The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 07-01-2011CITY OF PLYMOUTH rp) COUNCIL INFO MEMO July 1, 2011 UPCOMING MEETINGS AND EVENTS Planning Commission Agenda 07/06/11.............................................................................................. Page 1 Quorum Meeting Notice EQC Adopt A Street 07/10/11...................................................................... Page 2 July, August, September 2011 Official City Meeting Calendars......................................................... Page 3 Tentative List of Agenda Items for Future City Council Meetings ..................................................... Page 6 CORRESPONDENCE Email RE: MNPASS and State Shutdown.......................................................................................... Page 8 Letter RE: Increased Electricity Outage Fees to Cities; Roseville Neighborhood Outage Problem — ProposedSRA Action...................................................................................................................... Page 9 Letter from ISO, RE: Building code Effectiveness Grading Schedule .............................................. Page 12 Letter from Met Council, RE: Population Estimates......................................................................... Page 14 Letter from Shingle Creek WSMC, RE: 2012 Operating Budget ...................................................... Page 15 Letter from Elm Creek WSMC, RE: 2012 Operating Budget............................................................ Page 21 Letter from Bassett Creek WSMC, RE: 2012 Operating Budget ....................................................... Page 25 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA WEDNESDAY, July 6, 2011 WHERE: CITY 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 Planning Commission and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Commissioner, citizen or petitioner so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered in normal sequence on the agenda. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PUBLIC FORUM 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 5. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve the June 15, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes. B. City of Plymouth. Approve site plan amendment for parking improvements at Plymouth Dog Park located at 17005 County Road 47. (2011040) 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Oppidan, Inc. Land use guide plan amendment, preliminary plat and PUD amendment for Crossroads Commons at the former Plymouth Shopping Center site located south of Highway 55 between Cottonwood Lane and County Road 73. (2011014) B. O'Mara Architects. Rezoning and PUD general plan to allow a 3,648 square foot building addition and related site improvements for Summit Dance Shoppe located at 2800 Fernbrook Lane. (2011033) C. City of Plymouth. Mid-term update to the zoning ordinance and city code. (2011012) 7. NEW BUSINESS 8. ADJOURNMENT Page 1 NO'T'ICE OF EVENT PLYMOUTH COUNCILMEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE City of Plymouth Environmental Quality Commission Is Participating in Plymouth's Adopt a Street Program Sunday, .duly 10, 2011, 12:00 p.m. Dunkirk Lane between Co. Road 6 and Co. Road 24 This is not an Official City Meeting and no business will be conducted, but a quorum of members may be in attendance. The group will be assembling in the parking lot at Fire Station 3. The event is hereby noticed and open to the public. Please call 763-509-5000 for further information regarding this event. Sandy Engdahl, MMC City Clerk Posted on July 1, 2011. Page 2 r�ity Plymouth Adding Quality to Life July 2011 Modified an 07/01111 Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7:00 PM 7 8 9 PLANNING COMMISSION INDEPENDENCE INDEPENDENCE DAY MEETING DAY OBSERVED Council Chambers CITY OFFICES CLOSED 10 11 12 7:00 PM 13 7`00 PM 14 15 16 REGULAR SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING PACT MEETING Council Chambers Medicine Lake Room Metrolink Contigency Plans 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC) MEETING Council Chambers 17 18 19 20 7:00 PM 21 22 23 PLANNING 7:00 PM COMMISSION HRA MEETING MEETING Parkers Lake Room Council Chambers 24 25 26 sm PM 27 7:00 PM 28 29 30 SPECIAL COUNCIL PLYMOUTH MEETING ADVISORY Budget Study Session COMMITTEE ON Medicine Lake Room TRANSIT (PACT) MEETING 7:00 PM Medicine Lake Room REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING 31 Council Chambers Modified an 07/01111 Page 3 r�Plymouth Adding Quality to Life August 2011 Modified on 07101/ 11 CHANGES ARE NOTED IN RED 1 2 2:30-5:00 PM 3 7:00 PM 4 7:00 PM 5 6 NIGHT TO UNITE PLANNING HUMAN RIGHTS KICKOFF COMMISSION COMMITTEE Plymouth Creek Center MEETING MEETING Council Chambers Medicine Lake Room 6:30-9:30 PM NIGHT TO UNITE 7 8 9 6:00 PM 10 7:00 PM 11 12 13 SPECIAL COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING* QUALITY Medicine Lake Room COMMITTEE 7:00 PM (EQC) MEETING REGULAR COUNCIL Council Chambers MEETING Council Chambers 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 6:00 PM 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING MEETING COMMISSION Budget Study Session MEETING Medicine Lake Room Council Chambers 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5:30 PM 7:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL HRA MEETING MEETING Parkers Lake Room 2012-2016 CIP Medicine Lake Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING Council Chambers 28 29 30 31 Joint meeting with PAC to discuss operations Modified on 07101/ 11 CHANGES ARE NOTED IN RED r�Plymouth Adding Quality to Lige September 2011 Modified on 07101111 Page 5 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 6:00 PM CANCELLED 7:00 Plus SPECIAL COUNCIL PLANNING PARK fi: REC MEETING COMMISSION ADVISORY LABOR DAY Budget Study Session MEETING COMMISSION If Necessary Medicine Lake Room Council MI=STING CITY OFFICES Medicine Lake Roam Council Chambers CLOSED 11 12 13 14 7:00 PM 15 16 17 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL REGULAR COUNCIL QUALITY MEETING COMMITTEE Council Chambers (EQC) MEETING Parkers Lake Room 18 19 24 217:00 PM 22 23 24 9:a©AM 6;00-9:00 PM PLYMOUTH PLANNING OPEN HOUSE FIREFIGHTERS SK COMMISSION FOUR SEASONS Fire Station #2 MEETING MALL STUDY Medicine Lake Roam Plymouth Creek 11:30 AM Center PLYMOUTH ON 7:00 PM PARADE HRA MEETING CELEBRATION Parkers Lake Room City Center Area 25 26 27 7:00 PM 28 29 30 REGULAR COUNCIL' MEETING Medicine Lake Room Rosh HaShanah Begins at Sunset Modified on 07101111 Page 5 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items July 12, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Approve bid for the Council Chambers renovation project • Receive Administrative Service Department's 2010 Annual Report • Approve submission of a Metropolitan Council Livable Communities Demonstration Account application on behalf of Quest Development • Recognition of the Plymouth Fire Department Extrication Team • Adopt Ordinance Section 400.01 of the City Code relative to Building Construction Regulations • Introduce Diane Evans, Park and Recreation Director • Approve assessment agreement for Parkers Lake Corporate Center Area (1000 1) • Approve Change Order No. 1 for 2011 Mill and Overlay Project (11007) • Approve Agreement with First Transit, Inc. for Operation and Maintenance of Plymouth Metrolink Public Transit Services • Approve Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Medicine Lake for Municipal Water Service • Approve Encroachment Agreement for a deck in Lot 2, Block 1, Quail Ridge of Plymouth 3rd Addition • Approve Encroachment Agreement for retaining wall at Plymouth Creek Elementary School • Approve Encroachment Agreement for boulder retaining wall on Lot 3, Block 1, Isaiah Addition • Assessment Public Hearing for County Road 101 Reconstruction Project, 13th Avenue to 30th Avenue (5102) • Hearing on the Vacation of Drainage and Utility Easements within Lot 17, Block 2, Spring Meadows Addition • Approve Safe and Sober and Operation Night Cap Enforcement Grant July 26, Special, 5:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • Discuss 2012/2013 Budget • Set Future Study Sessions July 26, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Announce "Night to Unite" on August 2 • Present Environmental Champions • Project hearing for Edge and Mill Overlay Project (11012) August 9, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • Joint meeting with Plymouth Advisory Committee on Transit to discuss operations • Set Future Study Sessions August 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Presentation by County Commissioner Jeff Johnson August 16, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • Discuss 2012/2013 Budget • Set Future Study Sessions August 23, Special, 5:30 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • Discuss 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. Page 6 • Set Future Study Sessions August 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers September 6, Special, 6:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room • Discuss 2012/2013 Budget (if needed) • Set Future Study Sessions September 13, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Approve 2012/2013 proposed budgets, preliminary tax levies and budget hearing date September 27, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room October 11, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room October 25, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Medicine Lake Room November 8, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers November 22, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers December 13, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Adopt the 2012 Budgets and Tax Levies and 2012-2016 Capital Improvement Program Page 7 Email regarding MnPASS and State Shutdown From: CustomerServiceCabMnPass. net Sent: 6/28/2011 7:22:15 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time Subj: Potential temporary suspension of MnPASS Express Lanes We are writing because you are a customer of MnPASS, a program of the Minnesota Department of Transportation. As you may know, the state Legislature adjourned without a negotiated budget agreement to fund the continuing operations of state government for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2011. MnDOT operates on a biennial budget. Funds are appropriated by the Minnesota Legislature every two years, with each fiscal year beginning July 1 and ending on June 30 of the following calendar year. Our current biennial budget is due to end after June 30, 2011. In the absence of legislation enacted into law specifically appropriating funds for