The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Information Memorandum 02-06-2004FEBRUARY 6, 2004 Dummy Youth Advisory Council February 9 meeting agenda...................................................................... Page 3 Environmental Quality Committee (EQC) February 11 meeting agenda ........................................ Page 4 Official Meeting Calendars for February, March, and April 2004 ................................................... Page 5 Tentative list of agenda items for future City Council meetings ..................................................... Page 11 NEWSARTICLES, RELEASES, PUBLICATIONS, ETC. Notice of a February 26 United Way housing forum..................................................................... Page 12 Handouts from the February 3 Robbinsdale Area Schools Government Advisory Council meeting relating to education/facility planning studies .................................................... Page 13 Notice of a March 6 Minnesota Housing Partnership affordable housing forum .......................... Page 21 State rankings of state and local revenue and spending per $1,000 of personal income; source unknown — conveyed to the City by Keith Carlson of the Metropolitan Inter -county Association..................................................................................................................................... Page 23 Minneapolis Federal Reserve FedGazette newsletter article about local and state government spending......................................................................................................................................... Page 26 U—S Army Corps of Engineers notice of application by the City of Golden Valley to excavate and grade a wetland adjacent to Bassett Creek................................................................ Page 30 Wayzata School Board February 9 meeting agenda....................................................................... Page 36 Invitation to the February 12 Plymouth Police Annual Recognition Event ................................... Page 37 STAFF REPORTS D.A.R.E. Vehicle update................................................................................................................ Page 38 Fire—rescue incident of interest...................................................................................................... Page 40 CITY COUNCIL INFORMATION MEMO February 6, 2004 Page 2 CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS POLICY—CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Mark and Katie Pitman regarding flooding issues at their home; a copy of the Pittman's original letter is included..................................................................................... Page 41 Summary of 2004 correspondence tracking................................................................................... Page 43 CORRESPONDENCE Letter from the Friends of Parkers Lake organization regarding the issue of pondmaintenance........................................................................................................................... Page 44 YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 9, 2004 5:30 PM (lunch room, lower level) 6:45 PM COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. Orientation for Board and Commission Members in lunch room, City Hall Lower Level 1. Approvals: a) Agenda b) January 26 meeting minutes 2. Guest Speakers and Special Items: a) Discuss attendance at the National League of Cities Congress in Washington, DC b) 3. COMMITTEE UPDATES: a) Youth Town Forum Committee b) Youth Service Awards Committee c) Intergenerational Committee d) Marketing Committee 4. Future agenda items a) S. Adjournment 6. Additional Materials: a) February, March, and April Official City Meeting Calendars 7 Time Allotment 5:30-6:45 6:45-6:50 6:50-7:00 7:00-7:25 7:25-7:30 7:30 NEXT MEETING: MONDAY, FEBRUARY 9 — 5:30 PM CITY COMMISSION ORIENTATION IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, FOLLOWED BY REGULAR MEETING 5 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE Wednesda , Februa11, 2004 Medicine Lake Room Auendn items: 5:30 PM EQC Orientation. (Please see enclosed agenda & informationpacket) 7:00 PM Call to Order: Chair: Kathy Osborne ❑ Review of Agenda ❑ Approval of Minutes (attached) ❑ Guest Introduction & General Forum Guests may address the EQC about any item not contained on the regular agenda. A maximum of 15 minutes is allotted for the forum. If the full 15 minutes are not needed or the forum, the EQC will continue with theagenda 7:05 PM EQC 2003 Annual Report & 2004 Annual Plan. EQC members need to review the attached FINAL draft of the 2003 Annual Report & 2004 Annual Plan. The plan must be approved and recommended to the Plymouth Council for their February 2004 meeting. 7:15 PM Schmidt Lake Management Plan. An Engineering staff will report on their meeting with Schmidt Lake Association. Derek A. 7:30 PM Bassett Creek Second Generation Management Plan Review. EQC members need to review the comments submitted to the Bassett Creek Watershed Commission by the Plymouth City Council and AMLAC (see attachment). 8:00 PM The Proposed Plymouth Residents Survey. The City is in the process of conducting another resident survey and the EQC has been asked to offer any ideas or issues that they would like to see included in the survey. 