Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
City Council Packet 10-29-2013 Special
CITY OF PLYMOUTH AGENDA SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 29, 2013, 6:00 p.m. MEDICINE LAKE CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. TOPICS A. Bassett Creek Watershed District issues B. Microbreweries and Taprooms 3. ADJOURN Special Council Meeting 1 of 1 October 29, 2013 Date: October 23, 2013 From: Ginny Black, Bassett Creek Watershed Management Organization, Chair To: Plymouth City Council RE: Issues before the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Organization. A. Medicine Lake issue 1. Background information: see August 15, 2012 CIM memo included with this memo. 2. Roles and Responsibilities: CORP — Regulate navigable waters and tributaries. Any project of this nature would fall under their review. MN DNR — Regulate any work in public waters or public water wetlands. The DNR set the Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) which sets the area they regulate. Hennepin County - Per the fully executed agreement on September 12, 1995, the dam is owned by the County. That agreement also makes the County responsible for restoration, repair, and replacement of the structure. (Agreement attached) Commission and City —The 100 year flood level is the point at which the Commission/City have jurisdictional responsibilities. The 100 year flood elevations are determined by FEMA who then draws up the maps detailing the 100 -year flood plain within the City. That map is adopted by both the Commission and City. 3. Process This issue has been ongoing for a number of years. Below is a brief summary of events since January 2012. o Memo to Terrie Christian AMLAC President on October 22, 2009, (link: http://www.bassettcreel<wmo.org/Meetings/2009-November/7E-Eng%20Commun- AM LAC%20Medicine%20Lake%20Memo.pdf) o Commission Engineering Consultant attends AMLAC annual meeting held in February 2010 to review October 22,d memo. a Memo to the Commission dated June 9, 2010 for the Commission's June 17, 2010 meeting (link: http://www.bassettcreekwmo,org/Meetings/2010-June/5B- CityRequest.pdf), o Memo to Commission dated August 9, 2010 for the August 19, 2010 (Link: http://www.bassettcreekwrno.org/Meetings/2010-August/7B-MedicineLakeDam.PDF), o Memo to Plymouth City Council on August 15, 2012 in the Council Information Memo packet (includes BCWMC excerpts from the January 19, 2012 and March 15, 2012 meetings minutes), o March 15, 2012 meeting AMLAC and the Mayor of the City of Medicine Lake requested the Commission listen to the concerns of resident's around the lake has with the water level in the lake, At the October 18, 2012 Commission meeting AMLAC request the commission install a controllable Weir at/on the Medicine Lake Dam, Page 1 4. Current Status In September 2013, the BCWMC Administrative Services Committee and staff met to discuss the current situation and determine next steps. The Mayor and a Council Member from the City of Medicine Lake attended that meeting. It was determined that the BCWMC would develop a survey to be sent to the primary stakeholders to determine what they believe the issues are in Medicine Lake. The questions are: What problems exist in Medicine Lake? Where are these problems occurring within the lake? What use is impacted by each problem (e.g. swimming, boating, fishing, and aesthetics)? How would you rank each problem in order of importance/priority? At the current time the Commission has received feedback the City of Medicine Lake, AMLAC and Three Rivers Park District. Other stakeholders have not yet responded to the survey questions. An impromptu meeting occurred (after the October Bassett Commission meeting) with BCWMC Administrator, the City of Medicine Lake Commissioner and alternate Commissioner, BWSR representative, Chair, and the Alternate Commissioner from Plymouth. At that meeting the following list of issues and possible solutions were identified: List of issues identified by the project requesters Difficult for residents to get boats out from private docks. Difficult to get boats in and out at the boat landings North arm is filling in with sediment Sedimentation in the south bay of the lake Dredging at the outfall structure of the storm water pond in East Medicine Lake Park Specific area in the middle of the lake that's shallow and weedy List of possible solutions Perform localized dredging Modifications to the outfall structure allowing water to be held longer in the Lake Removal of weeds from a shallow spot in the center of the Lake 5. DNR process to change run -out elevations of Dams (per the DNR Factsheet) Permit application — majority of riparian owners requesting the permanent change Flowage Easements; Permission from o!l riparian land abutting the lake, as well as any connecting waters that would be affected by the change. Environmental Assessment: document the impacts on wetlands, habitat, fish spawning areas, waterfowl and songbird nesting areas as well as strategies to address shore erosion due to wave action and winter ice push Engineering: Plans showing the physical changes to the outlet structure Hydrology/Hydraulics study: identify anticipated changes in lake levels and stream flows Surveys: Surveys showing all shoreland and existing development that would be affected by the proposed change, compliance with shoreland ordinances for existing/proposed runout, impacts to sewer system and other public structures such as water quality ponds. Page 2 Cost — Who pays? The projected requesters have clearly indicated that they do not want to pay forthe studies necessary to change the outlet structure; that some larger mechanism should be used to pay for the requested studies and changes. These mechanisms might be: Special assessment to cities in the watershed, Ad valorum tax on the entire watershed, Lake improvement/association; Lake Conservation District 7. Action: It would be helpful to the Commission to know the City's thoughts and concerns regarding this issue. Submitting those thoughts and concerns in a letter to the commission would be most helpful. B. Joint Powers Agreement {JPA) Amendment Letters went out to the members cities informing the member cities that the JPA expires on January 1, 2015 and requested each city review the current JPA. The Commission asked for any comments the cities might have on recommendations to amend the JPA or to extend the term of the JPA without amendments to January 1, 2025. Eight cities had no comments on the JPA including the recommended amendment. The ninth city, City of Medicine Lake, has not commented on the JPA Amendment. At this time, the most current information is that the City of Medicine Lake is withholding comment on the JPA and whether the City will sign the JPA until the Medicine Lake Water Level issue has been resolved. The current JPA requires that all the member cities sign the JPA, or it is null and void. So should the City of Medicine Lake decide not to renew the JPA, the JPA will dissolve and, according to State Statute, a watershed district will be formed in its place. C. Four Season's Proiect This issue has been in the news over the past month. This is a review of the project steps to date and the current status. Documents developed for this project can be found on the city's webpage for this project: http://www.iDlymouthmn.gov/index.aspx?page=708 Currently, the project is on hold pending a second review of the alternatives given in the initial feasibility study and additional alternatives identified by residents, Commissioners and City of Plymouth staff. The additional alternatives include: Rip -rap the whole stream Ponding in open area on the west end of the project Additional WQ pond — east/west Piping If the project goes forward, it will not be under construction until the winter of 2014-15 at the earliest. D. Watershed Plan Development Process Link: htt www.bassettcreekwmo.or NextGenerationPlan20l4 2014WatershedMana emer)tPianHome.htm) Page 3 The Commission was formed in 1969 with the primary role being flood control. In recent years that role has shifted to water quality and flood control. The current plan process has reflected this change. Progress: o Survey completed by more than 120 residents (April and May 2013) o Watershed Summit held June 2013; issues prioritized by participants o Goals adopted by the Commission (August —October 2013), o Currently developing policies to implement the goals, o The next step will be developing the implementations strategies. List of issues: The shift in the role of the Commission from a flood prevention focus to a water quality and flood prevention organization has caused a greater review the Commission's Goals and Policies. The Commission is in the process of reviewing the Policies and hopes to have that part of the process completed by the first of the year. The Goals and Policies can be supplied to the Council if the so wish. Dispute Resolution Issue: Flooding problem in Golden Valley. Water is contributed by Crystal, New Hope and Golden Valley. Cities have been struggling to come to an agreement on a feasibility study that would resolve the flooding issues. They have asked the Commission to step in and help resolve the issue. This is in progress. F. Appointments Attachment August 15, 2012 CIM memo Hennepin County Agreement regarding the ownership and maintenance of the outlet Structure DNR Factsheet: "Lake Outlet Dams" Page 4 8VOUT ] CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 DATE: August 15, 2012 TO: CIM FROM: Derek Asche, Water Resources Manager SUBJECT: MEDICINE LAKE DAM The existing Medicine Lake Dam was constructed in 1996 as a cooperative project between the Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC), Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Hennepin County, and City of Plymouth. The previous structure was deteriorated, leaking severely, and several homes had first floors lower than the 100 -year flood level. The existing dam maintains the normal water level of the previous structure and discharge rates up to the 10 year storm event (-2.5 inches in 24 hours). During stone events greater than the 10 -year event, the existing dam will discharge water faster than the previous structure to protect homes which were within the 100 -year flood level (see attached Medicine Lake Darn Rating Curve). The water level in Medicine Lake has been an ongoing concern because, in part, Medicine Lake is shallow on the edges. A cursory analysis of DNR data suggests that water levels as little as 12 inches below the normal water level could move the edge of the water out 40 feet or more on portions of the north, east, and south sides, thus affecting docks, boats, and aquatic recreation in general. As recently as January 2012 the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens AMLAC) inquired to the BCWMC with regard to the Medicine Lake Dam and water levels minutes from January 2012 and March 2012 are attached)_ Generally, concerns with raising water levels in Medicine Lake include increasing the flooding potential of low properties, the need for easements to the new 100 -year flood level, low expectations that a change to the dam level could be made, and the high cost to study such an endeavor. Additionally, over $2,000,000 in water quality improvement projects such as regional ponding and shoreline restorations over the past eight years would need to be studied to ensure those projects are not negatively affected. Attachments Medicine Lake Dam Rating Curve BCWMC January 2012 Meeting Minutes BCWMC March 2012 Meeting Minutes 0AUti11ties\Storm Sewer aud. Water Resources\Correspondence\Nlensos\2()12\CINI Medicine Lake ©am.does Page 5 Medicine Lake ©arra Rating Curve August2, 2010 892 - - 891.5 - ---- -- Pre -1996 Rating Curve 891 } ---- 890.5Lowest Home Elevation . r____ -____ .. ____e---__ .. __ y -- 100-year Storm Water Surface Elevation N890 50 -year Storm Water Surface Elevation -- -- - C7 889.5 10- ear Storm Water Surface Elevation 0 M7rU LU 889 - - - - - 888.5 888 887.5 - - 887 0 50 Ar U4 M _ P:\Mpls\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\MedicineLkDam_Figures.xls Existing Rating Curve 100 Flow (ds) 150 200 of 250 SCWNIC January 19, 2012, Meeting Minutes 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Requests by the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAC) 1. BCWMC to Create a Document about the Medicine Lake Dann and Lake Level. Chair Loomis reported that the Commission received a request from the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens to create a document about the Medicine Lake Dam and lake level. Ms. Chandler said that a document had previously been prepared by the Commission Engineer on this topic and Len Kremer had delivered a presentation about it. Ms. Chandler wondered if AMLAC was just interested in having all of that historic information combined into one document or if AMLAC is interested in something else. She commented that if the request is to create a document using the existing information and addressing just a few new questions then the Commission Engineer estimates that the work could be done for $5,000. Commissioner Hoshal said he thought that AMLAC