the continuing operations of the agency for the next biennium, we will have no authority to expend or release funds to pay for MnPASS Express Lanes after June 30, 2011. Because we do not know whether the biennial budget process will conclude in time to avoid a disruption to our operations, we must advise all MnPASS Express Lane customers that in the absence of appropriations enacted into law as of July 1, 2011, the MnPASS Express Lanes will be temporarily suspended on July 1, 2011. We will work to keep you informed of progress regarding legislative authorization of appropriations, and we will make every reasonable effort to issue public notices promptly when budgets are approved and MnPASS Express Lane service may be resumed. We do suggest that you monitor mnpass.net, state web sites, bulletins and media publications for further information. Sincerely, MnPASS Customer Service Center Page 8 Kenne } Offices in 470 U.S. Bank Plaza 200 South Sixth Street �.; rt Minneapolis Minneapolis MN 55402 Saint Paul (612) 337-9300 telephone =1y �Gr ven- St. Cloud (612) 337-9310 fax www.kennedy-graven.com C H A R T E R E D Affirmative Action Equal Opportunity Employer MEMORANDUM NO. I TO: Suburban Rate Authority FROM: James Strommen DATE: June 16, 2011 RE: Increased Electricity Outage Fees to Cities; Roseville Neighborhood Outage Problem — Proposed SRA Action Introduction This memo summarizes the tangible benefits SRA cities, and other cities, have received from the increased credit the SRA obtained from the PUC for municipal pumping outages. It also addresses the City of Roseville neighborhood outage problem that came to light in the Xcel Electric rate case, and proposed SRA comments to the PUC to give Xcel greater incentive to remedy problem outage areas, and improve compensation to customers for outages. SRA Member Electricity Credits You may recall that in the 2008 Xcel electric rate case the SRA won an increase for municipal pumping customers from a $50.00 credit for every six outages per year or $50 per outage of 24 hours or more to all customers, including municipal pumping customers, to a $200.00 credit per outage of any duration to municipal pumping customers. This was based on SRA testimony outlining the immediate costs faced by a municipality even for electric outages of short duration. The increase was effective January 1, 2010. Xcel has reported its outages (not caused by storms) and credits to municipal customers for 2010. The list was extensive (because of many outages) and includes a number of outages at several SRA cities served by Xcel Electric. The increase in credits to municipal pumping customers, reveals a significant dollar amount being returned to the cities to cover their costs for such outages. The cumulative net credit increase to SRA cities is approximately $18,000 annually. This is a repeatable amount because the increased credit applies annually. 387471vl SU160-3 Page 9 Under the old credit schedule, no outage less than 24 hours in duration counted for a credit on an individual outage basis, and it took six outages to qualify for only one $50 credit. So even with ten or fifteen outages in a year (in 2010, Plymouth had 25, Bloomington 16, Maple Grove 14, Chanhassen 10) cities would receive only a $50 credit, unless one or more of those were greater than 24 hours (but not due to storms or vandalism). Under the new $200 per outage schedule, the notable beneficiaries of the SRA -won increased rate are: Plymouth $4950.00 Maple Grove 2750.00 Chanhassen 1450.00 Bloomington 3150.00 Minnetonka 1350.00 Mound 1150.00 Robbinsdale 600.00 Shoreview 600.00 Wayzata 600.00 Non SRA Cities There were three Twin City suburban municipalities that also significantly benefited. Note that the net increase in credits for the three cities below would exceed their SRA assessment annually, were they to join the SRA. Shorewood $1150.00 credit increase ($800.00 SRA assessment) Minnetrista $1150.00 increase ($800.00 SRA assessment) Victoria $1350.00 net increase ($800 SRA assessment) SRA Proposal Arising Out of City of Roseville Outage Issue During the current Xcel electric case, it has come to the SRA's (and PUC's) attention that a service area in the City of Roseville has been subject to chronic outages over a 13 -plus year period. This was raised during the public hearings by one of the residents. He has kept records and demonstrated the ongoing outage problem that has not substantially improved over this long period of time. Two outages have occurred during the last two months. The SRA followed with information requests of Xcel regarding this particular outage and information regarding outages generally. Xcel held meetings with the City of Roseville and these residents and now has committed to a substantial (approximately $500,000) and immediate investment to remedy the problem. We will not know the success of the Xcel investment until about one year has passed. 387471v1 SU160-3 2 Page 10 SRA -Proposed Xcel Credit Increase for Repeated Outages This situation raises the need for another proposal the SRA will make to the Public Utilities Commission in connection with Xcel's service quality standards, and penalties for its failure to meet them. Currently, there is no increased penalty in the form of credits to customers when outages are simply not remedied over a long period of time. In other words, customer credits are given only when the residential customer experiences more than six in a year, or a duration of 24 hours. It is $50.00. This is inadequate for customers like those in Roseville, who have suffered under substandard service for many years, without remedy ---- or credits. Further, it does not appear to provide Xcel with incentive to address a chronic problem; as demonstrated by the duration of the Roseville service area. The SRA proposal to be made in a PUC service quality proceeding will be substantially as follows: Current Tariff — For "non -storm" and non "public damage" (contractor or public - caused) outage ("Outage") and greater than six Outages in one year or one Outage more than 24 hours in duration, $50.00 to the customer. (Generally this resulted in no credit to the customers in Roseville who had chronic, ten year plus Outages of 3-4 times a year). SRA Proposal -- Add the following to the current Xcel tariff in lieu of the $50 for six or more Outages: "For two consecutive years of six or more Outages of any duration, $150.00 to the customer in the second year. For three consecutive years of four or more Outages of any duration, $200.00 to the customer in the third year . For four or more consecutive years of four or more Outages of any duration, $400.00 to the customer in the fourth year and in each consecutive, succeeding year of four or more Outages. For three or more consecutive years of three Outages of any duration, $100 to the customer in the third year and in each consecutive, succeeding year of three Outages" This, of course, will be just a proposal. What is finally determined may be different from the above. 387471v1 SU160-3 3 Page 11 111 NORTH CANAL STREET SUITE 950 CHICAGO, IL 60606-7270 TEL: (312) 930-0070 (800) 444-4554 FAX: (312) 930-0017 June 17, 2011 Honorable Kelli Slavik Mayor Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Ave. Plymouth, MN 55447 Re: Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule Plymouth, Hennepin County, MN Dear Mayor Slavik: Insurance Services Office, Inc. (ISO) is responsible for evaluating all jurisdictions that have a building code enforcement department. Working on behalf of insurance companies around the country, ISO uses the Building Code Effectiveness Grading Schedule (BCEGS) to recognize the building codes in effect in your community and how your community enforces its building codes. The evaluations place special emphasis on mitigation of losses from natural hazards. ISO gives the information to insurers, which may use the evaluations in granting premium discounts for property insurance in the community. The concept is simple: municipalities with well -enforced, up-to-date codes should demonstrate better loss experience, and insurance rates can reflect that. The prospect of reducing catastrophe -related damage and ultimately lowering insurance costs provides an incentive for communities to enforce their building codes rigorously — especially as they relate to windstorm and earthquake damage. The anticipated upshot: safer buildings, less damage, and lower insured losses from catastrophes. The BCEGS program assigns each municipality a BCEGS classification — a number from 1 to 10. Class 1 represents exemplary commitment to building -code enforcement. ISO also develops advisory rating credits — or discounts. The discounts apply to buildings constructed in or after the year that the community received its BCEGS classification. Page 12 Honorable Kelli Slavik June 17, 2011 Page 2 ISO previously visited Plymouth to evaluate your building -code enforcement in 2005. Our survey resulted in a Class 4 for residential buildings and a Class 4 for commercial buildings constructed in or after that year. ISO is now preparing to review your community once again to determine whether to revise your BCEGS gradings. We've prepared a questionnaire that will help us determine your community's appropriate classifications. We've already filled in the questionnaire with information from our last survey of your community. We're sending the questionnaire — together with a copy of this letter — to your building official, Joe Ryan. We'd appreciate that official's review of the questionnaire, making changes or additions as necessary. We would like to meet with the official on Tuesday, July 12th at 1:00 p.m. at the Plymouth City Hall. ISO will contact Joe Ryan shortly to find out if that is a convenient time. During the meeting, we will review the questionnaire and responses, as well as supporting documentation. Additional information about the BCEGS program is available on our web site www.isomitigation.com. We've enclosed a summary of program highlights that we hope will answer questions you may have. Thank you for your cooperation in this important project. If you have any questions, please contact ISO. Sincerely, Nola B. Lebrecht Community Mitigation Field Representative (715) 246-5888 nlebrecht@iso.com Copy (with attachments) to: Joe Ryan, Building Official 3400 Plymouth Ave. Plymouth, MN 55447 Page 13 ii Metropolitan Council v June 21, 2011 Laurie Ahrens City Manager City Of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Blvd Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 Dear Ms. Ahrens: As required by Minnesota Statutes 473.24, the Metropolitan Council annually prepares population estimates as of April 1 of the previous year. The