8:15 PM Increasing EQC student members' participation in various projects. This item is part of EQC's 2004 annual plan. 8:30 PM Up -Dates: ❑ Phase II Public Information Meeting; Feb. 11, 2004 at 6:00 PM. ❑ Aquatic Vegetation Management Plan ❑ Environmental Fair 2004 ❑ Medicine Lake Watershed Subcommittee 8:55 PM Plan for next meeting: March 10, 2004! Plymouth City Council Chamber The following items were included in the EQC 2004 annual plan, however, EQC members may also help to determine the agenda for the next meeting: ❖ Water Quality Pond Maintenance ❖ Purple Loosestrife Control Program ❖ Medicine Lake Watershed Management Sub -Committee Report •'• Green Institute Tour 9:00 PM ADJOURNED Supplementary Agenda Items: ❖ Landscaping and Zoning Issues ❖ Odd & Even Role, EQC's suggestion to do a story in newspaper (education). J P \Organization\Commissions\[mironmental_Quality_Committee\agendas\2004\021104 doc OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS February 2004 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 2:00 PM -7:00 PM FIRE & ICE FESTIVAL, Parkers Lake 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council 7:00 PM71:30 REGUL^.R COUNCIL AM TWIN WEST STATE OF THE CITY - Plymouth Creek Center Chambers MEETING, Council Chambers 6:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC): PUBLC HEARING, Council Chambers 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 PRESIDENTS DAY - City Offices Closed 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Council Chambers (this meeting only) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6:00 PM BOARD & 7:00 PM 4:00 PM COMMISSION REGULAR MEDICINE LAKE RECOGNITION COUNCIL WATERSHED EVENT - Plymouth MEETING, Council MANAGEMENT Creek Center Chambers SUBCOMMITTEE, Bass Lake Room Ash Wednesday (First Day of Lent) 29 Mar 2004 Jan 2004 S M T W T F S S 111 T W T F S 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 28 29 30 31 modified on 2/6/2004 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS March 2004 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 5:30 PM YOUTH TOWN FORUM, Plymouth Creek Center 2 Caucus Night 3 7:00 PM PLANNING COMM Chambersouncl 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT), Public Safety Training Room (this meeting only) 4 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - Medicine Lake Room 5 6 7 8 9 5:00 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: UPDATE ON FLOOD ANALYSIS, Public Safety Training Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 10 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Plymouth Creek Center 11 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION (PRAC), Council Chambers 12 13 14 15 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 16 6 30 PM SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING: TRANSPORTATION STUDIES FOR VICKSBURG LN & MEDINA RD, Public Safety Training Room 17 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 18 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA), Medicine Lake Room 19 20 21 22 23 11:45 AM PLYMOUTH-MTKA BUSINESS COUNCIL, BORN Conference Room, Sot Carlson Parkway, 4th floor 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council Chambers 24 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON TRANSIT (PACT) - Medicine Lake Room 25 26 27 28 29 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Council Chambers 30 31 Feb 2004 S M T W T F S Apr 2004 S M T NV T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IS 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 modified on 2/6/2004 OFFICIAL CITY MEETINGS April 2004 Sunday I Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday May 2004 S M T W T F S 1 1 7:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION - 2 3 Mar 2004 S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Medicine Lake 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Room 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 DAYLIGHT SAVINGS COMMENCES - Passover begins at sunset 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, 7:00 PM PARK & REC ADVISORY COMMISSION Good Friday set clocks ahead 1 Council Chambers (PRAC), Council hour Chambers Palm Sunday 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Easter 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Public Safety Training Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council 7:00 PM ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COMMITTEE (EQC), Plymouth Creek center 7:00 PM HOUSING & REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (HRA). Medicine Lake Room Chambers 7:00 PM BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, Council Chambers 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION, Council Chambers 7.00 PM COUNCILMEMBER BILDSOE TOWN FORUM, Plymouth Creek center 8:00 AM -1:00 PM HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION STUDENT WORKSHOP, Plymouth Ice Center 25 26 27 28 29 30 6:45 PM YOUTH ADVISORY COUNCIL, Public Safety Training Room 7:00 PM REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING, Council 7:00 PM PLYMOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON Chambers TRANSIT (PACT) - 7:00 PM BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Medicine Lake Room (RECONVENED), Council Chambers modified on 2/6/2004 Tentative Schedule for City Council Agenda Items February 23, Board & Commission Recognition Event, 6:00 p.m., Plymouth Creek Center February 24, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Consider adoption of 2004-2008 Capital Improvement Program • Adopt Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update Water Plan, Public Facilities Plan, and Parks Plan • Award Ice Center Bid Package 1 • Hearing on removal and destruction of diseased trees, Roll 1 • Hearing on weed eradication and destruction, Roll 2 • Approve the 2004 Planning Commission Work Program and accept the 2003 Annual Report • Receive 2003 Unaudited Financial Statements and Approve Transfers March 9, Special, 5:00 p.m., Public Safety Training Room • Consider flood improvement project funding • Consider remaining flood improvement study areas March 9, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers • Award Ice Center Bid Package 2 March 23, Regular, 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Note: Special Meeting topics have been set by Council; all other topics are tentative. You're invited to attend Getting It Done, a United Way Housing Connections Forum. 