wanted the information in one document so that AMLAC could deliver the information to its residents in response to their questions. Commissioner Elder asked if there was a way that AMLAC would cost share for the work. Ms. Clancy remarked that the City of Golden Valley's understanding has been that when the Commission Engineer is asked for work products that are for a specific city or a specific city's organization then that city is solely responsible for the costs of that work. Acting Commissioner Johnson asked if the Commission had a budget for the item. The Commission noted that it didn't have this type of work budgeted. Acting Conunissioner Goddard suggested that the Commission put the issue back to AMLAC and ask if it is interested in having this work be done at AMLAC's expense and if so, then to provide more specifics on what information it wants; otherwise the Cities of Plymouth and Medicine Lake could possibly provide the information. Mr. Asche commented that AMLAC's request reads like a scope of services for a feasibility document. He said perhaps AMLAC would want to touch base with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to find out what was involved with the Gray's Bay dam. Acting Commissioner Johnson recommended no action on this item and suggested that she or Commissioner Hoshal communicate with them that there were questions about what AMLAC was requesting and then perhaps the cities can work with AMLAC to provide the information that is already available. Chair Loomis asked if the Commission wanted to take no action or wanted to table the agenda item until the February BCWA/1C meeting. The Commission concurred that it would table the item until the February meeting. ii. BCWMC Participation in a 7 p.m. February 8th meeting on Aquatic invasive Species. See discussion tinder agenda item 4J. B. Zmendations i. Review o intenance Fund Applications for 2012 Projects. Mr. Asche noted that the TAC reviewed a he City of Golden Valley for $100,000 in Channel Maintenance funds for a 2012 stream an a Bassett Creek Main Stem Reach 1, subreach 2. He said that Golden Valley has just over $1 , o it in BCWMC Channel Maintenance funds. Mr. Asche reported that the TAC recommen s Page 7 BCWMC March 15, 2012, Meeting Minutes 4C. Presentation of Invoices for Payment Approval. i. Kennedy & Graven — Legal Services through January 31, 2012 — invoice for amount of 2,282.45. ii. Barr Engineering Company — Engineering Services through Febru 4, 2012 — invoice for the amount of $29,904.86. iii. Amy Herbert — February Secretarial Services — invoice for amount of $1,790.73. iv. D'amico - ACE Catering— March BCWMC meeting c ng — invoice for the amount of $324.88. V. MMKR — FY Audit Work through January 31, 20 invoice for the amount of $1,600. Commissioner Welch arrives.] Commissioner Elder moved to approve payment o of the invoices. Commissioner de Lambert seconded the motion. By call of roll the motion carried un mousiv with seven votes in favor [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Approval of 2012 BWSR nt Agreement. Ms. Chandler reminded the Commission that the grant is for the Bassett Creek l I Stem restoration project in the cities of Golden Valley and Minneapolis. She said the agreement ' ery similar to the 2011 grant agreement and contains a few changes. Mr. LeFevere said that th greement looked fine. Ms. Chandler said that the Commission needs to approve and sign the grant eement and return it to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and the Commission ds to get some information about the grant up on the Commission's Web site. Commissioner der moved to approve executing the grant agreement. Conunissioner Welch seconded the motion. Commiss' er, Welch brought up a comment about a statement in paragraph 15 of the agreement regar ' the language "supplement". He questioned if the language is supposed to read, "supplant," He a asked the Commission Engineer to make sure the prevailing wage requirement is clearly co unicated to the City as it needs to be included in the contract documents for the construction t st. Commissioner Welch said he did not want the Commission to hold up signing the agreement rsus supplant but would like the Commission to clarify with BWSR tention. Chair Black said that she would talk to Brad Woaney of BWSR about it. The motion carried unanimouslv with seven votes in favor [Cities of Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. 6. OLD BUSINESS B. AMLAC Request to Create a Document Regarding the Medicine Lake Dam and Lake Level. Gary Holter, board member of AMLAC — the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens, said the group has listened to concerns of the citizens around the lake regarding the lake level. He said that AMLAC would like the Commission to do what it can to keep water in Medicine Lake as long as possible during the summer. Mayor Mary Anne Young asked the Commission to move forward with a process to alter the current dam on Medicine Lake even on a temporary basis such as for three years to allow for 3 Page 8 SCWMC March 15, 2012, Meeting Minutes documentation, as a way to keep more water in the lake through the summer. Scott Marks, City Council member for Medicine Lake, said that he supports the requests made by AMLAC and Mayor Young. He added that the lake is a heavily used recreation lake and that in the past several years by late July it has been hard to get boats in and out of the lake. Chair Black clarified that it sounds like the issue being brought in front of the Commission is not a water quality issue but is a recreation issue. Mr. Holter, Mayor Young, and Mr. Marks agreed. Ms. Chandler explained that as the Commission has previously informed AMLAC, as well as Medicine Lake residents, if anything is done to the Medicine Lake outlet so that it holds water back above the current elevation, the flood level around the lake will be raised, which is a serious undertaking especially since people around the lake do live in the floodplain. She said that the low level of the lake has seemed to be very recurrent. Ms. Chandler said that the Commission Engineer has presented to AMLAC and the city residents who attended a public meeting on this topic the data showing the precipitation amounts and the lake water level and that these items are very closely tied. Commissioner Welch asked for clarification of the request from AMLAC since the memo from AMLAC asks for information and today the verbal requests have been for action. Mr. Holter said that AMLAC is looking for an end result. Ms. Clancy brought up the fact that the precedent is that the City pays for the costs of such a project. She provided the example of a Golden Valley project involving a structure that controlled the time of water retention on the Golden Valley golf course. She said that the city wanted the water to drain off the golf course quicker. Ms. Clancy said that the City was responsible for the modifications of the weir and aII of the costs of the project. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification on whether this request is within the Commission's jurisdiction or if not, in whose jurisdiction does it fall? Mr. LeFevere responded that it would probably fall within the BCWIVIC's authority to do something since there is language in the Metropolitan Surface Water Management Act regarding preserving and enhancing water resources. He said that the issue is more a question of the BCWMC's priorities. Mr. LeFevere said this sounds like a very big project requiring a lot of analysis, title work, easements, changing of the flood map and so on with the administrative process, which is in addition to the bricks and mortar side of the project. He described other ways that the project could be organized such as through the formation of a lake improvement district and then taxes could be Ievied within a special area to pay for the project, or a special storm sewer tax district that would tax the properties around the lake. Mr. Mathisen brought up the currently ongoing process of the updating of TP40, which is the source of all the rainfall data for flood plain elevation determinations. He said the update probably won't be released until the end of the year and after its release would be the time to redo floodplain elevations such as for Medicine Lake. Chair Black summarized that she is hearing that the project would not be as simple as just doing the construction work to raise the dam and that the Commission has typically focused its efforts on flooding issues and water quality issues. She asked for comments or feedback from the Commission. Commissioner Hoshal suggested a letter be prepared and send to Bate Drewry of the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to ask her for information about a process that a citizen group could undertake for such a project. Commissioner Elder recommended that such a letter be prepared Page 9 8CWMC March 15, 2012, Meeting Minutes directly from the group instead of from the Commission but that the group could certainly share the information with the Commission. Mr. Asche noted that the BCWMC has significant investments adjacent to Medicine Lake and encouraged the Commission to study the impacts that any project would have to the three regional ponds adjacent to the lake. After some discussion Chair Black said that she agreed with the idea of AMLAC or the City of Medicine Lake taking the lead to write a letter to the DNR for information. Commissioner Elder commented that the Commission would be interested in the information received back from the DNR if the group is willing to share it with the Commission. Commissioner Hoshal said that he would be happy to help AMLAC and the City of Medicine Lake with preparing that letter and he will send a copy to the Commission. Mayor Young asked if the information that the Commission is capturing with its SWMM model process could be shared with the City of Medicine Lake. The Commission said yes. Mayor Young noted that the dam on Medicine Lake is in the City of Plymouth and that the City of Medicine Lake couldn't move forward on a project without the City of Plymouth. Mr. Holter stated that AMLAC has been in touch with the DNR, which recommended the group get a petition. Mr. Holter provided the Commission with a copy of the petition and said that AMLAC has gathered 600 signatures and of those only 60 or so are Lakeshore owners and the rest are recreational users of the lake. Chair Black directed the Commission Engineer to distribute to the Commission, AMLAC, and the City of Medicine Lake the information that the Engineer had previously presented and distributed on the topic of the lake level of Medicine Lake. ooperative Agreement for Feasibility Study for the Pond Dredging Project in the Northwood Watershed. Mr. Asche reported that the reimbursement amount to be listed in the Cooperative Agre tis $49,893.00. Chair Black moved approval of the agreement. Commissioner Elder seconded the motio ommissioner Welch commented on the partnership approach with the Four Seasons IVlall Project, Hes he is concerned about the Commission spending public funds to treat water from a commercial fad which will potentially undergo redevelopment, without a mechanism in place for the Commission to ver those funds. Mr. Asche said the proje ill not assist on the Commission's dime the redevelopment of the Four Seasons Mall. He said that h 'll be happy to draft summaries of proposals that come is to the Four Seasons Mall site to keep the Co `ssion informed of the process occurring on that site. Commissioner Welch said that he reNs uncomfortable with the degree to which the Commission funds projects and then is disconnected the way that the projects roll out. Mr. Asche said that the Commission does not have involvement that presentative of the Commission's investment t© the projects. He recommended that the Commission cuss where, when, and how the Commission wants to review the projects. Chair Black provided background on the project for the mission. The motion carried unanimously with seven votes in favor [Ci f Minnetonka and Robbinsdale absent from vote]. B. AMLAC Request to Create a Document Regarding the Medicine Lakewi and Lake Level. See Page 10 C r q© b Agreement No. A08705 County of Hennepin and City of Plymouth AGREEMENT FOR COST SHARING This Agreement, made and entered into this day of 1995, between the County oHennepin through its Department of Public forks, Environmental Management Division, 417 North Fifth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55401-1309 (hereinafter referred to as County") and the City of Plymouth, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard, Plymouth, Minnesota 55447 (hereinafter referred to as "City"); and WHEREAS, the Medicine Lake Dam, located on Bassett Creek in Section 25, Township 118 North, Range 22 West, at the outlet of Medicine Lake in Plymouth, Minnesota (hereinafter referred to as the "Dam") is owned, operated, and maintained by the County; and WHEREAS, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (hereinafter referred to as the "DNR") has inspected the Dam and determined that is in need of repair or replacement and that it is in the public interest to repair or reconstruct the Dam; and WHEREAS, it has been determined that it is prudent to replace or reconstruct rather than repair the Dam and that replacement will cost approximately $138,000; and WHEREAS, the DNR has funds available to repair and reconstruct dams and has determined it to be in the public interest to grant Hennepin County funds in the amount of $50,000 to replace the Dam; and WHEREAS, the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission") has agreed to provide funds in the amount of 58,000 for the County and the City to work together to contract for the replacement of the Dam; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, it is hereby agreed as follows: ARTICLE i Undertaking by the County 1) The County agrees to apply to the DNR of $50,000 for the purpose of replacing the Darn funds to the County, the County will make those within a reasonable time after their receipt by specifically agreed that if the County does not DNR it shall have no obligation to provide the paragraph. It is specifically understood that grant agreement with the DNR, a copy of which i 1 for grant funds in the amount and, if the DNR provides such funds available to the City the County. It is receive grant funds from the 50,000 contemplated by this under the terms of the County's s attached hereto as Exhibit A, Page 11 these funds will not be made available until after construction has been completed and approved by the State. 