annual estimates are used for State government purposes, including the allocation of local government aid (LGA) and local street aid. For the 2010 estimates cycle, the Metropolitan Council intends to certify a tabulation of 2010 Census counts published by US Census Bureau: The 2010 Census counted 70,576 people and 28,663 households in the City Of Plymouth, as of April 1, 2010. Household size averaged 2.42 persons per household. US Census Bureau communicated these counts to chief elected officials in letters sent March 2011. These numbers will serve as Metropolitan Council's annual population estimates for 2010, a deliverable required by Minnesota Statutes 473.24. Please be aware of the following: US Census Bureau acknowledges that the 2010 Census counts could include scattered errors and undercounts. Errors can occur where the Census used inaccurate geocoding of addresses. Miscounts also result from exclusion or duplication of enumerated population, due to processing errors. US Census Bureau has established a Count Question Resolution (CQR) process through which local governments may challenge the 2010 Census counts, and the Bureau may issue corrected counts. Corrected counts would then become the starting point for annual population estimates in years 2012-19. Further details from US Census Bureau can be found online at http://2010.census.gov/2010census/about/cgr.pllp Given the potential for scattered errors, Metropolitan Council staff advise local governments to evaluate the 2010 Census counts within their jurisdiction, and participate in the CQR process if discrepancies are detected. Further details from Metropolitan Council will be provided in technical assistance workshops to be offered in Fall 2011. Council staff welcomes discussion of the 2010 Census counts and their use as "annual population estimates" for 2010. Please send any written comments or questions to Todd Graham, Metropolitan Council Research, 390 North Robert Street, Saint Paul, MN 55 10 1, or by e-mail to todd.grallam@metc.state.mn.us Sincerely, Todd Graham Principal Forecaster www.metrocouncil.org 390 Robert Street North • St. Paul, MN 55101-1805 • (651) 602-1000 • Fax (651) 602-1550 e TTY (651) 291-0904 An Equal Opportunity Employer Page 14 Shini; June 28, 2011 reek Watershed Management Commission City Clerks Member Cities Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission Hennepin County, Minnesota 3235 Fernbrook Lane N • Plymouth, MN 55447 Phone (763) 553-1144 • Fax (763) 553-9326 RE: Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 2012 Operating Budget and Member Assessments www.shinglecreek.org At its June 9, 2011 meeting, the Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission adopted its administrative budget for calendar year 2012. The budget is outlined in Table 1 below. Table 2 describes the line items in more detail. Article VIII, Subdivision 4 of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) that established the Commission provides that a member city may object to the budget by giving written notice to the Commission before August 1, 2011. If any objections are received, the Commission will hear the objections and may modify the budget. An amendment to the JPA passed in 2004 sets an "assessment cap" on the Commission's administrative budget limiting the increase in member city assessment to the 2004 base assessment of $262,750 increased thereafter by the annual increase in the Consumer Price Index. The assessment cap for 2012 is $321,688. The Commission proposes an assessment for 2012 of $321,400, which is below the assessment cap. By comparison, the 2011 assessment was $353,400, which included an above -the -cap assessment to undertake the Third Generation Watershed Management Plan. A spreadsheet showing each member's share of the annual assessment is attached. Please note that your assessment is a decrease over last year's assessment. The 2012 budget continues existing activities while adding two new items: 1. Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Monitoring. Throughout the Second Generation Plan period the Commission has been preparing water resources management plans funded from a $15,000 line item in the annual budget. These include: the Water Quality Plan; the Shingle Creek Corridor Study; Corridor Study Phase II (Bass and other streams); the lake TMDL implementation plans; the Wetland Management Pian; and the P8 model. These plans were timed to be complete and available as background information for the development of the Third Generation Plan. It was expected that upon completion of those plans the $15,000 would be reallocated into additional monitoring activities as part of TMDL implementation. The Commissions' Technical Advisory Committee is in the process of developing a 10 -year monitoring plan to begin in 2012 and be an ongoing activity as part of the Third Generation Plan. 2. Intensive Best Management Practices (BMP) Implementation. In 2010 Hennepin County received a grant from the Association of Metro Conservation Districts to undertake an "Intensive BMP Assessment," and partnered with the Commission and the City of Robbinsdale to complete this pilot study in the Crystal Lake subwatershed. This assessment assists cities in determining the most cost-effective locations for small BMPs such as boulevard rain gardens, detention pond retrofits, and other small practices that are called out in the Brooklyn Center • Brooklyn Park • Crystal • Maple Grove • Minneapolis • New Hope • Osseo • Plymouth PaRooebbi gdale June 28, 2011 Page 2 TMDLs as "implement other load -reduction improvements as opportunities arise." The Crystal Lake Stormwater Retrofit Assessment included a number of recommendations for TMDL implementation BMPs. Some of these recommendations will be undertaken by the City of Robbinsdale, while others will be the responsibility of individual property owners. This line item would continue the intensive BMP implementation program proposed in the Crystal Lake retrofit assessment. The Shingle Creek and West Mississippi Commissions would contribute $5,000 each to this program, potentially supplemented by the city or cities covered in the assessment. The funds would be used to provide technical assistance (design and infrastructure improvements such as new curb cuts) and potentially small grants to individual property owners who wish to install practices that are recommended in and consistent with the assessment. The West Mississippi 2012 budget includes a line item to conduct a retrofit assessment in 2012, which would then be followed up with,an implementation program in 2013. As these assessments are completed around the watersheds the intensive retrofit program would follow. Additional notable activities include: Fall Maintenance Workshops. One of the Commission's responsibilities under the chloride TMDL Implementation Plan is to undertake periodic workshops for road salt applicators in the watershed. In fall 2011 the Commission will host a workshop for city and other agency maintenance staff that presents monitoring results and progress toward the chloride TMDL and provides for inter -agency and applicator sharing on what has and hasn't been successful. This information will be useful in evaluating whether any revisions need be made to the Implementation Plan. As the Commission has lead responsibility for education activities for the lake and other stream TMDLs as well, starting in 2012 the Commission will offer fall maintenance workshops on various topics for city staff, drawing on the expertise of city streets and parks superintendents and others to provide programming. Potential topics include: street sweeping, turf maintenance, BMP maintenance, aquatic vegetation, and stream maintenance. These workshops are part of the NPDES permit education and outreach activities provided by the Commission on behalf of the member cities. Third Generation Plan. In 2011 the two Commissions initiated the Third Generation Management Plan, and expect to complete much of the work in 2011. In 2012 the Commissions will complete the draft Plan, go through the review and approval process, and publish both the final Plan and an Executive Summary booklet. The cost of the Plan is shared 70/30 with the West Mississippi Commission. The Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission requests approval of its 2012 Operating Budget. Your support in continuing the important work of the Commission is greatly appreciated. Questions may be directed to this office or to your representative. Sincerely, Judie A. Anderson Administrator JAA:tim Cc via email: City Managers Commissioners TAC Members Commission Staff Page 16 Table 1- Approved Shingle Creek Watershed Management Commission 2012 Budget (see Table 2 below for descriptions of activities) Page 17 2010 Budget Revised 2010 Year -End 2011 Budget 2012 Budget REVENUE 1 Application Fees $12,000 $13,500 $12,000 $10,000 2 Wetland Reviews 3 Assessments 304,400 304,400 304,400 321,400 4 Additional assessment: 3rd Gen Plan 49,000 5 Interest and Dividends 3,000 268 1,500 300 6 Education Reimbursement 3,700 8,250 6,500 8,000 7 Rain Garden Workshops 10,000 8 2011 Workshop Series 9 WMWA Implementation Activities 12,000 TOTAL REVENUE $323,100 $326,418 $383,400 $351,700 EXPENSES 10 ADMINISTRATION 11 Administrative Services 59,500 68,389 63,000 64,500 12 Engineering Support 15,000 18,491 19,000 19,000 13 Project Reviews/WCA 1,000 1,174 500 500 14 Management Plan - Amendments 450 Subtotal $75,500 $88,505 $82,500 $84,000 ENGINEERING 15 Engineering Services 42,200 47,466 46,000 49,000 16 Grant Application Writing 8,500 7,235 9,000 9,000 17 Project Reviews/WCA 20,000 28,224 19,500 19,500 Subtotal $70,700 $82,924 $74,500 $77,500 LEGAL 18 Legal Services 9,000 10,157 8,000 8,000 Subtotal $9,000 $10,157 $8,000 $8,000 MISCELLANEOUS 19 Bookkeeping 4,500 5,123 5,000 6,000 20 Audit 4,500 4,500 5,000 5,000 21 Contingency 2,000 5,000 22 Insurance & Bonding 3,000 1,810 3,000 3,000 23 Meeting Expense 2,700 3,006 3,200 3,200 Subtotal $16,700 $14,439 $21,200 $17,200 PROGRAMS 24 Citizen Assisted Lake Monitoring 6,500 6,732 5,500 5,500 25 Stream Monitoring 36,500 36,419 36,500 36,500 26 Vol Wetland Monitoring 2,000 2,000 27 Vol Stream Monitoring 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 28 1 TMDL Monitoring 15,000 29 Annual Monitoring Report 10,000 10,122 10,000 10,000 Water Quality Education 30 Education Program 26,663 20,789 25,000 20,000 31 2011 Workshop Series 3,000 32 WMWA Implementation Activities 15,000 33 Salt Workshops 1,000 - 34 CLTMDL(Fall Maint) Workshop 2,000 2,000 35 Rain Garden Workshops 11,700 12,000 - 36 Education Grants 2,000 925 2,000 3,000 37 Intensive BMPs 10,000 7,478 5,000 Subtotal $96,663 $99,164 $100,000 $115,000 Page 17 Page 18 2010 Budget Revised 2010 Year -End 2011 Budget 2012 Budget MANAGEMENT PLANS 38 Wetland Management Plans 10,000 1,266 - 39 P8 Model (2008-2010) 7,014 15,000 40 Management Plan 3,000 4,299 - 41 Third Generation Watershed Plan 49,000 21,000 Subtotal $13,000 $12,579 $64,000 $21,000 PROJECTS 42 TMDL/CIP Engineering 16,537 16,537 9,000 9,000 43 TAC/TMDL 4,200 44 Construction/Matching Grant Fund 20,000 20,000 20,000 Subtotal $36,537 $16,537 $33,200 $29,000 45 To (From) Reserves 5,000 Subtotal $5,000 $0 $0 $0 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSE $318,100 .