612. i0-77400 tax:612.34o.?6—,5 lvtvW. till to Chi avitwillcil ies.org EAST OFFICE 160 Fourth Street East Suite 100 Saint Paul, 41N 55101.1448 WEST OFFICE 404 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, %IN 55404-1084 Creating affordable housing isn't all about money. Many issues must be ironed out between drawing board and completion, and Getting It Done uses a simulation to help participants understand the barriers and try to overcome them. Not an expert? First you'll hear from Joe Errigo, president of CommonBond Communities. Joe and CommonBond are nationally recognized leaders in the development of affordable housing. Next you'll break into teams and a housing expert will coach each team as you compete to get your project built! Date: Thursday, February 26, 2004 Time: 6:00 — 8:00 p.m., followed by social hour (cash bar, snacks) Location: University Club of St. Paul, 420 Summit Avenue, St. Paul* Cost: $10 Bring a donation of colored markers, learning tutorials and books, drawing paper, computer paper or art supplies for CommonBond's Advantage Centers and receive a complimentary beverage ticket. We hope you'll attend this lively discussion about housing. Please RSVP by Thursday, February 19. 2004 to: Phone: 612.340.7584 Email: HousingRSVP@unitedwaytwincities.org *Thanks to the University Club for donating the meeting space for this event. Serving Anoka, Career, Chisago, Dakota, Hennepin, isanti, Rarnsev, Scott and Washington Counties IZ Recommendation 2 ❑ That the school district expand the student capacity of the proposed, new Forest Elementary School from 550 to 750 students and, further, that new additions be constructed to Pilgrim Lane Elementary School (to accommodate 300 additional students), Noble Elementary School (250 additional students), and Lakeview Elementary School (100 additional students). Recommendation 4 ❑ That the school district close Northport Elementary School and New Hope Elementary School and redistribute the schools' students to other, higher quality teaching/] earning facilities. ►3 Recommendation 1 ❑ That the school district conduct a future school bond referendum to construct building additions to and improve the quality of its teaching/learning, community, and support facilities. 7D m ;/Nn Recommendation 3 ❑ That the school district construct an addition to Winnetka Learning Center to house the school district's Community Education Program administration and provide a community center and teaching/learning spaces to accommodate the communities' pre- school, school -aged, and adult populations. Recommendation 5 ❑ That the school district construct an addition to and remodel the former New Hope Elementary School to serve as the location for the districtwide Spanish Immersion Program. Recommendations from the Education/Facility Planning Study — December, 2003 Dr. Roger B. Wormer, Project Consultant Roger Wormer Associates, Inc. E. Dale Birkeland, Project Liaison Kraus -Anderson Construction Midwest Division Recommendation 2 ❑ That the school district expand the student capacity of the proposed, new Forest Elementary School from 550 to 750 students and, further, that new additions be constructed to Pilgrim Lane Elementary School (to accommodate 300 additional students), Noble Elementary School (250 additional students), and Lakeview Elementary School (100 additional students). Recommendation 4 ❑ That the school district close Northport Elementary School and New Hope Elementary School and redistribute the schools' students to other, higher quality teaching/] earning facilities. ►3 Recommendation 1 ❑ That the school district conduct a future school bond referendum to construct building additions to and improve the quality of its teaching/learning, community, and support facilities. 7D m ;/Nn Recommendation 3 ❑ That the school district construct an addition to Winnetka Learning Center to house the school district's Community Education Program administration and provide a community center and teaching/learning spaces to accommodate the communities' pre- school, school -aged, and adult populations. Recommendation 5 ❑ That the school district construct an addition to and remodel the former New Hope Elementary School to serve as the location for the districtwide Spanish Immersion Program. Recommendation 6 o That the school district relocate the Spanish Immersion Program from the Robbinsdale Area Learning Campus to the former New Hope Elementary School and that a portion of the school district's middle school student population be redistributed from Plymouth Middle School and Sandburg Middle School to Robbinsdale Area Learning Campus to create three, approximately 1,050 student middle schools. Recommendation 8 ❑ That the school district employ Olson Elementary School as an alternative learning center, housing the Highview Alternative Program (currently located at Robbinsdale Area Community Education Center) and TASC (currently located at Winnetka Learning Center). Recommendation 10 ❑ That the school district close