2) The County agrees to provide up to a maximum of $30,000 of County funds to reimburse the City for certain costs it incurs for the replacement of the dam. It is specifically agreed that these County funds shall be used for the purposes of construction, acquisition of necessary easements and right-of- way and for the purpose of administration of all areas of the project, including legal issues and execution of contracts. The County will make these funds available to the City when the County, in its sole discretion, determines that construction of the new Dam is 50% complete. 3) The County reserves the right to review all plans and contracts and to inspect the construction of the dam on an ongoing basis. ARTICLE II Undertakings by the City 1) The City agrees that, through its own employees or through contracting with others, it shall perform all tasks required to construct the new Dam. This includes, but is not limited to, administration of the project; legal issues and execution of contracts; preparation of plans and specifications by the State approved registered professional engineer; Vto ning approval of the plans and specifications by the Commissioner of Natural Resources; -prior to.start of construction; applying for, obtaining, and complying with all necessary governmental permits including a water permit which must be issued by the DNR in accordance with Minnesota Stature 103G.301 prior to the start of construction; e,paration of a work plan and obtaining State approval for such work plan; obtaining soil boring; acquisition of necessary easements and right-of-way; legal issues and execution of contracts; submission to the DNR of documentation of costs and payments; construction engineering; all aspects of bidding for the work and construction of the Dam; all contracting with persons for construction; demolition and removal of the old Dam; all aspects of construction of the new Dam; restoration of the area after demolition and construction. 2) The City agrees that it will undertake all of the obligations and fulfill all of the responsibilities assumed by the County in "Section III SPECIAL PROVISION" of its Dam Safety Grant Agreement with the DNR, set forth in the attached Exhibit A, as though those obligations and responsibilities were set forth fully herein. 3) The City agrees that it will provide documentation to the County of all its costs and expenses associated with its acquisition of necessary easements and right-of-way and legal administration at the time the County determines the project to be 50% complete and at the conclusion of the project. 4) The City agrees that it will deal with the Commission in obtaining the funding committed to the new Dam project by the Commission. 2 Page 12 5) The City agrees to be responsible for all cost incurred over the estimated cost of $138,040 ARTICLE III Term This Agreement shall be in full force and effect from September 12, 1995 through July 31, 1996. ARTICLE IV Hold Harmless Agreement The city agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County, its elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers, and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, judgments, damages, losses, costs, or expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting directly or indirectly from any act or omission of the City, its subcontractors, anyone directly of indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable in the performance of the services required by this contract, and against all loss by reason of the failure of the City to perform fully, in any respect, all obligations under this agreement. Consistent with the specific limits, exclusions, and conditions expressed in Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 466, (as may be amended from time to time) the County does hereby hold the City, its officers, agents, employees and contractors harmless from any liability, claims, damages, costs, judgements, or expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees to the extent and degree such liability arises out of the negligence of the County, its employees or agents. ARTICLE V Insurance The City shall obtain and maintain, at all times during the Term of this Agreement, a fidelity bond in an amount not less than $100,000 for each person covering the activities of all persons authorized to receive or distribute monies. Written verification of such bond shall be furnished to the County, prior to the execution of this Agreement. In order to protect the City and those listed above under the indemnification provisions, the City agrees at all times during the term of this Agreement, and beyond such term when so required, to have and keep in force insurance as follows: Limits 1. Commercial General Liability with the following coverages. Contractual Liability coverage must be included. 3 Page 13 General Aggregate $1,000,000 Products - Completed Operations Aggregate $1,000,000 Each Occurrence - Combined Bodily Injury and Property Damage $1,000,000 Fire Damage - Any One Fire $500,000 2. Automobile Liability - combined single limit per occurrence coverage for bodily injury and property damage. Owned, non -owned, and hired automobiles must be included. $1,000,000 3. Workers Compensation and Employers Liability: a. Workers Compensation. Statutory If the contractor is based outside the State of Minnesota, coverage must apply to Minnesota laws. b. Employers Liability. Bodily injury by: Accident - Each Accident $100,000 Disease - Policy Limit $500,000 Disease - Each Employee $100,000 The above establishes minimum insurance requirements. It is the sole responsibility of the City to determine the need for and to procure additional coverage which may be needed in connection with this contract. All insurance policies shall be open to inspection by the County, and copies of policies shall be submitted to the County upon written request. h.6. City shall not commence work until it has obtained required i;,psurance and filed an acceptable Certificate of Insurance with the County. The certificate shall: flame Hennepin County as certificate holder and as an additional insured with respect to operations covered under the contract, for all liability coverages, except Workers Compensation and Employers Liability, and, if applicable, Professional Liability. List any exceptions to the insurance requirements. amended to (1) show that Hennepin County will receive thirty 3} days written notice in the event of cancellation, non- renewal, or material change in any described policies, and (2) delete the following or similar warding: "Endeavor to" and "but failure to provide such written notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents, or representatives". The City agrees that any contract let by the City or its agents for the performance of work on the Dam shall include clauses that will: 4 Page 14 1) Require the contractor to defend, indemnify, and save harmless the City and the County, their elected officials, officers, agents, volunteers and employees from any liability, claims, causes of action, losses, demands, damages, judgments, costs, interest, expenses (including without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees, and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) arising out of or by reason of the negligence of said contractor, its subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by them, and/or anyone for whose acts and/or omissions they may be liable. 2) Require the contractor to be an independent contractor for the purpose of completing the work provided for in this Agreement. 3) Require the contractor to provide and maintain insurance in accordance with the same insurance requirements set forth above, ARTICLE YI Affirmative Action In accordance with Hennepin County's Affirmative Action policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, affectional/sexual preference, public assistance status, ex -offender status or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. The City shall furnish all information and reports required by the County's Affirmative Action Policy. The City shall adopt and comply with the County's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting. Further, if this Agreement be for a sum over $50,000 or is one of the several Agreements with the City within a 12 -month period totaling more than 50,000 or is amended to exceed $50,000 and (a) a written governmental jurisdiction plan exemption is granted by the County's Manager of the Targeted Contract Services Division, it is agreed that Hennepin County's Appendix Z forms a part of this Agreement; or (b) written exemption is not granted or is withdrawn by said Director, then it is agreed that (1) Hennepin County Appendix Y forms and is a part of this Agreement as though fully set forth herein, (2) the City will furnish all information and reports required by the Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy, and (3) the City shall adopt and comply with the Hennepin County Board's Equal Employment Opportunity/Affirmative Action Policies with regard to employment and contracting. If at any time during the Agreement period the basis of an approved exemption should change, the City shall inform the Director in writing within ten (10) calendar days from the date of said change. The provisions of Minnesota Statues 181.59 and of any applicable local ordinance relating to civil rights and discrimination and the Affirmative Action Policy statement of Hennepin County shall be considered a part of this agreement as though fully set forth herein. 5 Page 15 ARTICLE VII Alterations Any material alterations, variations, modifications, or waivers of provisions of this Agreement shall only be valid when they have been reduced to writing as an amendment to this Agreement signed by the parties. ARTICLE VIII Independent Contractor It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of co- partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the City as the agent, representative or employee of the County, for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. The City is to be and shall remain an independent contractor with respect to all services performed under this Agreement. The City represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required in performing services under this Agreement. Any and all personnel of the City or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any work or services required by the City under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the County and shall not be considered employees of the County, and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the City, its officers, agents, contractors, or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the County, and the City shall defend, indemnify and hold the County, its commissioners, officers, agents and employees harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the County, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability, severance pay and PERA. ARTICLE IX Subcontracting and Assignments The City shall not assign, sublet, transfer or pledge this Agreement and/or the services to be performed hereunder, whether in whole or in part, without prior written consent of the County which cannot be unreasonably withheld. ARTICLE X Data Privacy The City agrees to abide by the provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and all other applicable state and federal laws, rules and 6 Page 16 regulations relating to data privacy or confidentiality, and as any of the same may be amended. The City agrees to defend and hold the County, its officers, agents and employees harmless from any claims resulting from the City's unlawful disclosure and/or use of such protected data. ARTICLE XI Recycling The City agrees to establish an office paper and newsprint recycling program which shall include a written plan available to the County at the County's request containing the following: description of the plan; person and position responsible for plan administration; types of paper collected and method of collection and transportation to a recycling center; an annual report summarizing collection efforts. ARTICLE XII Minnesota Laws Govern The Laws of the State of Minnesota shall govern all questions and interpretations concerning the validity and construction of this Agreement and the legal relations between the herein parties and performance under it. The appropriate venue and ,jurisdiction for any litigation hereunder will be those courts located within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota. Litigation, however, in the federal courts involving the herein parties will be in the appropriate federal court within the State of Minnesota. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will not be affected. ARTICLE XIII Termination Either party may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days written notice. ARTICLE XIV Notices Any notice or demand which must be given or made by a party hereto under the terms in this Agreement or any statute or ordinance shall be in writing, and shall be sent registered or certified mail. Notice to the County shall be sent to the County Administrator with a copy to the Department of Public Works, Environmental Management division, at the address given in the opening paragraph of this Agreement. Notice to the City shall be sent to the City Manager with a copy to the Director of Public Works at the address given in the opening paragraph ofthis Agreement. 7 Page 17 ARTICLE XV Record Availability The County agrees that the City, the State Auditor or any of their duly - authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonably deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such material must be retained for five (5) years by the County. The County's accounting practices and procedures relevant to this Agreement shall also be subject to examination by any or all of the aforesaid persons as often as and during such times as aforesaid. The City agrees that the County, the State Auditor or any of their duly - authorized representatives, at any time during normal business hours and as often as they may reasonable deem necessary, shall have access to and the right to examine, audit, excerpt and transcribe any books, documents, papers, records, etc., which are pertinent and involve transactions relating to this Agreement. Such material must be retained for five (5) years by the City. The City's accounting practices and procedures relevant to this Agreement shall also be subject to examination by any or all of the aforesaid persons as often as and during such times as aforesaid. ARTICLE XVI Dam Ownership It is understood and agreed that upon completion of construction of the new Dam, the Alam shall become the property of the County. All maintenance, restoration, repair, replacement or other work or services required thereafter shall be performed by the County. 8 Page 18 The City, having signed this Agreement, and the Hen epin County Baard of Commissioners having duly approved this Agreement on 1995, and pursuant to such approval and the proper County of icials having 9C signed this Agreement, the parties hereto agree to be bound by the provisionshereinsetforth. Approved as to fora.-- Assistant County Attarntf Date:, r AgP 'olv ed as to ,.OAcution: Ami stand' P.u,hty Attorney Date: COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, STATE OF M N OT By: Chair of its Coun Board And: Associate/Wt i, Administrator ATTEST: t Di ector pa' ent-' V City of Plymouth / By: And: s Its c; ka je City organized under: Plan A Plan B r Charter rpadfor lerk of RecommeApproval Y• 9 Page 19 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS TO CHANGE RUNOUT ELEVATIONS The following steps are not all-inclusive but do list essential permit application requirements, under Minnesota Statutes 1030 for changing the runout elevation of a dam. Permit Application. A permit applica- tion must be signed by a majority of riparian owners requesting a permanent change in runout elevation. Flowage Easements. Purchase or donation of flowage easements and consent from all owners of riparian land abutting the lake, as well as any con- nected waters that would also be af- fected, are required. Environmental Assessment. An envi- ronmental assessment must be prepared that documents impacts on wetland habitat, fish spawning areas, waterfowl and songbird nesting areas, as well as strategies to address shore erosion due to wave action and winter ice push. Engineering. Engineering plans must be prepared that show the proposed physical changes to the dam. Hydrology/Hydraulics. A hydrologic/ hydraulic analysis must identify antici- pated changes in lake levels and stream flows. Surveys. Surveys must be prepared that show all shoreland and existing develop- ment that would be affected by the proposed change. These surveys must identify compliance with shoreland ordinance standards for both the existing and proposed runout in terms of lot size, structure and sewer system setback, and structure and sewer system elevations above the highest proposed water eleva- tion. Outlet Dam Maintenance DNR Waters owns and maintains more than 300 lake outlet dams in Minne- sota. The primary goals for dam maintenance are to protect existing shoreland owners' rights and downstream owners' rights to water available within natural precipitation variations. Maintenance involves ensuring that each dam is safe and functional, operates at the authorized runout elevation, and provides free-flowing conditions. Inspections of dams are conducted to ensure that the stop logs are at the authorized setting, to repair or replace damaged or worn equip- ment, and to remove obstructions as necessary. Historical Operation of Outlet Dams Most lake outlet dams, which were built in the 1930s to conserve water, generally feature several 5 -foot -wide openings, called bays, with provisions to add and remove wooden stop logs. The runout level of a dam depended on the number of stop logs placed in each bay. Stop logs were managed by Iocal observer/operators at each lake for 10-12 years after the dams were built. When precipitation suddenly (and unpredictably) returned to normal and above normal, flooding occurred around many lakes resulting in claims for damages by lakeshore property owners. It became apparent that stop log operation by local observers could not maintain uniform lake levels. Thereafter, department engineers inspected each dam, examined the shore ofthe affected lake, and analyzed all water level records and other avail- able information about each lake. A decision was then made to set an authorized stop log level for each dam. The goal was to set the stop logs at an elevation that would retain as much water as possible yet eliminate complaints of high water and the associated claims of damage from flood- ing. The authorized stop log setting is maintained by DNR Waters as the legal runout elevation. Cutlet dam. Page -@r2 DNR maintenance specialist replacing wooden stop logs with steel channels at the Island lake outlet dam in Crow Wing County (photograph by Ron and Judy Rolfe). Changing a Runout Elevation It is the goal of DNR Waters to maintain existing flows and water level conditions at lakes with outlet dams to the maxi- mum feasible extent. However, shoreland owners on a lake may have varied and differing opinions about "desirable" lake water levels. Proposals to change water levels are difficult to accomplish due to legal, environmental, and financial realties see details in sidebar on page 1). Potentially serious consequences may result from changing a runout elevation, such as navigation problems, shore erosion, water quality degradation, ice damage, and flooding. Chang- ing a runout to solve a problem may create new problems that are unacceptable to other owners or to future owners. Regard- less of the runout elevation of a lake, water levels will fluctu- ate because of variations in precipitation, which cannot be controlled. Legal Considerations Unauthorized tampering with set runouts is an ongoing problem at dams in Minnesota. According to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103G, it is unlawful to change the runout elevation of a dam without prior permit authorization from the DNR Persons found to be responsible for unauthorized changes to a dam are subject to criminal enforcement action. Along with the criminal action is the potential of lawsuits brought by aggrieved shoreland owners for flooding, lack of access, or downstream damages due to flow changes resulting from the illegal tampering. The state cannot legally alter a stop log elevation in response to individual requests because of high or low water level conditions. To raise a runout would cause water to cover land it did not previously cover, which may be a "taking" of land without compensation. It is unconstitutional for government to take private property without due process. DNR Waters' position and legal obligation is to maintain the authorized stop log setting and allow water Ievels to fluctuate in response to precipitation that falls within a lake's watershed. A formal permit process exists for those shoreland owners who may wish to pursue a permanent change in runout eleva- tion (see sidebar, page 1). It must be clearly understood that no permit decision by the DNR is required until complete information is provided by the applicant(s). Costs associated with design, engineering, flowage easements, and structural improvements are the responsibility of the applicant(s), or a local governmental unit acting on behalf of the applicant(s). 02004 State ofMinnesota, Department ofNatural Resources. Prepared by DNR Waters, DNR Contact Information t a DNR Waters website lists Area Hydrologists: wwwArinstate. mn. us/waters DNR Waters in St. Paul: 500 Lafayette Road DEPARnWOf St. Paul, MN 55155-4032 NAVALRE5MES. (651) 296-4800 DNR Information Center Twin Cities: (65I) 296-6157 Minnesota toll free: 1-888-646-6367 Telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD): (651) 296-5484 TDD toll tree: 1-800-657-3929 This information is available in an alternative format on request. Equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from programs of the Minne- sota Department of Natural Resources is available regardless ofrace, color, national origin sex, sexual orientation, marital status, status with regard to public assistance, age, or disability. Discrimination inquiries should be sent to Minnesota DNR, 500 Lafayette Road, 5t. Paul, MN 55155403I, or the Equal Opportunity Office, Department ofthe Interior, Washington, DC 20240. Page 2 of 2 Page 21 resourceful. naturally. engineering and environmental consultanBARmts Memorandum To: Bassett Creek Watershed Commission From: Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Item 7B—Meeting with the City of Medicine Lake regarding the Request by the City to Conduct Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis and Environmental Assessment of the Medicine Lake Dam at Bassett Creek BCWMC August 19, 2010 Meeting Agenda Date: August 9, 2010 Project: 23/27-0051.2010 7B. City of Medicine Lake Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis and Environmental Assessment of the Medicine Lake Dam at Bassett Creek Recommended/requested Commission actions: Refer the issue posed by the request from the City of Medicine Lake to the TAC and request that they develop a recommended strategy for consideration by the Commission for responding to the technical issues. Direct the Commission Engineer to report back to the Commission with an estimated cost to implement the strategy recommended by the TAC. Background At the June 17, 2020 Commission meeting the Commission authorized the Engineer to attend the August 2, 2010 meeting of the Medicine Lake City Council to discuss their request to evaluate whether the Medicine Lake Dam that was constructed in 1996 releases water too quickly and if modifications to the structure are warranted. The City's concerns about low water levels in recent years on behalf of lakeshore homeowners who are having difficulty accessing the lake are prompting this request. Similar concerns were expressed in 2009 by the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAC). About 40 people were in attendance at the meeting including Plymouth Commissioner Virginia Black, New Hope Commissioner John Elder, and Medicine Lake Alternate Commissioner Ted Hoshal. It was noted that residents from both Medicine Lake and Plymouth were in attendance. The consensus of the people that spoke at the meeting was that a study of the issue was warranted and that the Commission should consider conducting the study. The issues are: A review of lake levels indicates that they follow precipitation patterns. When precipitation is below normal for long periods of time, the lake level drops below the top of the dam. Lake levels Barr Engineering Co. 4700 West 77th Street, Suite 200, Minneapolis, MN 55435 952.832.2600 www.barr.com