$324,305 $383,400 $351,700 Page 18 Table 2 Budget Descriptions Income (see Table 1) Line Explanation 1 The application fee structure is intended to recover the cost of completing current project reviews. Actual 14 project review costs are being tracked to enable the fee structure to be periodically evaluated and adjusted as necessary. Given the economy and the lesser rate of development and redevelopment, we expect project review activity in 2012 to be no more than past years and recommend no change to 15 expected revenue for 2012. 3 The proposed assessment of $321,400 is below the assessment cap. 5 The Commission uses the 4M fund to manage its funds. Interest rates are very low and likely to remain so. We recommend decreasing the expected interest income to $300. 6-7 Commission technical and administrative staff have been providing services to the Joint Education and Public Outreach Committee (EPOC) for the last few years. Elm, Bassett, and Pioneer -Sarah Creek 17 reimburse the Commission for those services. 8-9 Reimbursement from the other West Metro Water Alliance (WMWA) WMOs for activities where Shingle 25 Creek is the lead fiscal agent. Expenditures (see Table 1) Line Explanation 11- These line items are to provide administrative support (scheduling, minutes, etc) for regular Commission 14 and TAC meetings and any special Commission, TAC, or other meetings that require support, as well as general administrative duties such as notices, mailings, and correspondence. The Watershed Engineer continues to request the administrator to take on tasks that she can perform more cost effectively. 15 This line item includes general engineering support, including preparation for and attendance at Commission and TAC meetings, general technical and engineering assistance, minor special projects, etc. As the Commission continues to be successful in obtaining grant funds and TMDL funding, there is an increasing amount of work involved in managing projects that is not included in the grant funding. Activities such as developing work plans, biennial reporting, and negotiations with granting agencies are funded from the general engineering budget, and we expect that level of activity to continue. 17 This line item is for project reviews, review of Local Water Management Plans and Comprehensive Plan amendments and updates, and general inquiries about past and upcoming projects. 25 The Commission's routine stream monitoring program. Flow and water quality are monitored at two sites —SC -0 at Webber Park in Minneapolis and SC -3 at Brooklyn Boulevard in Brooklyn Park. This line item also includes the Commission's share of operating the USGS real-time monitoring site at Queen Avenue in Minneapolis. 24, At this time we are not recommending adjustments to the volunteer lake, wetland, and stream monitoring 26, budgets. Each year 5-7 lakes, two wetlands, and four volunteer macroinvertebrate sites are monitored. 27 This will be reviewed as part of the Third Generation Plan. 28 This line item is a placeholder for additional TMDL-related monitoring to be determined as part of the Third Generation Plan process. 29 This line item is the annual water quality report, which provides a record of all the monitoring results for the year as well as analysis of water quality trends. 30 The cost of the Education program is split 50/50 between Shingle Creek and West Mississippi. 34 The cost of the proposed annual fall maintenance workshop. 37 The Commission's share of the cost of implementing the proposed intensive BMPs. To be matched by $5,000 from West Mississippi. 41 Completion of the Third Generation Plan. 44 The Commission's annual contribution to a grant match/cost share account. Page 19 2010 Community Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale Totals 2011 Community Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale Totals 2012 Community Brooklyn Center Brooklyn Park Crystal Maple Grove Minneapolis New Hope Osseo Plymouth Robbinsdale Totals Table 3 — Member Assessments Acreage 2009 Tax Capacity per Henn County 3,720 17,568,347 7,080 38,843,789 2,480 11,622,042 5,020 28,215,831 1,950 12,105,330 2,070 13,391,982 300 2,223,546 4,380 21,127,274 1,460 10,307,930 28,460 155,406,071 2010 Tax Acreage Capacity per 14,994,165 Henn County 3,720 14,849,388 7,080 33,246,370 2,480 10,332,274 070 11,707,743 300 2,022,543 380 19,965,825 Acreage 2011 Tax Capacity per Henn County 3,720 14,994,165 7,080 33,002,420 2,480 10,449,298 5,020 25,614,672 1,950 9,055,776 2,070 11,359,474 300 2,011,096 4,380 19,595,510 1,460 8,291,386 28,460 134,373,797 Cost Allocation Based on Area %age Dollars 13.07% 19,85 24.88% 37,8E 8.71% 13,2E 17.64% 26,84 6.85% 10,42 7.27% 11,07 1.05% 1,6( 15.39% 23,42 5.13% 7,8C 100.00% 152,2C Cost Allocation Based on Area %age Dollars 13.07% 23,096 24.88% 43,958 8.71% 15,398 17.64% 31,168 6.85% 12,107 7.27% 12,852 1.05% 1,863 15.39% 27,194 5.13% 9,065 100.00% 176,700 Cost Allocation Based on Area %age Dollars 13.07% 21,005 24.88% 39,977 8.71% 14,003 17.64% 28,346 6.85% 11,011 7.27% 11,688 1.05% 1,694 15.39% 24,732 5.13% 8,244 100.00% 160,700 Cost Based on Tax Capacity %age %age Dollars 11.30% 17,206 25.00% 38,042 7.48% 11,382 18.16% 27,634 7.79% 11,856 8.62% 13,116 1.43% 2,178 13.59% 20,691 6.63% 10,095 100.00% 152.200 Cost Based on Tax Capacity %age %age Dollars 10.93% 19,314 24.47% 43,243 7.61% 13,439 19.43% 34,326 6.70% 11,831 8.62% 15,228 1.49% 2,631 14.70% 25,969 6.07% 10,719 100.00% 176,700 Cost Based on Tax Capacity %age Dollars 11.16% 17,932 24.56% 39,468 7.78% 12,497 19.06% 30,633 6.74% 10,830 8.45% 13,585 1.50% 2,405 14.58% 23,435 6.17% 9,916 100.00% 160,700 Total Cost %age Dollars 12.19% 37,100 24.94% 75,905 8.10% 24,645 17.90% 54,480 7.32% 22,284 7.95% 24,186 1.24% 31782 14.49% 44,115 5.88% 17,903 100.00% 304,400 Total Cost %age Dollars 12.00% 42,411 24.67% 87,200 8.16% 28,837 18.53% 65,494 6.77% 23,938 7.95% 28,080 1.27% 4,493 15.04% 53,163 5.60% 19,784 100.00% 353,400 Total Cost %age Dollars 12.11% 38,937 24.72% 79,446 8.25% 26,500 18.35% 58,979 6.80% 21,841 7.86% 25,273 1.28% 4,099 14.99% 48,166 5.65% 18,160 100.00% 1 321,400 Page 20 elm creek Watershed Management Commission ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE 3235 Fernbrook Lane Plymouth, MN 55447 PH: 763.553.1144 FAX: 763.553.9326 E-mail: judie@ass.biz June 27, 2011 City/Town Clerks Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission Hennepin County Minnesota Re: 2012 Operating Budget Dear Clerks: TECHNICAL OFFICE Hennepin County, DES 417 North 5t+ Street Minneapolis, MN 55401-1397 PH: 612.596.1171 FAX: 612.348.8532 E-mail: Ali.Durgunoglu@co.hennepin.mn.us (via USPS and email) At its May 11, 2011 regular meeting, the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission approved a 2012 operating budget totaling $248,358. 1. In addition, the 2012 budget also provides for the completion of a watershed -wide, multi -parameter TMDL and Implementation Plan that will collectively address all water quality impairments throughout the Elm Creek watershed. Work began in spring 2009 and will extend through fall 2014. In anticipation of undertaking this multi-year activity, the Commission has set aside $59,955 in 2008- 2011 for this purpose. An additional $20,000 will be set aside in 2012 (line 66 of the attached budget). The Commission's cash contribution for the TMDL will eventually total $120,000. Additionally, the Commission has signed a Cooperative Agreement with Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) to complete the TMDL, for which the Commission will reimburse TRPD $340,000 ($70,000 in 2012 — line 67). The Park District will also provide in-kind services totaling $275,000. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency will provide funding in the amount of $340,000 to complete this project. The total 2012 outlay by the Commission for the watershed -wide TMDL is shown on line 71. 2. The 2012 budget also continues funding for the Commission's third generation Watershed Management Plan. The Plan, which is mandated by State Statute and is required to be completed by July 2013, is anticipated to cost $45,000 to $60,000, including engineering, legal and administrative costs. The Commission is currently considering a major amendment to the Plan which would extend the expiration date of the current (second generation) Plan to July 2014 (line 74). $20,000 is being budgeted in 2012 to begin third generation Plan development (line 75). 3. In 2011 the Commission began setting aside funding for capital improvement projects (CIPS) and studies. Many of these projects have been identified in the 2007 Channel Study or will be identified in the watershed -wide TMDL Implementation Plan. Others will be identified by member communities for inclusion in the Commission's CIP. $25,000 is being set aside in 2012 and will be used for this purpose and as a source for grant cost - share opportunities (lines 80-81). In order to provide funding for these three major programs, an increase in member assessments is necessary. The Commission has approved an increase in member assessments to $193,000 in 2012 (line 92). This equates to a 2.67% increase over the 2011 assessment while, at the same time, reducing the Commission's unencumbered fund balance by 15.3% (line 103). CHAMPLIN- CORCORAN- DAYTON - HASSAN- MAPLEGROVE- MEDINA- PLYMOUTH - ROGERS Page 21 elm creek Member Communites/2012 Operating Budget Watershed Management Commission June 27, 2011 Page 2 Attached is a copy of the 2012 budget. The first tab outlines the individual assessments to the member communities for 2012. The second tab shows the approved 2012 operating budget. Questions regarding the 2012 operating budget may be directed to your representative or this office. Section 6.3 of the Joint Powers Agreement that established the Commission provides that a member may object to the budget by giving written notice to the Commission before August 15, 2011. If any objection is received, the Commission will hear the objection and may modify the budget. In order to hear objections in a timely manner so as to convey a possibly modified budget to the members by September 1, 2011, the