staff provides assistance with the rating curve. Page 24 In 2012 BCWMC was notified by the MPRB that it will be terminating its WOMP station contract with the Metropolitan Council on June 25, 2012. Metropolitan Council staff is willing to continue the monitoring through 2012 as a short-term solution. The 2013 budget comprises approximately$11,000 for WOMP station monitoring services to be provided to thO BCWMC by Wenck Associates, Inc. and. approximately $6,000 for data management and rating curve revision services to be provided by Barr Engineering Company. • Demonstration/Education Grants GLme 32 -- this item has no budget at this time. This item is the BCWMC grant program, which is managed by the Education Committee. • Watershed Education Partnerships fline 33 - this budget item includes participation in the Metropolitan Council's Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP), the Hennepin Conservation District River Watch Program, Metro WaterShed Partners, the Blue Thumb program, and the Metro Blooms Rain Garden program. In response to budget constraints, this budget item was decreased by $6,000 for 2012. The 2013 proposed budget increases this item by $2,000 to $15,000. • Education and Public Outreach .line 34 - this budget item has been increase to $14,775 for 2013. This budget item was $4,000 in 2010. It was decreased to $0 in 2011 in response to budget constraints and increased to $5,775 in 2012. This budget item includes expenses for registration fees for city events; develop maps for city events, brochures, fact sheets, native seed packets, and the Joint Education and Public Outreach Committee administrative costs. • Public Communications line 35 – this budget item includes public notices for commission and committee meetings. The 2013 budget for this item is $3.,000, unchanged from the 2012 budget. • Erosion/Sediment (,Channel Maintenance) (line 36) -_these funds are for creek and stream bank erosion repair and sediment removal projects that are not funded as a channel restoration project through the BCWMC's Capital Improvement Program. The BCWMC Watershed Management Plan (Section 7.2.2) calls for the BCWMC to use the Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund to finance the: o Maintenance and repairs needed to restore.a creek or streambank area to the designed flow rate. o Work needed to restore a creek or streambank area that has either resulted in damage to a .structure, or where structural damage is imminent, based on an assessment of benefits. o Portion of a project that provides BCWMC benefits, including reduced potential for flooding, mitigation of water quality impairment, or minimizing the potential for water quality impairment. o BCWMC's share of maintenance projects to be applied for by the cities that have a regional benefit, or to partially fund smaller, localized projects that cities wish to undertake. The proposed budget for this item has remained at $25,000 for many years. No increase is proposed for 2013. • Long -Term Maintenance (Flood Control Project) (line 37) - the proposed 2013 budget is $25,000. These funds are used to repair and maintain structures associated with the BCWMC Flood Control Project. The BCWMC Watershed Management Plan calls for annual assessments of $25,000 to the fund, and for the fund balance to be maintained at (but not exceed) $1 million. The current fund balance is $534,806. • _TMDLs (line 40) - the proposed 2013 budget for this item is $10,000. The TMDL budget was set up to fund the BCWMC's costs for participating in the Medicine Lake, Sweeney Lake, and Wirth Lake Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies for these lakes have been completed, remaining impaired waters in the watershed include Northwood Lake and Bassett Creek (Parkers Lake is also listed as impaired for mercury). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency staff has told the Chair that the Agency will not be back to this watershed for 10 years to complete these TMDLS. For 2012, this budget item was $10,000 and included developing the report format for reporting on TMDL implementation activities. For 2013, this item includes preparing a progress report for the Medicine Lake, Sweeney Lake, and Wirth Lake TMDL implementation plans. • Capital Improvement Projects— covers the capital costs of the project identified in the capital improvement projects table. These costs are assessed annually by the county based on the request of the Commission. For 2013, the capital improvement project funding includes $943,000 for project NL -2 (Dredge Pond NB -07, Northwood Lake watershed) and $57,000 for portion of project ML -8 (Lakeview Park Pond). Page 25 City of Plymouth News Release For