To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Barr Engineering Co. Subject: Item 713—Meeting with the City of Medicine Lake regarding the Request by the City to Conduct Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis and Environmental Assessment of the Medicine Lake Dam at Bassett Creek BCWMC August 19, 2010 Meeting Agenda Date: August 9, 2010 Page: 2 Project: 2327-0051.2010 were low for much longer periods of time in the late 1970s and late 1980s than they have been in recent years because of longer periods of below normal precipitation during the 70s and 80s. The dam was replaced because the old structure was in poor condition and leaked excessively and because additional discharge capacity was also needed to protect several low residential structures around the lake. At the time the dam was replaced there were several homes with first floors lower than the 100 -year flood level. An increase in the normal level of the lake would increase the flood level and could threaten any low homes. If an increase in the normal water level is considered a new survey of properties around the lake would need to be conducted. The existing dam has the same control elevation (887.7) as the old structure and the discharge from the lake is the same to the 10 -year elevation (889) as it was with the old structure. When the lake is above elevation 889 the discharge is greater that it was with the old structure. The watershed model could be used to compare the water levels for various events with the old structure and the existing structure to respond to the question of whether the existing structure is releasing water too quickly. The model could also be used to predict water levels that would occur with a variety of modifications to the existing structure. Increases in the normal level or altering the discharge capacity could likely raise the flood level and require flood proofing of the low homes. An increase in the normal level of the lake would require a flowage easement from all properties around the lake affected by the increase. The easement would likely be required to the new 100 -year flood level. Other options to improve lake access during periods of low lake levels would include providing augmentation from another water source to raise water levels such as upstream reservoirs or dredging channels from the shoreline to deeper waters. Raising the normal level of the lake would change the normal ordinary high water level or elevation where the vegetation around the lake changes from predominately aquatic to predominately upland. There would likely be more wetland and more fisheries habitat around the lake. Three handouts were distributed at the meeting including a graph of Medicine Lake water levels for the period 1972 through 2010, a graph of annual precipitation for the period 1980 through 2009, and an elevation discharge curve that had a rating curve for the old dam and the existing dam. Copies of the handouts are attached. P:\Mels\23 MN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\Commission Packets\2010\08-19-10\Word docs\agenda Item 713_Memo_Cty ofMed Lk—Aug l9Mtg.doc Barr Engineering Company 4700 West 77th Street • Minneapolis, MN 55435-4803 Phone: 952-832-2600 • Fax: 952-832-2601 • www.barr.COM An EEO Employer Minneapolis, MN • Hibbing, MN • Duluth, MN • Ann Arbor, MI • Jefferson City, MO Memorandum To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Item 5B — Request from City of Medicine Lake to Conduct Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis and Environmental Assessment of the Medicine Lake Dam at Bassett Creek BCWMC June 17, 2010 Meeting Agenda Date: June 9, 2010 Project: 232700512010 Recommended/requested Commission actions: 1. Prior to addressing the City's questions, direct the Commission Engineer to meet with the DNR regarding the City of Medicine Lake's desired modifications to the Medicine Lake dam/outlet and the associated technical issues that would need to be addressed. 2. Direct the Commission Engineer to report back to the Commission with an estimated cost to respond to the city's request and to address any additional DNR -identified concerns. Background In a May 13, 2010 letter from the City of Medicine Lake, the city requested that the Commission conduct a hydraulic and hydrologic performance evaluation and environmental assessment of the Bassett Creek dam at Medicine Lake" (i.e., the Medicine Lake outlet structure). The city wishes to learn if the dam releases water too quickly and if modifications to the structure are warranted. The city's concerns about low water levels in recent years are prompting this request. The city's letter references the Commission Engineer's October 2009 memo in response to similar concerns expressed at that time by the Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAC). The Medicine Lake outlet structure was replaced in 1996 as a joint project with the City of Plymouth, Hennepin County, MNDNR and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, with sponsorship by the BCWMC. The MDNR contributed $50,000 to the cost of the project (50% of the construction cost). The following paragraphs are excerpted from the October 2009 memo: The Medicine Lake outlet/dam is located at the south end of the main basin of the lake, near South Shore Drive. The outlet/dam is 14 feet wide at the normal level; the structure discharges water from Medicine Lake directly to Bassett Creek. The outlet structure maintains the normal water elevation of Medicine Lake at approximately 887.7 feet (NGVD 29). (The normal water elevation is the elevation at which water will begin to flow out of the lake/over the control structure). The discharge (normal) elevation of the structure is approximately three feet above the level of the creek channel. The BCWMC, City of Plymouth, DNR and Hennepin County replaced the Medicine Lake outlet structure To: Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Item 5B — Request from City of Medicine Lake to Conduct Hydrologic/Hydraulic Analysis and Environmental AssessmentoftheMedicineLakeDamatBassettCreek Date: June 9, 2010 Paqe: 2 because the old dam had deteriorated and was leaking severely, and because additional capacity was needed for flood flows. The new/current structure was constructed to the same normal water elevation as the previous structure, as required by the DNR permit. The structure was designed to minimize seepage and other leakage from the structure. The "stepped" weir (outlet) of the current structure was designed and installed, in close coordination with the DNR, to address fisheries concerns and to minimize the duration of potential flooding during high flows... Modifying the outlet structure by reducing the width of the dam crest or installing a v -notch weir, would slow the release of water from the lake, and temporarily maintain higher water levels; however, it would also increase the flooding potential at several of the low homes around the lake. Any proposed modifications to the existing structure would require detailed analysis and approval from the DNR, BCWMC, the city of Plymouth, and the City of Medicine Lake to ensure changes do not increase flooding impacts. In their May 13, 2010 letter, the City of Medicine Lake requested that the Commission answer a number of questions and that the Commission Engineer attend a future Medicine Lake City Council meeting to present an overview of the findings and to answer questions of attendees. It would take some effort to answer the questions posed by the city, and DNR permitting requirements would also need to be considered. Therefore, a meeting with the DNR is recommended to identify agency issues and concerns regarding modifications to the Medicine Lake outlet prior to answering the city's questions. Depending on the feedback from the DNR, additional concerns and issues may need to be addressed beyond the questions posed by the city. The following technical issues regarding modifications to the Medicine Lake outlet need to be discussed with the DNR: The current stage/discharge relationship for the outlet (i.e., outflow rate at increasing elevations above the outflow elevation). 2. The impact on the regional (100 -year) flood and smaller flood events. 3. The impact on the "normal" water level. 4. The ecological (e.g., plants, fish, wildlife) impacts. 5. The impact on the established ordinary high water elevation of Medicine Lake. To analyze the above issues, the DNR may also want to know: 1. Historical information regarding the frequency and volume of outflow from the lake. 2. Historical information comparing the lake elevation/outflow to rainfall. P:1Mpls123 MN127123270511WorkFiles\Commission Packets12010106-17-20101Word Documentslagenda_item 513—Medicine Lake DamEvaluation.docx Bassett Creek. ht Management Commission Crystal • Golden Valley a Medidue Lake t Mlnunpolls-14l'etanetonks o New (lope *Plymouth * Robbinsdale • 5t. Loins Park Memorandum To: Terrie Christian, President, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAC) From: Barr Engineering Company Subject: Medicine Lake Water Levels and Outlet Structure Date: October 22, 2009 Project: 23/27 0512009 030 The Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission (BCWMC) has been requested to comment on the recent low water levels at Medicine Lake and the design of the existing Medicine Lake dam. Medicine Lake Water Levels The BCWMC has monitored Medicine Lake water levels since 1972. During the last 37 years, Medicine Lake, as well as other metro lakes, has experienced periods of drought and periods of high water. The period of low water levels observed at Medicine Lake during summer 2009 was typical of several lakes in the metro area. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Hydrologic Conditions Report for September, 2009 reports that lake levels remained below normal for indicator lakes in the metro area. Indicator lakes with below normal water levels included Lake Minnetonka in Hennepin County, Upper Prior Lake in Scott County, and White Bear Lake, on the border of Ramsey and Washington Counties. White Bear Lake had its lowest September water level on record. Significantly low water levels have also been noted at Parkers Lake in the city ofPlymouth. According to the Hydrologic Conditions Report, precipitation for the metro area for the period of April 1, 2009 — September 28, 2009 was 6 to 9 inches below normal; the report is included as an attachment to this memo. The low water levels in 2009 are not unique; Medicine Lake has experienced similar periods of drought and low water levels in the past, as indicated in Figure 1. Water levels as low, or lower than, 2009 low water levels have been measured at Medicine Lake in 13 ofthe 37 years of which water levels have been recorded. These 13 dates are called out on Figure 1. Michael Welch, BCJVMC Cliair CharlieLeFevere, Attorirey Leanard Kremer, ,Etsgilseer c% Barr.Eagineerhig Company Kennedy A Graven Barr Engi"rseering Company4700West71" Street 4701 US Bank Plaza, 200South Stith Street d 700 West 77h Street M'aneapalav, HN 5S435 Missneapolis, UN dlinneapetis, MN612-383-6885 612-337-9215 952-832-2600 61.2-337-9110 (fax) 952.8.32-2601 (fax) Terrie Christian, President, Association of Medicine Lake Area Citizens (AMLAQOctober22, 2009 Paae 2 Medicine Lake Outlet/Dam The Medicine Lake outlet/dam is located at the south end ofthe main basin of the lake, near South Shore Drive. The outlet/dam is 14 feet wide at the normal level; the structure discharges water from Medicine Lake directly to Bassett Creek. The outlet structure maintains the normal water elevation of Medicine Lake at approximately 887.7 feet (NGVD 29). (The normal water elevation is the elevation at which water will begin to flow out of the lake/over the control structure). The discharge (normal) elevation of the structure is approximately three feet above the level of the creek channel. The BCWMC, City of Plymouth, DNR and Hennepin County replaced the Medicine Lake outlet structure because the old dam had deteriorated and was leaking severely, and because additional capacity was needed for flood flows. The new/current structure was constructed to the same normal water elevation as the previous structure, as required by the DNR permit. The structure was designed to minimize seepage and other leakage from the structure. The "stepped" weir (outlet) ofthe current structure was designed and installed, in close coordination with the DNR, to address fisheries concerns and to minimize the duration of potential flooding during high flows. Changing the current outlet structure would not have any effect on the current drought conditions because the water level is already below the crest (normal level) of the dam. Modifying the outlet structure by reducing the width of the dam crest or installing a v -notch weir, would slow the release of water from the lake, and temporarily maintain higher water levels; however, it would also increase the flooding potential at several of the low homes around the lake. Any proposed modifications to the existing structure would require detailed analysis and approval from the DNR, BCWMC, the city of Plymouth, and the city ofMedicine Lake to ensure changes do not increase