Commission is requesting that written objections be received in the administrative office by August 5, 2011, for consideration by the Commission at its August 10, 2011 regular meeting. Sincerely, UN --- Judie A. Anderson Administrator JAA:tim Attachment Cc: Commissioners/email TAC Members/email Commission Staff/email Z:\Elm Creek\Financials\Financials 2012\L conveying approved 2012 budget to cities.doc CHAMPLIN - CORCORAN - DAYTON - HASSAN - MAPLE GROVE - MEDINA - PLYMOUTH - ROGERS page 22 Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission 2012 Member Assessments 2010 2009 Taxable Market Value 2010 Budget Share %age Dollars Increase over Prev Year %age Dollars Champlin 523,805,500 4.78% 8,600.55 -4.06% -363.80 Corcoran 772,067,800 7.04% 12,676.86 -5.77% -775.62 Dayton 569,842,400 5.209/6 9,356.45 -0.83% -78.36 Hassan 506,127,000 4.62%1 8,310.28 -4.79% -418.37 Maple Grove 5,907,276,800 53.89%1 96,993.70 2.37% 2,244.72 Medina 841,805,700 7.68% 13,821.91 3.25% 434.42 Plymouth 662,359,500 6.04% 10,875.52 2.98% 314.58 Rogers 1,179,384,700 10.76% 19,364.74 -6.55% -1,357.56 Totals 10,962,669,400 100.00% 180,000.00 1 0.00% 0.00 2011 2010 Taxable Market Value 2011 Budget Share %age Dollars Increase over Prev Year %nage Dollars Champlin 488,685,600 4.75% 8,932.76 3.86% 332.21 Corcoran 704,789,600 6.85% 12,882.95 1.63% 206.10 Dayton 528,922,900 5.14% 9,668.26 3.33% 311.81 Hassan 406,303,500 3.95% 7,426.88 -10.63% -883.40 Maple Grove 5,613,392,300 54.58% 102,608.03 5.79% 5,614.33 Medina 830,631,900 8.08% 15,183.24 9.85% 1,361.33 Plymouth 631,150,100 6.14% 11,536.89 1 6.08% 661.37 Rogers 1,081,067,600 10.51% 19,760.99 2.05% 396.25 Totals 10,284,943,500 100.00% 188,000.00 4.44% 8,000.00 2012 2011 Taxable Market Value 2012 Budget Share %age Dollars Increase over Prev Year %age Dollars Champlin 486,223,700 4.82% 9,311.12 4.24% 378.36 Corcoran 702,744,800 6.97% 13,457.47 4.46% 574.52 Dayton 524,379,400 5.20% 10,041.80 3.86% 373.54 Hassan 401,007,300 3.98% 7,679.24 3.40% 252.36 Maple Grove 5,490,107,700 54.47% 105,134.84 2.46% 2,526.82 Medina 773,549,700 7.68% 14,813.38 -2.44% -369.87 Plymouth 630,559,900 6.26% 12,075.14 4.67% 538.25 Rogers 1,069,825,600 10.62% 20,487.02 3.67% 726.03 Totals 10,078,398,1001 1 100.00% 193,000.001 1 2.66% 5,000.00 Approved May 11, 2011 Elm Budget Approved 2012 to members - 2012 Assessments Page 23 Adopted May 11, 2011 Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission 2012 Operating Budget Commission contribution Al131 C1 D I T I U I V W I X 55;650 77,000 77,000 70.000 2011 3,200 4,657 2,000 5,000 2010 Subtotal Approved 85,262 89,000 102;000 95,000 Budget 2010 :(corrected) 2011 2012 1 Second Gen Plan Amendment Revised Final Revised .Projected Approved Third Gen Management Plan Expenses 20,000 Local Plan Review Administrative 77,500 72,158 78,500 78;500 79,500 11,243 (Website 6,500 4,425 7;500 6,000 7,000 (Legal Services 1,500 532 1;500 1,000 1,500 13 IAudlt 1 4;500 4,500 5,000 4500 5,000 15,000 (Insurance 4,000 2,959 -4;000 3,600 4,000 Total All Expenses nue Miscellaneous 500 300 1,000 X500 1,000 g 1 Subtotal 94,500 84,874 97,300 94,100 98,000 10 1I 4,500 5,500 BMP Implementation 0 11 1Project Reviews 0 WCA Fees 2,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 I ITechnicel-HCES 663,000 51,400 :63,000 63;000 65,000 0. (Technical Support -Consultant 7,000 1,059 7,000 5,000 3,000 14 (Admin Support 10,000 6,891 10,000 7,500 9,000 15 Subtotal 80,000 59,350 80;000 :75,500 77,000 16 1,500 .300 300 CWLA Grant 0 11 Wetland Conservation Act 0 Watershed -wide TMDL-MPCA 101,000 118,127 77,000 18 WCA Expense -HCES 9,250 1,056 9,250 6,000 6,500 0 JWCA Expense - Legal 750 0 500 500 500 and Surplus (Deficit) To (From) Cash Res 1 1 JWCA Expense -Admin 3,500 1,051 3,000 2,000 3,000 21 1 1 1 1 Subtotal 13,500 2,107 12,750 8,500 10,000 22 271,437 204,379 mbomd Funds- WCA (accum) (cash) 39,962. 23 Water Monitoring All Funds, including Escrows and Sureties 360,459 -311,399 Stream Monitoring 18,872 Stream Monitoring - USGS 0 14,691 17,500 17,670 18,288 Stream Monitoring -TRPD Macroinvedebrate Monitoring-RiverV 6,000 0,000 6,000 6,000- 6,000 Gauging Station - Elec Bill 150 104 150 170 170 1 Rain Gauge Network 700 570 1,000 100 100 Lake Monitoring 31 Lake Monitoring - CAMP 1,650 1,030 1;650 1;820 1,700 Lake Monitoring-TRPD 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,500 Weiland Monitoring - WHEP 4,000 3,200 4,000 4,000 4,000 Stream Health (SHEP) 4,000 6,000 6,000 6;000 6,000 35 1 Subtotal 38,772 34,995 39,700 39,160 39,758 36 1Education 38 1 Education- citftittzen programs 6,500 8,553 4;500 6,000 6,500 39 2011 Workshop Series 3,000 3,000 WMWA Implementation Activities 3,000 Survey 0 0 0 Rain Garden Workshop 2,000 2,000 2,500 2,500 2,500 Education Grants 1,000 500 2,000 2,000 2,000 49 1 Subtotal 9,500 11,053 12;000 13,500 14,000 50 1 1 1 51 Special Projects 52 CWLA Grant 0 0 SpecialProjects- general 3,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 South Metro Miss TMDL 500 Upper Miss Bacteria TMDL 0 23 100 100 500 58 1 Subtotal 3,000 23 5,100 5,100 6,000 59 1 1 bU (Contingency 1,728 0 3,600 2,000 3,600 61 1 1 1 Subtotal 1,728 0 3,600 2,000 3,600 Commission contribution 35,000 24,955 10,000 20,000 20,000 TRPD/Commission Coop Agreement. 101,000 55;650 77,000 77,000 70.000 Administration 3,200 4,657 2,000 5,000 5,000 Subtotal 139,200 85,262 89,000 102;000 95,000 Aanagement Plan Second Gen Plan Amendment 0 11,243 15,000 15,000 Third Gen Management Plan 0 20,000 Local Plan Review Subtotal I 0 11,243 15,000 15,000 20,000 ;apital Improvement Projects CIPS/Studies/Project Identification 0 0 10,000 10,000 10,000 Capital Projects - Cost Share 0 0 0 0 15,000 Subtotal 0 0 10,000 10,000 25,000 Total All Expenses nue 380,200 288,907 :364,650 .364,860 388,358 Project Review Fees 25,000 51,050 35,000. 45,000 50,000 Water Monitoring - TRPD Coop Agmt 3,500 4,206 4,000 4,500 5,500 BMP Implementation 0 0 0 0 WCA Fees 2,000 1,000 2,000 1,000 2,500 Forfeited sureties 0 0 0 0. Capital Project Funding 0 0 0 0 Membership Dues 180,000 180,000 188,000 188,000 193,000 ]Member Assess - Contribution to Reserves 0 Interest Income 1,000 172 1,500 .300 300 CWLA Grant 0 0 0 0 Watershed -wide TMDL-MPCA 101,000 118,127 77,000 77,000 70,000 Miscellaneous Income 0 0 0 0 its] Revenue 1 1 312,500 354,645 307,500 315,800 321,300 and Surplus (Deficit) To (From) Cash Res 1 1 67,700 65,738 57,150 49;060 67,058 Unencumbered Fund Balance, Beginning of Year 254,759 320,497 271,437 Unencumbered Fund Balance, End of Year 320,497 271,437 204,379 mbomd Funds- WCA (accum) (cash) 39,962. 39,962 All Funds, including Escrows and Sureties 360,459 -311,399 Elm Budget Approved 2012 to members- 2012 AppmvPagc 24 June 24, 2011 Ms. Sandra Engdahl City Clerk 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN55447 Dear Ms. Engdahl: Pursuant to Article VIII, Subd. 5 of the Joint and Cooperative Agreement, which establishes the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, the proposed budget for 2012 is hereby submitted to the municipality. Also included as part of the proposed budget is the proposed 2012 assessment as called for in Article VIII, Subd. 3, regarding the City's contribution to the Commission's general fund. The Joint and Cooperative Agreement provides that each municipality has until August 1 to object to items in the budget or to otherwise offer comments on items contained therein. Comments should be directed to Chair Linda Loomis, Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission, c/o Barr Engineering Company, 4700 West 77th Street, Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-925-5119. Sincerely, Geoff Nash, P. G. Administrator Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Enclosures c: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 7800 Golden Valley Road I Golden Valley, MN 55427 1 www.bassettcreekwmo.org I Established 1968 Crystal I Golden Valley I Medicine Lake I Minneapolis I Minnetonka I New Hope I Plymouth I Robbinsdale I St. Louis Park Page 25 Bassett Cteek Water Management Commission 2012 Budget and Levy June 2011 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 upon the 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 ibe 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 2012 budget was prepared by a Budget Committee consisting of Commissioner Linda Loomis (BCWMC Chau), Commissioner Ginny Black (BCWMC Vice Chair), Commissioner Michael Welch (Commission Treasurer), Commissioner Jim deLambert (Commission Secretary), and Commissioner Pauline Langsdorf (Education Committee representative), with assistance from Amy Herbert (Recorder), Geoff Nash (Administrator) and Sue Virnig (Deputy Treasurer). The BCWMC's "Second Generation" 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; whish is funded by ad valorem taxes and has been amended to include channel restoration projects. Commission activities have focused on implementation of the Watershed Management Plan. The proposed 2012 budget of $724,045 was adopted by eight commissioners voting in favor of the budget at the BCWMC meeting on June 16, 2011. The proposed 2012 budget is enclosed. Specific items in the budget are discussed below. 1. Engineering services are budgeted at $253,250 in 2012. Many of the individual items have remained the same from the 2011 budget. The following paragraphs summarize each of the Engineering budget items. • Technical Services—this item covers the day-to-day technical services performed on behalf of the Commission, such as preparing for the Commission and Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meetings, performing preliminary site reviews and correspondence, and communications with the Commissioners, watershed communities, developers, agencies, and other entities. The proposed 2012 budget is $120,000. • Plat Reviews—at its December 15, 2005, meeting, the BCWMC instated a permit fee effective January 1, 2006, and revised as of January 1, 2009, to cover the expense of reviewing development plans and improvement projects. Assuming permit fees are raised to cover the costs of assessing the water quality impacts of proposed projects, the projected revenues will be higher. The proposed 2012 budget for plat reviews is $60,000, which will largely be offset by permit fees. These expected permit fees are shown in the 2012 budget under "2012 Assessments and Fees;' it is estimated that the BCWivtC will receive $40,000 in permit fees in 2012. Page I Page 26 • Commission and TAC Meetings— this item covers the cost for the engineer to attend 12 monthly Commission meetings and 7 monthly TAC meetings_ The proposed budget for 2012 is $14,250. • Surveys and Studies—the proposed budget for 2012 is $10,000. The 2011 budget was $20,000. The intent of this budget item is to cover the costs of conducting special studies, and addressing unanticipated issues, questions, etc. that arise during the year. • Water Quality/Monitoring—the proposed budget for 2012 is $20,000, which includes performing biotic index monitoring on Bassett Creek, as part of the BCWMC's three-year monitoring cycle for this type of monitoring. During 1980, 1983, 1991, 1995, 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009, benthic invertebrates were collected from Plymouth Creek, the Sweeney Lake Branch, the North Branch and the Main Stem of Bassett Creek to evaluate its water quality and to detect changes in water quality over time. The same sites will be monitored in 2012. Hilsenhoff's Biotic Index (HBI) and the MPCA's IBI will be used to evaluate existing water quality and to assess changes. Water quality monitoring on Twin Lake and/or Sweeney Lake is also included. A final report will be prepared summarizing the results. This task also includes finalizing the 2011 water duality report, and other general water quality tasks, such as reviewing water quality information and previous studies as requested by the BCWlvIC, member cities, or regulatory agencies. Note: According to the BCWrLIC's foam year lake monitoring cycle, detailed lake monitoring of Sweeney and Tivin Lakes should take place in 2012. However, detailed monitoring was performed on Sweeney and Twin Lakes in 2008 and 2009. This means the monitoring could be delayed to 2013 to keep with thefour-year monitoring cycle. 