Immediate Release Contact: August 31, 2012 Kevin Springob 763-509-5527 Shoreline restoration grants aim at improving Bass Lake The City of Plymouth is inviting homeowners around Bass Lake's shoreline to join in on an initiative aimed at improving the water quality in the lake. Residents of selected properties will receive grant funding for professionally designed plantings installed along their lakeshore. Since 2008 the city has implemented a number of projects designed to reduce the amount of nutrients flowing into Bass Lake. Enhanced street sweeping and rain gardens are some of the measures Plymouth has taken over the past few years. Collaborating with homeowners to protect their shorelines with well-designed plantings is another step to protect Bass Lake. Wave action, ice buildup and wind all batter the shore of a lake and cause erosion. After a while, that erosion adds sediment and nutrients to the lake and robs the property owner of valuable lakeshore. Turf grass is not up to the task of protecting the shore from the erosion. Replacing lawn with hardy, deep-rooted shoreline plantings creates a buffer to withstand the forces that cause erosion. At the same time, the plants slow down, reduce and clean the runoff from the upland property. "Plymouth has had similar programs on other lakes in the city," said Water Resources Manager Derek Asche. "The projects are designed to do more than protect water quality," Asche added. "They can become a pleasing landscaping element that enhances the beauty of the lake for the residents." To learn more about the Bass Lake shoreline restoration grant opportunity, call Kevin at 763- 509-5527. For information on planting for clean water go to plymouthmn.gov/greenup. Page 26 I1A 10105 [�7 CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: Sept 4, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Regina Michaud, Recreation Manager through Diane Evans, Director of Parks &Recreation SUBJECT: Spring/Summer Recreation Stats QUICK FACTS & GENERAL INFORMTATION • Plymouth Parks & Recreation offered over 1,000* recreation programs/classes during the spring/summer season (*does not include special events). • Over 9000* participants registered in the programs/classes offered (*does not include special events). • 3,902 individuals (42% of total registered participants) were registered within the first week of registration (March 13-19, 2012). Of the 3,902 registrations, 74% (2,887) were done through on- line registration. • Twenty-nine Special Events were offered during the spring/summer season. • Over 31,000 inidviduals attended Plymouth's special events. New successful special events included the Skate Park Grand Opening, Historical Trolley Tours and Happy Birthday America Kid's Parade. 2012 SPRING/SUMMER PROGRAM PARTICIPATION AND REVENUE PARTICIPATION REVENUE PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS 1,127 $59,145 YOUTH PROGRAMS 5,563 $408,468 TEEN PROGRAMS 215 $17,115 ADULT PROGRAMS 1,150 $124,416 SENIOR PROGRAMS 907 $18,943 ALL AGES PROGRAMS 168 $21,267 TOTAL 9,130 $649,354 Page 27 2012 SPRING/SUMMER SPECIAL EVENT ATTENDANCE Yard & Garden Expo 1,052 Bridal Expo 233 Kid's Garage Sale 558 Primavera 663 Softball Tournament 300 Plant Swap 80 Walk with the Mayor 80 Skate Park Grand Opening 80 90's Party 111 Senior Volunteer Recognition 184 Youth Dance Recital 645 Music in Plymouth 13,619 Historical Trolley Tour (MIP Prelude) 50 Summer Carnival (MIP Prelude) 300 Happy Birthday America Parade 375 Movies in the Parks 745 Concerts in the Parks (Jun 7 -Aug 25) 3,727 Kids Koncerts 295 Naturalist Visits 130 Prairie Fire Theater 1,140 Water Ski Shows 1,225 Farmers Market (Jul -Aug) 5,065 Family Camping in the Park cancelled Skate Jam 150 Senior Dance 56 500 Card Party 90 Pie Day 230 Waffle Breakfast 431 The Stage (Teen concert) 48 Total 31,662 Page 28 Approved Minutes City of Plymouth Planning Commission Meeting August 15, 2012 MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Jim Davis, Commissioners Nathan Robinson, Dick Kobussen, Gordon Petrash, and Bryan Oakley MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioners Scott Nelson and Marc Anderson STAFF PRESENT: Senior Planner Shawn Drill, Senior Planner Joshua Doty, and Office Support Representative Janice Bergstrom 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Davis said Item 5.13. will be moved to New Business. MOTION by Commissioner Robinson, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the amended August 15, 2012 Planning Commission Agenda. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 1, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES Commissioner Kobussen said there were no members absent at the meeting and referenced P. 9 Para. 6 change the word "his" to "this". MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Petrash, to approve the amended August 1, 2012 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Vote. 5 Ayes. MOTION approved. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS 7. NEW BUSINESS B. ST. PHILIP THE DEACON LUTHERAN CHURCH (2012060) Chair Davis introduced the request by St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church for a variance to allow a freestanding sign to exceed six feet at 17205 County Road 6. Page 29 Approved Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 Page 2 Senior Planner Doty gave an overview of the staff report. He noted that a letter was submitted and added to the public record. Chair Davis introduced the applicant, Pastor Tim Westermeyer, St Philip the Deacon Church. Chair Davis introduced David H. Cade, 1760 Garland La. N. Mr. Cade said he has been a resident at that address for 47 years. Mr. Cade said the sign would create safety issues in relation to Oakwood School and the traffic at County Road 6 and County Road 101. He said there is literally chaos in the morning with bus traffic and parents distributing children to and from school. Mr. Cade said the International House of Pancakes and the Minnesota School of Business create additional safety issues and it is difficult to maneuver out of the strip mall. He said there are no merge lanes on to County Road 6 east and this is a significant traffic safety issue. He said children from the Kimberly Meadows Townhomes cross six lanes of traffic to access the school and playground at Oakwood School. Mr. Cade questioned if the sign would have 15 -second or 15 -minute changeable copy and would not flash. Senior Planner Doty responded that the sign could change every 15 minutes and would not flash. Mr. Cade said the sign is designed to attract attention and asked the applicant to find another way to indicate information. He noted messages at two neighboring churches are frequently changin messages. Mr. Cade recommended postponing this and looking at the issue on September 5t when school starts. Chair Davis introduced Ron Jesme, 17020 County Road 6. Mr. Jesme said he prefers the sign be less obtrusive than what the ordinances allow, but would accept what the ordinance allows. He said he sees no reason to grant a variance to go so significantly beyond what the ordinance constrains the application to. Mr. Jesme said this request is dramatically in conflict with the intention of this specific ordinance and that alone is adequate to decline the variance. Commissioner Petrash asked Mr. Jesme if he is concerned about the size, and not that it is electronic. Mr. Jesme said he objects to the obtrusiveness in general. He said if the request is within the ordinance he will accept the visual clutter. He said he lives within the ordinances and expects others to live within ordinances if practically possible. Mr. Jesme said in this case he thinks it is practically possible to live within the ordinance. He said he is concerned about general obtrusiveness, the electronics, size, and wouldn't want the brightness of LED's to be exceeded. Mr. Jesme said each element that you are controlling is there to control the visual obtrusiveness in the neighborhood. Commissioner Oakley asked where the proposed sign is from Mr. Jesme's home. Mr. Jesme showed the location of his home and said they attempt to do star gazing from the driveway. He said the sign is out of character with single -story homes in the neighborhood. Page 30 Approved Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 Page 3 Chair Davis asked the hours of operation for the proposed sign. Senior Planner Doty said the electronic portion of the sign would not be illuminated between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. Commissioner Petrash said he has noticed a lot of signs don't hold for 15 minutes. He asked how the changeable copy regulations are enforced. Chair Davis said he reported a flashing sign at a Holiday gas station. He said the sign no longer flashes. Chair Davis said enforcement is complaint driven and it does work. Commissioner Kobussen asked what the impact would be if the domed roof were replaced with a flat roof so it would be in compliance, but might not be quite as aesthetic. Pastor Westermeyer said they have taken great pains to connect the sign to the church structure architecturally so it would be more attractive and handsome. He said the proposed roof increased the cost. He said there are other ways they could do it, but this is the same roof as the church sanctuary. Pastor Westermeyer said snow becomes an issue if they decrease height off of grade. He