flooding impacts. P:\Nlpls\23 NIN\27\2327051\WorkFiles\2009 Lake Monitoring\ANILAC Ntedicine Lake Memo.doc q )\ O «Z g ap H a I Iq 890.5 890.0 889.5 889.0 888.5 c 0 888.0 m v W a 887.5 N 887.0 886.5 886.0 885.5 885.0 3/8/1971 Figure 1: Medicine Lake Water Levels 1972-2009 October 19, 2009 8/28/1976 2/18/1982 8/11/1987 1/31/1993 7/24/1998 1/14/2004 7/6/2009 Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Waters Hydrologic Conditions Report September 2009 Summary This is the third installment of the monthly Hydrologic Conditions Report. For comparative pu'rposes please reference the previous 2009 reports at: http://mndnr.gov/current conditions/hydro conditions.html The significant rains in August were followed by the one of the warmest and driest Septembers in the modern record. Precipitation for the growing season (April through September) fell short of normal by five or more inches in many locales. By late September, 30% of Minnesota's landscape was placed in "Moderate", "Severe", or Extreme" drought categories by the U.S. Drought Monitor. In many counties, the 2009 growing season ranked among the 10 driest ever. Stream flows in September declined through much of the state. Flows in the central part of the state, upper Mississippi River basin and the southeast fell to below normal or less with flows at some indicator gages below the 101h percentile when compared to historical flows for September. Indicator lakes remained below normal in the metro, south central and eastern part of the state. Water levels at White Bear and North Center lakes were the lowest historically recorded in the month of September. Water levels were generally normal to high in the northwest and in the normal range in the northeast part of the state. Ground water indicator wells continue to show declining conditions in the metro area. Levels in the southwest rose to the normal range, while levels in indicator wells in the central and northeast part of the state remained in the normal to high range. Ground water levels in wells in the northwest fell to the normal to low water ranges when compared to historical levels. The information in this report is provided by DNR through long term programs committed to recording and tracking the long term status of our water resources. The current conditions ofprecipitation, stream flows, lake levels and ground water levels in this report provide valuable information for natural and economic resource management on a state, county and watershed level. Ifyou have questions on the content of this report please contact Greg Spoden: 651-296-4214, greg.spoden @state. mn. us Level 2 Hydrologic Unit (HUC4) a Cedar River Missouri - Big Sioux Rivers Des Moines River M Missouri - Little Sioux Rivers Lower Mississippi River( Rainy River Minnesota River REA Red River of the North Mississippi - Upper Iowa Rivers St. Croix River Mississippi River- Headwaters2,22.01 Western Lake Superior D1VR t, bi'nrers awe_ J DNR Major Watershed - Level 4 Hydrologic Unit (HUCB) 1. lake Superior - North 2. Lake Superior - South 3. St. Louis River 4. Cloquet River 5. Nemadjl River a. (none) 7. Mississippi River - Headwaters a. Leech LakeRiver 9. Mississippi River - Grand Rapids 10. Mississippi River- Brainard 11. Pine Ricer 12, Crow Wing River 13. Redeye River 14. LongPralne River 15. Mississippi River - Bartell 16. Sauk River 17. Mississippi River -St. Cloud 16. NorthFork Craw River 19, South Fork Crow River 20. Mississippi River - Twin Cities 21, Rum River 22. Minnesota River - Headwaters 23. Pamme de Terre River 24. Lac Cal Pade River 25. Minnesota - Yellow Medicine Rivers 26. ChippewaRiver 27. RedwoodRiver 26. Minnesota River - Mankato. 29. CottonwoodRiver 30. Blue Earth River 31. Watonwan River 32. LeSueurRiver 33. LowerMinnesota River 34. Upper St. Cmix River 35. Kettle Rlver 36. Snake River 37. Lower St. Croix River 36. Mississippi Rlvar - Lake Pepin 39.Cannan River 40. Mississippi River- Winona 41. Zumbro River 42. Mississippi River - La Crescent 43. Root River 44. Mississippi River - Rena 45. (none) 4fi. Upper Iowa River 47. UpperWapsipinicon River 4B. Cedar River 49. Shell Rock River 50. Winnebago River 51. Des Moines River - Headwaters 52. Lower Des Maines River 53. East ForkDes Moines River 54. Bois de Sioux River 55. Mustinka River 56. Otter Tail River 57. UpperRed River ofthe North 56. Buffalo River 59. Red Riverofthe Nonh - Marsh River 60. Wild Rice River 61. Red Riverofthe North - Sandhill River 62. Upper/Lower Red Lake 63. Red LakeRiver 64 (none) 65. Thief River fib. Clearwater River fi7. Red Riverofthe North - Grand MaraisCreek 68. SnakeRiver 69. Red Riverorthe North - Tamarac River 70. Two Rivers 71. Roaeau River 72. Rainy River- Headwaters 73. Vermilion River 74. Rainy River Rainy Lake 75. Rainy River Black River 76. Uttle Fork River 77. BigFork Ryer 76. Rapid River 79. Rainy River - Baudette 60. Lakeof the Woods oil Upper Big Sioux River 62. LowerBig Sioux River B3. Rock Riser B4. LittleSioux Riser U.S. Drought Monitor September 29, 2009 i.._._...._I nNR Majorwale trued Drought Intensity i DO Dmught-Abnormally Dry DI Dmught. Moderate D2 Dmught - Severe D3 Dmught - EW" D4Dmught - Exwptlael fUU Precipitation Ranking April 1, 2009 - September 28, 2009 preliminary) Total Precipitation Departure from Normal April 1, 2009 - September 28, 2009 preliminary) State Climatology Office - DNR Waters Notes: _— j - September 2009 was one of the warmest and driest Septembers in the modern record. By late September, 30% of Minnesota's landscape was placed in "Moderate", "Severe", or Extreme" drought categories by the U.S. Drought Monitor. In many counties, the 2009 growing season ranked among the 10 driest ever. Precipitation during the season fell short of normal by five or more inches in many locales. Large sections of the southern two-thirds of Minnesota received at least one inch of rain during the first few days of October. More early -October rainfall was expected as of this writing. Should the forecasts verify, significant improvements in the soil moisture situation are expected. Larger hydrologic systems will be slower to respond. rercentlle maps compare current -year seasonal rainfall totals with the long-term climate record. This percentile (ranking) statistic allows the season's rainfall totals to be described using historical context. Alocation ranked at zero means that the present -year seasonal rainfall total is the lowest found in the historical record: aranking of 100 indicates the highest on record. Aranking at the 50th percentile (median) specifies that the present -year seasonal rainfall total is in the middle ofthe historical distribution. Hill— Percentile ranking based on mean daily flows for the current month averaged and ranked with all historical mean daily flows for that month. A watershed ranked at zero means that the present month flow is the lowest in the period of record; a ranking of 100 indicates the highest in the period of record. A ranking at the 50th percentile (median) specifies that the present -month flow is in the middle of the historical distribution. Data are current through 9/29/2009. Designated major watershed gage l September Percentile High Flows (-90th percentile) DN'R Above Normal Flows (75 - 90th percentile) °(` Ti rrters Normal Flows (25 - 75th percentile) Below Normal Flows (10 - 25th percentile) — Low Flows (<= 10th percentile) s ROSEAU W 51 I S6rah--.. e1 of the Woods D7 717Z'- P= '.' _ ( 1-\: , i -1Turtle'q q:y— 'I " Lake Level Status September 2009 Burntside Poplar RAs ,.- Vermilion Upper Cormorant J 1..; 41 ENA 6T.LOUIS BEGKER TTERTAL 7 t 0 Edward ChubEastiBattleWLTON4PINE J f I` GD GLASi ------ Tamara AT N L'u Edward RLI.N h L P Ta M I h i T if e Lacs1Chip'6ewa ' G- LO4TociO NANABEG E kegamaV E EENTO,11i L 31GSTONE TEVENS I .P, I IBMITI CentMNYOHINorthCent UNCOLNyI 07 Green I -- sem`. 11 AHGNA9 White BearRIGHTHENNEP ME Minnetonka- r MCLEOD GWER L__UpperPrior AKOT r SCOTT 8wan-EY UR- ano West Jeffe;rs nIBNOANRICE .0 ... UE .KA6kSTELE COOK WE E$TQNE M', VATONWAN, EAR U K.N RGCK INpyLE6 ILI.ORTIN I WRIBAIJI-T MEE'RN 111t!ER Ho" L Indian September Percentile 411 Low Water Levels (- 10th percentile) Percentile ranking based on last reported reading for the current month compared to all historical reported levels for that month. C) Below Normal Water Levels (10 - 25th percentile) A lake ranked at zero means that the present reported level 5 Normal water Levels (25 - 75th percentile) DNRisthelowestintheperiodofrecord; a ranking of 100 indicates the highest in the period of record. 0 Above Normal Water Levels (75 - 90th percentile) ; fitters A ranking at the 50th percentile (median) specifies that the present- 0 High Water Levels (>90th percentile) month reported lake level is in the middle of the historical distribution. Level 2 Hydrologic Unit Data are current through 9/3012009. Source data from: MN DNR Waters Lake Level Minnesota Monitoring Program DNR Major Watershed Ground Water Level Historical Rankings r% --L—.--1— —.- /'1^^eN Aquifer Q Water Table Buried Artesian O Bedrock Percentile ranking based on last reported reading for the current month compared to all historical reported levels for that month. A water level ranked at zero means that the present reported level is the lowest in the period of record; a ranking of 100 indicates the highest in the period of record. A ranking at the 50th percentile (median) specifies that the present - month reported water level level is in the middle of the historical distribution. Source data from: MN DNR Ground Water Level Monitoring Program Water Level 9 Indicator Wells High Water Levels (> 90% percentile) Above Normal Water Levels (75% - 90% percentile) 0 Normal Water Levels (25% - 75% percentile) r 0 Below Normal Water Levels (10% - 25% percentile) Low Water Levels (< 10% percentile) IA. -R - DNR 6f'rtters 01 WEIFAMnj MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: October 29, 2013 -- City Council Study Session TO: Plymouth City Council FROM: Shawn Drill, Senior Planner through Barbara Thomson, Planning Manager and Steve Juetten, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Taprooms (File No. 2013066) The City Council recently set this study session, and requested staff to provide information relating to taprooms. Background: In July, staff met with a resident regarding her idea to open a microbrewery with an accessory taproom, whereby customers could purchase sample pints for on-site consumption and growlers 1/2 gallon containers) for off-site consumption. She said an industrial/warehouse-type setting generally works best for this type ofuse. Staff informed the resident that current city regulations would allow for the manufacturing of beer in the industrial districts, and that limited sale of products produced on the site would also be permitted if consumed off-site. Staff further informed the resident that in order to sell sample pints of beer for on-site consumption, current licensing regulations require that a minimum of forty percent of the total sales be for food. The resident stated that while she and her partners know a lot about brewing beer, they have no expertise or desire to operate a restaurant. She noted that some taprooms in Minneapolis and St. Paul have addressed food requirements by having food trucks available at their sites. The resident stated that state legislation was recently enacted that allows cities to regulate smaller breweries with taprooms differently from traditional breweries, restaurants, or bars. She asked if the city would consider making the amendments needed to allow certain breweries to have accessory taprooms for on-site consumption of malt liquor brewed on the site, without the requirement that 40 percent of the total sales come from food. Consequently, the City Council set this study session in order to obtain information on the state law and how other suburban communities have addressed amendments to licensing and zoning regulations relating to taprooms. State Legislation: In 2011, Minnesota Statutes section 340A.301 was amended to add a brewer taproom license. That legislation is commonly referred to as the Surly Bill. The amendment made it legal for smaller brewers (those that produce not more than 250,000 barrels of malt liquor annually) to sell their beer for consumption on the brewery site. (Note that one barrel equals 31 gallons.) A copy ofthe state law is attached. Other Cities: Below is information relating to how some other suburban communities have addressed taprooms. Brooklyn Center — presently has one taproom at Surly Brewing Company. Brooklyn Center simply adopted the verbiage of section 340A.301, subd. 6b (brewer taproom license) from state law. Their regulations do not include a food requirement. Breweries are a permitted use in the I-2 (heavy industry) zoning district, and accessory retail sales for the taproom required a special use permit. Surly has a small area of outdoor seating and roughly 15-20 parking spaces available to taproom customers. To date, there have been no issues reported or complaints registered. Surly's hours of operation for the taproom are Thursday through Saturday 4 PM to 10 PM. Hopkins -- presently has no taprooms but is working with a brewery, LTD Brewing