77re JAC recommended delaving the monitoring even later, to 2014, so that the data is available for the TAIIDL evaluation report, which will be due in 2016. The 2012 budget includes only $4, 000 for monitoring Sweeney and/or Twin Lakes, not include the full $30, 000 estimated for that monitoring. • Water Quantity—this item covers the work associated with the BCWMC's lake and stream gauging program. The proposed budget for 2012 is $11,000, the same as the 2011 budget. The readings have proved valuable to the communities for planning future development and as documentation of the response of surface water bodies to above normal and below normal precipitation. o The 2012 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, 2012 through September 30, 2012. One reading per month will be taken during the period October 1, 2012 through March 31, 2013. o The 2012 stream gauging program will consist of periodically reading stages, or gauging the stream, at the new tunnel entrance, at the Theodore Wirth Park/'T.I 1. 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. o The program also includes periodic surveys of benchmarks to ensure consistency with past readings. • inspections—there are t-%vo separate budget items under this task: Page 2 Page 27 o Watershed Inspections—this item covers the BCWMC's construction site erosion control inspection program. The proposed budget for 2012 is $7,000; permit fees offset a portion of the watershed inspection cost. The inspections are valuable for identifying and correcting erosion and sediment control practices that do not conform to BCWMC policies. The inspections also verify that sites are developed in accordance with approved plans. The watershed inspection program consists of inspecting active construction sites in the watershed once every month. Erosion control inspections will begin April 2012 and extend through October 2012. 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 will be inspected as necessary. The new conduit inlet in Minneapolis will also be inspected for accumulation of debris. BCWMC staff will. coordinate the inspection with respective contacts from each city. Following each inspection, and where site improvements are required, a letter listing the construction projects and the improvements needed for effective erosion control will be sent to each city. o Project Inspections—this item covers the BCWIvlC's annual inspection of the flood control project system. The proposed budget for 2012 is $9,000 ($10,000 in 2011). The inspection program covers 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 "funnel (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 100/Bassett Creek Park Pond Page 3 Page 28 • 32nd Avenue Crossing ■ Brunswick Avenue Crossing. ■ 34th Avenue Crossing ■ Douglas Drive Crossing ■ Georgia Avenue Crossing ■ 36th -Hampshire Avenue Crossing ■ Channel Improvements Plymouth ■ Medicine Lake Outlet Structure • Plymouth Fish Barrier • Municipal Plan Review—this item covers the cost to review the member cities local water management plans for conformance with the BCWMC Watershed Management Plan. All of the member cities have BCWMC-approved plans in place. It also covers the cost to review adjoining WMO plans/plan amendments. The proposed budget for 2012 is $2,000. These funds are budgeted to cover expenses that may be incurred reviewing member cities' local plan amendments and adjoining WMO plan amendments. 2. Plamiing Watershed -wide XP-SWMM Modcl—this item covers the cost to update the current Bassett Creek hydrologic and hydraulic (H & H) models to XP-SWMM. Currently, the majority of the watershed hydrology is modeled by the HEC -1 program, and the creek hydraulics are modeled with the HEC -2 program. Small sections of the watershed have been updated to the XP-SWMNI model where more detailed modeling has been needed. XP-SWMM is a more powerful and user-friendly model that incorporates both hydrology and hydraulics and deals effectively with issues like backwater and more complex outlet structures. An updated H & H XPSWMM model will allow the Commission to evaluate the impact of structure modifications and other projects on the creek and other major waterbodies in the watershed. For example, it could be used to evaluate the impact of modifications similar to the Sweeney Lake outlet modification, the Wisconsin Avenue control structure modification, and the Wirth Lake outlet modification. In the future, newer and/or more detailed XPSWMM models performed by others (e.g., the cities) could be integrated into the Commission's updated H & H model, further increasing the usefulness of the model to the Commission and the member cities. The updated H & H model could also be used to help the Commission evaluate/understand potential flooding risks (e.g., spring snowmelt). The work includes creating an XP-SWMM model for the areas currently modeled in HEC -I and HEC -2, and then merging the new model with the areas already modeled in XP-SWMM. This will create one comprehensive XP-SWMM model for the entire Bassett Creek Watershed. This task includes updating the watersheds and hydrology inputs for inclusion into XP-SWMM. Because of how the model simulates outlets at ponds and lakes, each pond or lake outlet will need to be checked and recalculated as part of this task. This task does not include checking if bridge or culvert geometry along the creek has changed since previous modeling efforts. The XP-SWMM model will also be calibrated to known storm events. Page 4 Page 29 The proposed 2012 budget for this project is $70,000. Source of funds: Flood Control Long- term Maintenance Fund. This would mean that this amount would not appear on the 2012 assessment for operating expenses. Watershed-wide P8 Water Quality Model—this item covers the cost to update the current Bassett Creek water quality modeling. The water quality modeling of a. significant portion of the watershed was completed with an older version of the P8 Model, with best management practice (BMP) information that is representative of the treatment conditions fifteen to twenty years ago. Some major subwatersheds have been updated to current land use and runoff drainage/BMP conditions when more detailed modeling was needed for Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) studies. An updated P-8 water quality model will provide a key tool for the Commission to use in tracking the progress of the BCWMC and the MS4s towards TMDL implementation for impaired water bodies, not only within BCWMC, but also downstream of Bassett Creek. When projects are proposed and/or completed, the updated P8 model could be used to estimate the loading reduction that will be achieved by the projects. An updated P8 model could also be used to evaluate the effect of proposed projects, such as projects that come under Commission review and Commission CIP projects. The member cities could also use the model to evaluate individual BIVIPs in their- cities. The work includes two major tasks: 1) updating the P8 model and 2) calibrating and further refining the modeling. This work includes updating the P8 model for the Main Stem, North Branch (Lost Lake, Northwood Lake, and Bassett Creek Park Pond), Parkers Lake, Westwood Lake, and Grimes, North Rice and South Rice Ponds major subwatersheds. The proposed 2012 budget for this project is $135,000; a significant portion of this budget is for field surveys. Source of funds: Flood Control Long-term Maintenance Fund. Next Generation Plan—For the 2012 fiscal year, it is recommended that the Commission begin the planning process for the "next generation" of the Watershed Management Plan. Starting the process in 2012 will help ensure that the Plan obtains Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approval before the current plan expires (September 2014 – 10 years Prom the date of BWSR approval). The plan update planing process, including planning steps recommended for 2012, is shown on the attached planning process flowchart. The proposed planning process takes into consideration the proposed changes to BWSR's 8410 Rules, which dictate the watershed plan content and the process to be followed for developing the watershed plan. Steps C through H and part of Step I are proposed to be completed in 2012. The steps are described below: Step C. Notify plan stakeholders of plan initiation and request information. This step is a result of the anticipated 8410 rule changes. Plan stakeholders include all plan review agencies (BWSR, Met Council, DNR, MPCA, MN Department of Health, and NiN Dept of Agriculture), as well as other jurisdictions, including member cities, Hennepin County, Hennepin Conservation District, and MnDOT. During this step, these stakeholders are to provide information on water resources, issues and key regulations that should inform the planning process. Stakeholders have 60 days to provide this information. (February- March) Step D. Review and summarize responses from plan stakeholders (March - April). Step E. Visioning process – review BCWMC's achievements, perform gaps analysis, review WMO/member roles and responsibilities, survey members to identify activities Page 5 Page 30 and needs, and create/refine organizational vision. This