said with the particular dimensions of this location, they have snow coming from the parking lot, County Road 6 and the sidewalk. Commissioner Petrash asked if snow is piled higher than two feet. Pastor Westermeyer said snow does get pretty high. He said when this is installed there would be more custodial work around the sign to make sure snow is not against it for visibility and to protect the electronic sign. Mr. Jesme said the sign could be reduced by two feet if the roof is eliminated. He reiterated that had they proposed something within the zoning regulations then he would accept it. He said there are other options that could be considered which could still allow the roof on top. Mr. Cade stated he is not concerned about the issue of light or visual pollution. He said the sign at eye level directly affects safety and distraction is a significant safety hazard. Mr. Cade said he agrees flashing lights are a problem with light pollution. Mr. Cade said the city sends Public Safety to the church to direct traffic and St. Philip's understands that there are traffic issues. Chair Davis said Mr. Cade made good points about safety, but the issues about Oakwood School and children crossing County Road 6 are not germane to this discussion. Chair Davis said this sign will not have a negative impact on traffic safety, and he feels this to be a reasonable request and will recommend approval. Commissioner Petrash said he understands why they want a variance, but is not convinced they found the best solution within our standards and ordinance to satisfy their needs. Commissioner Petrash said he will vote against this request. Page 31 Approved Planning Commission Minutes August 15, 2012 Page 4 Commissioner Oakley said he doesn't agree there is a safety issue. He said there are signs on roads and streets and that is part of the obligation of drivers to pay attention. Commissioner Oakley said there may be other issues with that intersection, but doesn't believe we are addressing those with this particular action. He discussed the concern of visual pollution and said they missed complying with the letter of the ordinance only by a hip -style roof. Commissioner Oakley said he doesn't agree that a flat roof sign that does meet the ordinance would be a better solution. Commissioner Oakley said he will vote in favor of this and said he appreciated residents bringing their concerns for a good discussion. Commissioner Kobussen said the new sign would be easier to read which would be less confusing to drivers as they would spend less time looking at it instead of slowing down to read it. Commissioner Kobussen said the sign would not be a safety hazard anymore than anything else as this is a busy street and there is a school but that is not germane to the sign issue. Commissioner Kobussen said he does not agree with a proposal to put a flat roof on as that doesn't improve the situation. Commissioner Kobussen said they stay within the limit for square footage which is what our ordinance was trying to get at. Commissioner Kobussen said he will support the request. Commissioner Robinson said he will support the request. He said he understands the concerns presented, but those safety concerns will exist whether the sign is six or eight feet in height. Commissioner Robinson encouraged residents to contact the city if there needs to be some type of safety barrier or cross walk for kids to cross County Road 6. He said the selling point for him was the snow, which would come from County Road 6, the sidewalk and the parking lot. Commissioner Robinson said snow will pack up high and he can understand the need to raise the sign off the ground. He said the nice, metal two -foot roof is not distracting. Commissioner Robinson said there are signs everywhere and it is always the driver's responsibility to pay attention. He said he appreciated the comments and will support the request. Commissioner Petrash asked if a variance will be given for a sign any time snow is a consideration, which is one of the reasons we are giving this variance. He said for consistency sake we may have to change the ordinance. Chair Davis stated that is not why he is approving. He said that was a red herring. He said he likes the aesthetics of the roof looking like the roof of the church. MOTION by Commissioner Kobussen, seconded by Commissioner Robinson, to approve the request by St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church for a variance to allow a freestanding sign to exceed six feet at 17205 County Road 6. Roll Call Vote. 4 Ayes. Commission Petrash voting nay. MOTION approved. 8. ADJOURNMENT MOTION by Chair Davis, with no objection, to adjourn the meeting at 7:43 p.m. Page 32