Company, and anticipates they will begin brewing and taproom operations in the upcoming months. Most of the rules pertaining to taprooms are located in their licensing regulations. Hopkins has eliminated the requirement for food sales relating to taprooms. LTD has stated that they would allow patrons to bring food or call for delivery food items and eat it in the taproom. Taprooms are permitted in the B-2 business zoning district, and are allowed by conditional use permit in the B-3 business zoning district. The only condition required for issuance of the conditional use permit is that the taproom must be located along Mainstreet. Lino Lakes — presently has one taproom at HammerHeart Brewing Company. Their regulations do not include a food requirement. They have had no parking issues, nor have they received any complaints. Taprooms are permitted in the general business and limited business zoning districts. Minnetonka — presently has no taprooms, nor do they have specific taproom regulations in place at the present time. They have one brewery, Lucid Brewing Company, located in their industrial zoning district where breweries are a permitted land use. Lucid sells growlers of beer for off-site consumption. The retail sale of growlers is a permitted accessory use, because the retail area is less than 25 percent of the floor area. Lucid recently approached the city and stated they would like to open a taproom in the near future. Minnetonka is presently working to develop taproom regulations. Page 2 St. Louis Park — presently has one taproom at Steel Toe Brewing Company. Their regulations do not include a food requirement. Steel Toe has a small outdoor seating area and allows food to be ordered in. Taprooms are permitted as an accessory use to breweries in the industrial park and business park zoning districts, but are limited to breweries that produce not more than 3,500 barrels annually, and are further limited to not more than 15 percent of the gross floor area. Larger breweries, with no limit on production, are also permitted in the general industrial zoning district but are not allowed to have a taproom. Discussion Items: If the City Council directs staff to prepare draft taproom regulations, questions to consider include the following: What zoning districts would be appropriate for the use? --Breweries and limited accessory sales (up to 10 percent of gross floor area) would presently be permitted in the industrial zoning districts. Should the use be permitted or should it require a conditional use permit? --Most cities allow them as permitted uses because conditions are required and enforced through the liquor license. Are there any concerns related to parking? Should there be limits on the hours of operation? --Thursday & Friday 3 PM to I IPM and Saturdays Noon to 11 PM is fairly standard. Some taprooms are also open on Wednesdays. State law does not allow Sunday sales of alcoholic beverages unless food is also served on the site. Should there be a food requirement? Should there be a minimum distance requirement between the use and/or any outside seating areas and residential land uses? Should the size of the taproom be limited to a percentage of the overall brewery? Should taprooms be available only to small breweries? --State law allows a brewer taproom license to be issued to breweries that produce up to 250,000 barrels of malt liquor annually, however, the law allows municipalities to set their own rules which may be more restrictive. Next Steps: If the City Council directs staff to proceed with drafting changes to the licensing and zoning regulations to allow for taprooms, staff would prepare amendments based on this study session discussion for an upcoming Planning Commission hearing and City Council consideration. Page 3 340A.301, 2013 Minnesota Statutes Page 1 of 5 2013 Minnesota Statutes 340A.301 MANUFACTURERS AND WHOLESALERS LICENSES. Subdivision 1. Licenses required. No person may directly or indirectly manufacture or sell at wholesale intoxicating liquor, or 3.2 percent malt liquor without obtaining an appropriate license from the commissioner, except where otherwise provided in this chapter. A manufacturer's license includes the right to import. A licensed brewer may sell the brewer's products at wholesale only if the brewer has been issued a wholesaler's license. The commissioner shall issue a wholesaler's license to a brewer only if (1) the commissioner determines that the brewer was selling the brewer's own products at wholesale in Minnesota on January 1, 1991, or (2) the brewer has acquired a wholesaler's business or assets under subdivision 7a, paragraph (c) or (d). A licensed wholesaler of intoxicating malt liquor may sell 3.2 percent malt liquor at wholesale without an additional license. Subd. 2. Persons eligible. (a) Licenses under this section may be issued only to a person who: 1) is of good moral character and repute; 2) is 2I years of age or older; 3) has not had a license issued under this chapter revoked within five years ofthe date of license application, or to any person who at the time ofthe violation owns any interest, whether as a holder of more than five percent of the capital stock of a corporation licensee, as a partner or otherwise, in the premises or in the business conducted thereon, or to a corporation, partnership, association, enterprise, business, or firm in which any such person is in any manner interested; and 4) has not been convicted within five years of the date of license application of a felony, or of a willful violation of a federal or state law, or local ordinance governing the mannrfacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of alcoholic beverages. The Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement Division may require that fingerprints be taken and may forward the fingerprints to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of a criminal history check. b) In order to determine if an individual has a felony or willful violation of federal or state law governing the manufacture, sale, distribution, or possession for sale or distribution of an alcoholic beverage, the applicant for a license to manufacture or sell at wholesale must provide the commissioner with their signed, written informed consent to conduct a background check. The commissioner may query the Minnesota criminal history repository for records on the applicant. If the commissioner conducts a national criminal history record check, the commissioner must obtain fingerprints from the applicant and forward them and the required fee to the superintendent ofthe Bureau of Criminal Apprehension. The superintendent may exchange the fingerprints with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes ofobtaining the applicant's national criminal history record information. The superintendent shall return the results of the national criminal history records check to the commissioner for the purpose of determining if the applicant is qualified to receive a license. Subd. 3. Application. An application for a license under this section must be made to the commissioner on a fonn the commissioner prescribes and must be accompanied by the fee specified in subdivision b. If an application is denied, $100 ofthe amount of any fee exceeding that amount shall be retained by the commissioner to cover costs of investigation. Subd. 4. Bond. The commissioner may not issue a license under this section to a person who has not filed a bond with corporate surety, or cash, or United States government bonds payable to the state. The proof of financial responsibility must be approved by the commissioner before the license is issued. The bond must be conditioned on the licensee obeying all laws governing the business and paying when due all taxes, fees, penalties and other charges, and must provide that it is forfeited to the state on a violation of law. This subdivision does not apply to a Minnesota fann winery, licensed under section 340A.315, that is in existence as of January 1, 2010. Bonds must be in the following amounts: Manufacturers and wholesalers of intoxicating liquor except as $ 10,000 provided in this subdivision Manufacturers and wholesalers of wine up to 25 percent alcohol $ 5,000 by weight https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=340A.301 l071 013 340A.301, 2013 Minnesota Statutes Page 2 of 5 Manufacturers and wholesalers of beer of more than 3.2 percent $ 1,000 alcohol by weight Manufacturers and wholesalers of fewer than 20,000 proof $ 2,000 gallons Manufacturers and wholesalers of 20,000 to 40,000 proof $ 3,000 gallons Subd. 5. Period of license. Licenses issued under this section are valid for one year except that to coordinate expiration dates initial licenses may be issued far a shorter period. Subd. 6. Fees. The annual fees for licenses under this section are as follows: a) Manufacturers (except as provided in clauses (b) and (c)) 30,000 Duplicates 3,000 b) Manufacturers of wines of not more than 25 percent alcohol by 500 volume c) Brewers who manufacture more than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a 4,000 year d) Brewers who also hold one or more retail on -sale licenses and who 500 manufacture fewer than 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a year, at any one licensed premises, the entire production of which is solely for consumption on tap on any licensed premises owned by the brewer, or for off -sale from those licensed premises as permitted in subdivision 7. A brewer licensed under this clause must obtain a separate license for each licensed premises where the brewer brews malt liquor. A brewer licensed under this clause may not be licensed as an importer under this chapter e) Wholesales (except as provided in clauses (f), (g), and (h)) 15,000 Duplicates 3,000 f) Wholesalers ofwines of not more than 25 percent alcohol by volume 3,750 g) Wholesalers of intoxicating malt liquor 1,000 Duplicates 25 h) Wholesalers of3.2 percent malt liquor 10 i) Brewers who manufacture fewer than 2,000 barrels of malt liquor in 150 a year j) Brewers who manufacture 2,000 to 3,500 barrels of malt liquor in a 500 year If a business licensed snider this section is destroyed, or damaged to the extent that it canuot be carried on, or if it ceases because ofthe death or illness of the licensee, the commissioner may refund the license fee for the balance of the license period to the licensee or to the licensee's estate. Subd. 6a. Permits and fees. Any person engaged in the purchase, sale, or use for any purpose other than personal consumption of intoxicating alcoholic beverages or ethyl alcohol shall obtain the appropriate regulatory permit and identification card from the commissioner as provided in this subdivision. The fee for each permit, other than one issued to a state or federal agency, is $35 and must be submitted together with the appropriate application form provided by the commissioner. Identification cards and permits must be issued for a period coinciding with that of the appropriate state or municipal license and are not transferable. In instances where there is no annual license period, cards and permits expire one year after the date of issuance. The authority to engage in the put -chase, sale, or use granted by the card or per€nit may be revoked by the commissioner upon evidence of a violation by the holder of such a card or permit of any of the provisions of chapter 340A or any rule of the commissioner made pursuant to taw. https://www.revisor.leg.state.nm.us/statutes/?id-340A.301 10PM-WZ013 340A.301, 2013 Minnesota Statutes Page 3 of 5 Subd. 6b. Brewer taproom license. (a) A municipality, including a city with a municipal liquor store, may issue the holder of a brewer's license under subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or 0), a brewer taproom license. A brewer taproom license authorizes on -sale of malt liquor produced by the brewer for consumption on the premises of or adjacent to one brewery location owned by the brewer. Nothing in this subdivision precludes the holder of a brewer taproom license from also holding a license to operate a restaurant at the brewery. Section 340A.409 shall apply to a license issued under this subdivision. All provisions of this chapter that apply to a retail liquor license shall apply to a license issued under this subdivision unless the provision is explicitly inconsistent with this subdivision. b) A brewer may only have one taproom license under this subdivision, and may not have an ownership interest in a brewery licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d). c) A municipality may not issue a brewer taproom license to a brewer ifthe brewer seeking the license, or any person having an economic interest in the brewer seeking the license or exercising control over the brewer seeking the license, is a brewer that brews more than 250,000 barrels of malt liquor annually or a winery that produces more than 250,000 gallons of wine annually. d) The municipality shall impose a licensing fee on a brewer holding a brewer taproom license under this subdivision, subject to limitations applicable to license fees under section 340A.408, subdivision 2, paragraph (a). e) A municipality shall, within ten