step includes two to three meetings of the Commission. (May - July) Step F. Form Planning Advisory Group (PAG). The PAG will include Commissioners and Alternates, the TAC (and other city staff as appropriate), Commission staff, the plan review agencies (BWSR, Met Council, DNR, MPGA, MN Department of Health, and MN Dept of Agriculture), Hennepin County, Hennepin Conservation District, and citizens. Task includes coordinating recruitment and preparing recruitment materials to attract participants. (July - August) Step G. Initial planning meeting to identify and prioritize issues. Meeting participants will include the PAG and other plan stakeholders. Issues identified by the TAC and Commission in 2011 will be presented and discussed at this meeting. This step is required per the anticipated 8410 rule changes; however, it is a normal (although currently not required) step in the plan update process. The draft 8410 rules also dictate that the plan stakeholders be invited to the meeting. (September) Step H. PAG meeting to establish goals/policies that address priority issues. This step will also include a review of existing goals and policies that are relevant to the priority issues. (November) Step 1. Revise Plan sections and hold four (4) PAG meetings. To stay on schedule, the plan revision task needs to begin in January 2013, the last month of the BCWMC's 2012 fiscal year. In January, the land and water resource inventory and other background/introductory information sections will be revised/drafted. (January 2013 — July 2013 (entire step)) The proposed 2012 budget for this project is $40,000; work on the plan will continue through 2013 and into 2014. Administrator this was a new budget item in 2008. In 2010 the commission entered a contract with an administrator to coordinate all commission activities, with a focus on working with member cities, the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Hennepin County and other stakeholders to implement total maximum daily load plans; development and organization of commission policies; communications; and strategic planning. The administrator budget item was $15,000 in 2010, as the commission completed an analysis of its systems and functions, and worked on carefully defining a role for an administrator. The actual amount spent in 2010 was $30,297. The budget in 2012 is $50,000, an increase from $36,000 in 2011. As of the end of April 2011, $14,412 had been invoiced. The Commission, at the time of adoption of the 201 1 budget, had begun honing the scope of duties for the administrator and appropriately shifting tasks among its contracted service providers. The commission anticipates that adminstrator tasks will be well defined at the outset of the 2011 budget year, and that operationf41 efficiencies will balance costs of expanding the administrator's scope of duties. 4. Legal—this item covers basic legal services, which are budgeted at $18,500 for 2012, remaining at the same level as 2011. 5. Financial Management—this item covers services provided by the Deputy Treasurer at the City of Golden Valley, which are budgeted for $3,045 in 2012, an increase of 1.5% over last year. 6. Liability Insurance, Auditing and Bonding—this item is budgeted at $15,225 for 2012, an increase of 1.5% over last year, 7. Meeting Catering—this item is budgeted for $2,750 in 2012, a decrease from $4,750 in 201 1. 8. Administrative Services—this item covers administrative, secretarial, and recorder services. The Administrative Services budget is $40,000 for 2011, a decrease from $45,000 in 201 1. Page 6 Page 31 9. Public Relations & Outreach—there are two separate budget items under this task: • Publications/Annual Report $2,000 is budgeted in 2012 for preparing the BCWMC's 2011 annual report, the same as last year. • Website—$2,500 is budgeted in 2012 for maintaining, updating, and making improvements to the BCWMC website, a decrease from $4,500 in 2011. 10. WOMP—$10,000 is budgeted for 2012, which covers the BCWMC's costs related to the Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program (WOMP) station on Bassett Creek. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board has been running the WOMP station for the last several years in a cooperative effort with Metropolitan Council Environmental Services. The MPRB handles the sample and data collection tasks, MCES performs maintenance, and Barr provides assistance with the rating curve and flow monitoring, The 2012 budget includes $5,000 for MPRB to operate the WOMP station. 11. Demonstration/Education Grants—this item is the BCWMC grant program, which is managed by the Education Committee; funding for this item has been eliminated in 2012. The 2011 budget for this item was $5,000. 12. Watershed Education Partnerships— the 2012 budget for this item is $13,000, which includes participation in the Metropolitan Council's Citizen Assisted Monitoring Program (CAMP; $5,000), the Hennepin Conservation District River Watch Program ($2,000), Metro WaterShed Partners ($3,000), the Blue Thumb program ($1,000), and the Metro Blooms Rain Garden program ($2,000). The 2011 budget for this item was $14,500. 13. Education and Public Outreach—the 2012 budget for this item is $5,775, which includes event space costs ($200), display maintenance and posters ($400), water quality survey & quiz ($75), seed packets and handouts ($700), develop and distribute watershed coloring book ($500), watershed coloring contest in 3 age groups ($300), educational articles ($600), and WMWA administration and projects ($3,000). The 2011 budget for this item was $4,900. 14. Public Communications—the 2012 budget for this item is $3,000 and covers costs related to the publication of hearing and special meeting notices in newspapers and journals and the publication and distribution of other required communications that are separate from the Web site or education and public outreach communications. The 2011 budget for this item was $3,000. 15. Erosion/Sediment (Channel Maintenance)—these finds are for creek and streambank erosion repair and sediment removal projects that are not funded as a channel restoration project through the BCWMC's Capital Improvement Program. The amount budgeted for collection in 2012 is $25,000, the same amount as in 2011. The money collected goes into the BCWMC's Creek and Streambank Trunk System Maintenance, Repair and Sediment Removal Fund (the Channel Maintenance Fund). There is currently $158,000 in the Channel Maintenance Fund; to -date about $42,000 of the fund has been used on channel maintenance projects, Tine 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: • Maintenance and repairs needed to restore a creek or streambank area to the designed flow rate. • 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. Page 7 Page 32 • 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. • 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. 16. Long -Term Maintenance (Flood Control Project)—these funds are for projects to repair and maintain structures associated with the BCWMC Flood Control Project. The BCWMC 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 find balance is about $510,000, which takes into account the funding of the $250,000 Sweeney Lake outlet project. The proposed 2012 budget/assessment is $25,000, the same as 2011. 17. TMDLs • TMDL Studies—the TMDL budget was set up to fund the BCWMC's costs for participating in the Medicine Lake, Sweeney Lake and Wirth Lake TMDL studies. The TIvIDL Studies fund is currently at $22,000. No TMDL studies are scheduled for the next several years. It is recommended that the remaining funds in the TMDL studies account be used to pay the costs of TMDL implementation reporting (see next item). There is no proposed 2012 budget for TMDL studies. TMDL Implementation Reporting—For the 2012 fiscal year, it is recommended that the Commission set aside finding to cover the costs associated with the BCWMC's role in tracking the implementation of the Medicine Lake, Sweeney Lake and Wirth Lake TMDLs. These TMDLs assigned categorical waste load allocations, which means a watershed approach is to be taken in implementing water quality improvement measures in these watersheds. The EPA approved the Wirth Lake TMDL ori October 25, 2010 and the Medicine Lake TMDL on February 8, 2011. The Sweeney Lake TMDL is expected to be approved later in 2011. In general, the Commission's role would be to monitor implementation of the TMDLs. This role would likely include the following tasks; o Report on TMDL implementation activities to the MPCA. Formal reports will be due every five years, and annual reports will be needed by the MS4s to meet their reporting requirements. The MPCA has indicated that this type of reporting would include tracking installation/construction of BMPs, and implementation of activities. The report must also provide a short description of an adaptive management strategy for meeting the wasteload allocations. For the first year of reporting, the report format will need to be developed. The data from the cities will need to be collected and entered into the report form. Five years after TMDL approval, a report must be prepared regarding the effectiveness of the implementation efforts on lake water quality. In addition to the information included in the annual reports, the five year assessment report (assume to be 2016 for all three lakes) Should include trend analyses of the Iake data, inflow monitoring data, an estimate of the reductions in phosphorus loading (from P8 modeling and/or monitoring data), and implementation strategy recommendations for the next five years. Possible recommendations could include changes to the water quality monitoring program for the lakes and/or inflows and changes to the potential management measures to reduce watershed and/or internal phosphorous loads. Page S Page 33 Lake water quality monitoring data should be collected for one or two years prior to the preparation of the five year assessment reports. The Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB) conducts annual monitoring of Wirth Lake, and Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) conducts annual monitoring of Medicine Lake. The MPRB and TRPD monitoring programs are similar to the monitoring performed by the Commission. Assuming that the MPRB and TRPD continue their monitoring of Wirth and Medicine Lakes, the Commission will need to take responsibility for monitoring Sweeney Lake. For Sweeney Lake, the completed and to -be -updated P8 modeling should be adequate for the five year assessment report. This means monitoring of inflows to the lake should not be necessary until the ten year assessment. In anticipation of the ten year assessment, the Commission should consider monitoring the inflows to Sweeney Lake in years eight and nine. The TRI'D also conducts monitoring of inflows to Medicine Lake on a regular basis. Assuming that the TRPD continues their inflow monitoring for Medicine Lake (and it occurs at the right time), the Commission will be able to use this information in the five year assessment report. With implementation of the Wirth Lake outlet modification project in 2012, lake water quality monitoring data may show that the lake is meeting water quality criteria within the first five years of TMDL implementation. Therefore, the Commission should not need to monitor inflows to Wirth Lake. Estimated cost: less than $10,000 o Estimate and report progress towards achieving the assigned wasteload allocations, The watershed P8 model, slated for completion in 2012, will be an essential tool for estimating reductions in phosphorus loading. The additional fee proposed for Commission review of projects will cover the costs for updating the P8 model to include BMPs constructed/installed as part of Commission -reviewed projects. However, there will be additional BMPs constructed/installed that are not part ora Commission -reviewed project. The reduction in phosphorus loading for these BMPs should also be estimated, but this will require additional finding from the Commission. Beginning in 2013, the P8 model should be updated every year that new BMPs are constructed/installed, and the model results should be analyzed to understand the impacts of the BMPs on phosphorus loading, When available, this analysis should include a comparison of flow and runoff monitoring data to the P8 model results. Estimated cost: $0 — included in 2012 cost of proposed P8 modeling o Lake water quality monitoring, Annual monitoring (at least CAMP monitoring) of lake water quality for Medicine, Sweeney and Wirth Lakes should occur. As noted above, the MPRB conducts annual monitoring of Wirth Lake, and the TRPD conducts annual monitoring of Medicine Lake, along with regular monitoring of inflows to Medicine Lake. It will be important for the Commission to coordinate with the MPRB and the TRPD to ensure that Wirth and Medicine Lakes continue to be monitored, either by MPRB/ TRPD, or by the Commission, should MPRB and/or TRPD decide not to perform the monitoring. Estimated cost: $0 — included in Commission's water quality monitoring program (except Wirth Lake is assumed to continue to be monitored by MPRB). The proposed 2012 budget for TMDL Implementation Reporting is less than $10,000. 18. Proposed 2012 Capital Projects—Por 2012, the capital projects to be paid through a Hennepin County tax levy include the 1) Main Stem restoration project (2012CR; Irving Avenue to Golden Valley Road, in Golden Valley and Minneapolis); estimated cost is $856,000; 2) Wirth Lake outlet modification project; estimated cost is $180,000, and 3) Schaper Park feasibility study Page 9 Page 34 Wirth Lake outlet modification project from the Clean Water Legacy -Fund, through --the Board of Water and Soil Resources. The Sweeney Lake outlet replacement is another capital project that will be constructed in 2011 or 2012. This $250,000 project is to be paid using existing funds in the Flood Control Long Term Maintenance fund. At its June 16, 2011 meeting, the BCWIMC C6mmi si6ners also c6risidered the assessriieiit 6n the cities. The 2012 assessment was adopted by eight commissioners voting in favor to levy $461,045 for the 2012 fiscal year, as compared with the $434,150 for 2011 adopted in 2010, based on the following: Funding Needs: 2012 Administrative Budget................................................................................................$724,045 Funding Source: 2012 Assessment..................................................................................................................$461,045 Transfer from BCWMC Flood Control Long-term Maintenance Fund ..............................$205,000 Transferfrom TMDL Fund.................................................................................................... $10,000 2012 Estimated Permit Review Fees ................................ ............$48,000 ......................................... 2012 Capital Projects Assessment (Hennepin County).......................................................$998,000 The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission's 2012 Operating Budget and 2012 Assessment per community are enclosed. Looms, Chair, Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Enclosures: 2012 Operating Budget 2012 Assessment Watershed Management Plan Timeline Page 10 Page 35 A I E F G IHI 1 IJ I K IL 1 2012 Operating Budget 2 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission - June 2011 3 [?RAFT 2011 Estimated - 4 I....AudiLed.2010 numbers shown are Proposed 2012 Item Actual 2011 Budget 2011 budget for now Budget GINEERING 6 Technical Services 119,832 110,000 110,000 120,000 7 Plat Reviews funded by permit fees 53,128 50,000 50,0()0 60,000 8 Commission and TAC Meetings 12,316 13,000 13,000 14,250 9 Surve s.and.Studies 17899. 20.000 20000 10000 10 Water Quality / Monitoring 24,489 34,000 34,000 20,000 11 Water Quantity 8,264 11,000 11,000 11 ODO 12 inspections 13 Waters edjnspecljoina 14 Pro'ect Inspections 5,714 10,000 -4000- 10.000 9,00c) 15 Municipal Plan Review 7,927 2,000 2,000 2,000 (1) 16 Subtotal Engineering $260,411 $258;000 $258;000 $263L250 17 PLANNING 18 Watershed-wide XP-SWMM Model $70ODO 19 Watershed-wide P8 Water Quality Model $135,000 20 Next Generation Plan W 000 _2V Subtotal Planning $0 $0 $0 $245,000 22 Administrator 30,297 36,000 36,000 50000 23 Legal 17,331 18,500 18,500 18,500 24 Financial Management 3,054 3,000 3,000 3,045 25 Aim insurande 8 Bond '13,328 15,000 15 000 15,225 26 Meeting Catering Expenses 4,610 4,750 4 750 2,750 27 Administrative Services 42,578 45,000 45,000 40,000 28 Public Outreach 29 Publications/Annual Re rt5,164 200)0 Z;f?tXf 2dd0 30 Website 1,031 4,5W 4,500 2,500 31 Watershed Outlet Monitoring Program OMP 6,818 10,000 10,000 10,000 2 32 Demonstration/EducationGrants 3,140 SOfJO 5,000 0 8 33 Watershed Educattotl Pattriershi s 16,150 14,5M 14,500 13,0W 4 34 Education and Public Outreach 2.911 4,900 4,900 577$ 5 35 Public Communications 692 3,000 3,000 3,O00 36 Eroslon/Sedlment Channel Maintenance 25,000 25,000 25000 25,000 (6 37 Long-Term Maint. -Flood Control Pro act 25,665 25,tS00 25 0 29,6M 7 39 Subtotal $197,108 $216150 $216150 $215;795 40 TMDLS 0 41 TMDLStudies $10,000 0 0 p 42 TMDL Implementation 10,000 43 Subtotal TMDL Studies $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 44 GRAND TOTAL $467,519 $474,16D 1 $474,150 $724,045 45 For Information (Administrative Account) 46 Financial Information 47 Audited fiscal year 2010 fund balance at January 31, 2011$337,951 ......... ......... 48 Expected Income from assessments in 2011 .............. ..._......».......... _....... ..... ..... ......................... -------434-5- $434.150 49 Expected Interest income in 2011 ........... ........ ....... _... ...................... ._.._........_...._...--4444- $300 50 Expected income from project review fees ............. _._................_...-............_........ -- --- ^ --4444-- 51 Estimated funds available for fiscal year 2011 $812 401 52 Estimated expenditures for fiscal year 2611 ....._...-......................_.._....................................._....44444`4444=444• 5471154 53 Estimated fund balance as of January 31, 2012 $338,251. 55 2012 Budget 56 Proposed 2012 Capital Projects .$998.000. 57 Proposed 2012 Operating Budget .........._................._....---4444------• $724,045 58 Proposed total 2012 Budget _................. $1 722 045 59 2012 Assessments and Fees ............._......... ...................... -�- 60 2012 Operating Budget ........._............................_...._._...._..-.........................-4444 $724045 61 Estimated 2012 permit fees (809A of permit expenditures) - 4444 `-- -' $48 000 62 Transfer from Long-term Maintenance Fund for XP-SWMM Model.................................$70 00D 63 Transfer from Long-term Maintenance Fund for P8 Model......... .... ....................._..._...................--4444----=---• _...... ._. ...--_...... $135 000 =_.._..._............_........_...-- 64 Use of TMDL Studies Fund .................. _ --- - 4444--- $10,000 65 Assessment proposed for 2012 Operating Budget .._........_..._.._ .......... .»..._..._.._ . ............_......4444--4446-^ -- $461 045 66 Proposed Budget Reserve on January 31, 2012 ........................ _.__..-...._.................. .--------- , -- $336 251 69 (1) Review municipal local plan amendments and adjoining WMO plan amendments. 70 (2) Review municipal comprehensive plan amendments. 71 (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 72 administration were combined into line item 34 -Education and Public Outreach. 73 (5) 2012 budget includes brochures, factsheets, display materials, educational articles and WMWA administration and projects. 74 (6) Will be transferred to Channel Maintenance Fund Page 36 75 ( Will be transferred to Long-Term Maintenance Fund Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission 201.2 Assessment June 2011 ------------- Community For Taxes Payable in Current Area Percent 2011 2010 Percent Watershed Percent Average 2009 Assessment 2010 Assessment 2011 Assessment Proposed 2012 Assessment increase 2011 Net Tax Capacity' of Valuation in Acres of Area Percent cewe o,, to 2012 lake$918,976 - 0.71 `n'�� "'? �17zu5z I $103256IL—$109 230 $11 w -,c I,yoz 6.35 1,108 $7,811,766 6.04 1,252 $56,865 614 43.94 11,618 le $2 706 469 2.09 345 Information is certified amounts from the County. D 3.03 3.75 I$16 565 $15 <472 � $16,541 $17 100.00 24,843 10D DD 100 00 $449 875 $414,1— $434,1-5-61, I Page 37 Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission Next Generation Plan DRAFT Process (Revised May 2011) c ni Revise Plan sections and hold four (4) PAG rmotinys RHu1sa'4raft plan ciUcumeyti to review August - September 2013. January —July 2013 Stenreyies`ti:o fd. Fret formal review of droit Respond to comments Plan (90 dapv) January - February 2014 March - April 2014 Cmm�asst meeoting to Auvfsa draft d+�Cumoni, „review dcaH Plan P_(or formalvt :revie_, October.2013 November- December 2013 Public: hea�n�g on draft SecondTst ie pt�rtual review Adopt d�"u,t' r� tr Plan Plan of Plan & SASR gpprovat September - October 2014 May 2014 Juno - Augusl 2Q14 si'ati'rg6Wc7s'"+S'? �.:� rm.Rmiewand „»..»..................,...........» Pra' r rJodc` PtgdDavekptne+t b?fl t( 2010 Approval ;7Qi'1f32 2>31�¢ P'WpN\23 MN727123270511vWrkFlles\Next Genambon Plan 20104ext Gen Plan Pmceas_ May 2011 revmlonvsd Page 38