days ofthe issuance ofa license under this subdivision, inform the commissioner of the licensee's name and address and trade name, and the effective date and expiration date of the license. The municipality shall also inform the commissioner of a license transfer, cancellation, suspension, or revocation during the license period. Subd. 6c. Microdistilleries. (a) A microdistiilery may provide on its premises samples of distilled spirits manufactured on its premises, in an amount not to exceed 15 milliliters per variety per person. No more than 45 milliliters may be sampled under this paragraph by any person on any day. b) The commissioner- shall establish a fee for licensing microdistilleries that adequately covers the cost of issuing the license and other inspection requirements. The fees shall be deposited in an account in the special revenue fiend and are appropriated to the commissioner for the purposes of this subdivision. Subd. 6d. Small brewer license. (a) A brewer licensed under subdivision 6, clause (c), (i), or 0), may be issued a license by a municipality for off -sale of malt liquor at its licensed premises that has been produced and packaged by the brewer. The license must be approved by the commissioner. The amount of malt liquor sold at off -sale may not exceed 500 barrels annually. Off -sale of malt liquor shall be limited to the legal hours for off -sale at exclusive liquor stores in the jurisdiction in which the brewer is located, and the malt liquor sold off -sale must be removed from the premises before the applicable ofdsale closing time at exclusive liquor stores. The malt liquor shall be packed in 64 - ounce containers commonly known as "growlers" or in 750 milliliter bottles. The containers or bottles shall bear a twist -type closure, cork, stopper, or plug. At the time of the sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall be applied to the container or bottle and extended over the top of the twist -type closure, cork, stopper, or plug forming a seal that must be broken upon opening of the container or bottle. The adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall bear the name and address of the brewer. The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name ofthe malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer selling the malt liquor, and shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1 100. b) A brewer may only have one license under this subdivision. c) A municipality may not issue a license under this subdivision to a brewer if the brewer seeking the license, or any person having all economic interest in the brewer seeking the license or exercising control over the brewer seeking the license, is a brewer that brews more than 20,000 barrels of its own brands of malt liquor annually or a winery that produces more than 250,000 gallons ofwine annually. d) The municipality shall impose a licensing fee on a brewer holding a license under this subdivision, subject to limitations applicable to license fees under section 340A.408, subdivision 3, paragraph (a). Subd. 7. Interest in other business. (a) Except as provided in this subdivision, a holder of a license as a manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler may not have any ownership, in whole or in part, in a business holding a retail intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license. The commissioner may not issue a license under this section to a manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler if a retailer of intoxicating liquor has a direct or indirect https://www.revisor.leg.state.=.us/statutes/?id=340A.301 1011 013 340A.301, 2013 Minnesota Statutes Page 4 of 5 interest in the manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler. A manufacturer or wholesaler of intoxicating liquor may use or have property rented for retail intoxicating liquor sales only if the manufacturer or wholesaler has owned the property continuously since November 1, 1933. A retailer of intoxicating liquor may not use or have property rented for the manufacture or wholesaling of intoxicating liquor. b) A brewer licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), may be issued an on -sale intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor license by a municipality for a restaurant operated in the place of manufacture. Notwithstanding section 340A.405, a brewer who holds an on -sale license issued pursuant to this paragraph may, with the approval of the commissioner, be issued a license by a municipality for off -sale of malt liquor produced and packaged on the licensed premises. Off -sale of malt liquor shall be limited to the legal hours for off -sale at exclusive liquor stores in the jurisdiction in which the brewer is located, and the malt liquor sold off -sale must be removed from the premises before the applicable off -sale closing time at exclusive liquor stores, The malt liquor shall be packaged in 64 -ounce containers commonly known as "growlers" or in 750 milliliter bottles. The containers or bottles shall bear a twist - type closure, cork, stopper, or plug. At the time of the sale, a paper or plastic adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall be applied to the container or bottle and extend over the top ofthe twist -type closure, cork, stopper, or plug forming a seal that must be broken upon opening of the container or bottle. The adhesive band, strip, or sleeve shall bear the name and address of the brewer. The containers or bottles shall be identified as malt liquor, contain the name of the malt liquor, bear the name and address of the brewer selling the malt liquor, and shall be considered intoxicating liquor unless the alcoholic content is labeled as otherwise in accordance with the provisions of Minnesota Rules, part 7515.1100. A brewer's total retail sales at on- or off -sale under this paragraph may not exceed 3,500 barrels per year, provided that off -sales may not total more than 500 barrels. A brewer licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), may hold or have an interest in other retail on -sale licenses, but may not have an ownership interest in whole or in part, or be an officer, director, agent, or employee of, auy other manufacturer, brewer, importer, or wholesaler, or be an affiliate thereof whether the affiliation is corporate or by management, direction, or control. Notwithstanding this prohibition, a brewer licensed snider subdivision 6, clause (d), may be an affiliate or subsidiary company of a brewer licensed in Minnesota or elsewhere if that brewer's only manufacture of malt liquor is: i) manufacture licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d); ii) manufacture in another state for consumption exclusively in a restaurant located in the place of manufacture; or iii) manufacture in another state for consumption primarily in a restaurant located in or inunediately adjacent to the place of manufacture if the brewer was licensed under subdivision 6, clause (d), on January 1, 1995. c) Except as provided in subdivision 7a, no brewer as defined in subdivision 7a or importer may have any interest, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, in the license, business, assets, or corporate stock of a licensed malt liquor wholesaler. Subd. 7a. Permitted interests in wholesale business. (a) A brewer may financially assist a wholesaler of malt liquor through participation in a limited partnership in which the brewer is the limited partner and the wholesaler is the general partner. A limited partnership authorized in this paragraph may not exist for more than ten years from the date of its creation, and may not, directly or indirectly, be recreated, renewed, or extended beyond that date. b) A brewer may financially assist a malt liquor wholesaler and collateralize the financing by taking a security interest in the inventory and assets, other than the corporate stock, of the wholesaler. A financial agreement authorized by this paragraph may not be in effect for more than ten years from the date of its creation and may not be directly or indirectly extended or renewed. c) A brewer who, after creation of a financial agreement authorized by paragraph (b), or after creation of a limited partnership authorized in paragraph (a), acquires legal or equitable title to the wholesaler's business which was the subject of the agreement or limited partnership, or to the business assets, must divest the business or its assets within two years ofthe date of acquiring therm. A malt liquor wholesaler whose business or assets are acquired by a brewer as described in this paragraph may not enter into another such financial agreement, or participate in another such limited partnership, for 20 years from the date of the acquisition of the business or assets. d) A brewer may have an interest in the business, assets, or corporate stock of a malt liquor wholesaler as a result of (1) a judgment against the wholesaler arising out of a default by the wholesaler or (2) acquisition of title to the business, assets, or corporate stock as a result of a written request ofthe wholesaler. A brewer may maintain ownership of or an interest in the business, assets, or corporate stock under this paragraph for not more than two https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=340A.301 ' 1011 013 340A.301, 2013 Minnesota Statutes Page 5 of 5 years and only for the purpose of facilitating an orderly transfer of the business to an owner not affiliated with the brewer. e) A brewer may continue to maintain an ownership interest in a malt liquor wholesaler if it owned the interest on January 1, 1991. f) A brewer that was legally selling the brewer's own products at wholesale in Minnesota on January 1, 1991, may continue to sell those products at wholesale in the area where it was selling those products on that date. g) A brewer that manufactures no more than 20,000 barrels ofmalt liquor or its metric equivalent in a calendar year may own or have an interest in a malt liquor wholesaler that sells only the brewer's products, provided that a brewer that manufactures between 20,000 and 25,000 barrels in any calendar year shall be permitted to continue to own or have an interest in a malt liquor wholesaler that sells only the brewer's products if: (1) that malt liquor wholesaler distributes no more than 20,000 barrels per calendar year; and (2) the brewer has not manufactured 25,000 barrels in any calendar year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a brewer that manufactured between 20,000 and 25,000 barrels in 2012 shall be permitted to continue to own or have an interest in a malt liquor wholesaler that sells only the brewer's products until that brewer manufactures 25,000 barrels in a calendar year. h) When the commissioner issues a license to a malt liquor wholesaler described in paragraph (a) or (b), the commissioner may issue the license only to the entity which is actually operating the wholesale business and may not issue the license to a brewer that is a limited partner under paragraph (a) or providing financial assistance under paragraph (b) unless the brewer has acquired a wholesaler's business or assets under paragraph (c) or (d). i) For purposes of this subdivision and subdivision 7, clause (c), "brewer" means: 1) a holder of a license to manufacture malt liquor; 2) an officer, director, agent, or employee of such a license holder; and 3) an affiliate of such a license holder, regardless of whether the affiliation is corporate or by management, direction, or control. Subd. 8. Sales without license. A licensed brewer may without an additional license sell malt liquor to employees or retired former employees, in amounts of not more than 768 fluid ounces in a week for off -premise consumption only. A collector of commemorative bottles, those terms are as defined in section 297G.01, subdivisions 4 and 5, may sell them to another collector without a license. 1t is also lawfirl for a collector of beer cans to sell unopened cans of a brand which has not been sold commercially for at least two years to another collector without obtaining a license. The amount sold to any one collector in any one month shall not exceed 768 fluid ounces. A licensed manufacturer of wine containing not more than 25 percent alcohol by volume nor less than 51 percent wine made frorn Minnesota -grown agricultural products may sell at on -sale or off -sale wine made on the licensed premises without a further license. Subd. 9. Unlicensed manufacture. Nothing in this chapter requires a license for the natural fermentation of ftuit juices or brewing ofbeer in the home for family use. Subd. 10.[Repealed, 1995 c 198 s 17] History: 1985 c 305 art 5 s 1. 1985 c 308 s 1; ISp1985 c 16 art 2 .s 3 subd I; 1986 c 330 s 4; 1987 c 152 art I s 1; 1987 c 249 s 1 2; 1990 c 554 s 4-6; 1991 c 249 s 1,31; 1992 c 513 art 3 s 53; 1993 c 350 s 7. 1994 c 611 s 7-9; 1995 c 198 s 4,5; 1996 c 418 s 1; 1997 c 179 art 2 s 2; 2002 e 321 s 5; 2003 c 126 s 2,3; ISp2003 c 2 art 4 s 23; 2005 c 25 s 1,2; 2005 c 131 s12; 2005 c 136 arl 8 s 12; 2006 e 210 s 3; 2007 c 89 s 3; 2009 c 120s 2; 2011 c 55 s 3 5; 2013c42s1-5; 2013c82s34 https://www.revisor.leg.state.r n,us/statutes/?id=340A.301 107PW013