and sell or demolish the Thorson Family Resource Center and, further, relocate the Northport Elementary School kindergarten children in that facility to a more appropriate teaching/learning facility. Recommendation 7 ❑ That the school district close and sell Robbinsdale Area Community Education Center and relocate the Community Education Program's administration to the building addition at Winnetka Learning Center and, further, relocate the Highview Alternative Program to the current Olson Elementary School. Recommendation 9 ❑ That the school district close and sell Lincoln Elementary School and, further, relocate the Early 5's Program to the expanded Winnetka Learning Center or Cavanagh Early Childhood Center facility. Recommendation 11 ❑ That the school district relocate districtwide administrative and/or quasi -administrative staff members/programs from Lincoln Elementary School and Robbinsdale Area Community Education Center to Robbinsdale Area Learning Campus. 011 Recommendation 12 ❑ That the school district continue to lease Hosterman Middle School to Intermediate School District #287. Recommendation 14 ❑ That the school district establish an enrollment of 650-750 students as the optimal capacity for the organization's elementary schools in the future. Recommendation 16 ❑ That the school district continue and complete its current plan to remodel, renovate, and better those teaching/learning facilities which will be maintained in the foreseeable future. Recommendation 13 ❑ That the school district expand the enrollment of Zachary Lane Elementary School to its reasonable capacity. Recommendation 15 ❑ That the school district vacate, close, and sell or demolish teaching/learning and/or specialty facilities in a timely manner as student enrollment declines in the future. Recommendation 17 ❑ That the school district examine the cost/effectiveness of select programs and services contracted with Intermediate School District #287 and determine, alternately, whether or not select contracted programs should be provided/performed by the school district. 3 Recommendation 18 ❑ That the school district re-examine the current timetable for re -drawing the boundaries/attendance lines of schools in the organization, particularly in light of the recommendations offered by the Project Consultant and the school district's technical educational advisors (above). LI Robbinsdale Area Schools ISD 281 Administrative Recommendations For Pre K•12 and Community Education Program Facilities Reorganization January 20, 2004 Stan F. Mack 11 Superintendent of Schools Reorganization Background Rationale Ir. Program Quality Considerations Elementary (continued) — Need for more efficient grouping for instruction, especially in basic skills reading, language arts and math. — Need for more and efficient use of instructional time for all students. — Need for improving communications and ongoing strong relationships among and between students, parents, teachers and administrators. — The present school attendance boundaries and operating schools encourage parents to choose schools outside of the school district. Reorganization Background Rationale r Program Quality Considerations Middle Schools (continued) — Need for more and efficient use of instructional time for all students. — Need for improving communications and ongoing strong relationships among and between students, parents, teachers and administrators. — The present school attendance boundaries and operating schools encourage parents to choose schools outside of the school district. -1. Reorganization Background Rationale w Program Quality Considerations Elementary — Maintaining neighborhood elementary schools. — Sixth graders moving into large middle schools. — Elementary class sizes too large in individual schools and/or grade levels. — Equal program/facilities choices in all elementary schools. Reorganization Background Rationale s Program Quality Considerations Middle Schools — Restore all middle schools to serve designated neighborhoods. — Maintain magnet programs of choice in each middle school (Middle Years International Baccalaureate, Pre -Advanced Placement, Technology and Language). — Two of the three middle schools have larger than the ideal middle school enrollment. — Sixth grade students may have greater success in a smaller elementary school environment. Reorganization Background Rationale I . Program Quality Considerations High Schools — Retain high schools to serve designated neighborhoods. — Maintain magnet programs of choice in each high school (International Baccalaureate and Advanced Placement). — Both high schools have larger than the ideal school enrollment based on present programs, student movement and personal student lockers. — Ninth grade students may have greater success in a smaller middle school environment. Reorganization Background Rationale IL Program Quality Considerations High Schools (continued) — Need for more and efficient use of instructional time for all students. — Need for improving communications and ongoing strong relationships among and between students, parents, teachers and administrators. — Ninth grade through twelfth grade student enrollment drops are reflective of failure to meet student program/academic needs, especially at ninth grade. — The present school enrollments encourage parents to choose schools outside of the school district. Reorganization Background Rationale Financial and Facilities Considerations (c-t,—d7 — The present middle school enrollment in two of three middle schools is causing the loss of a number of students to other school districts. — The school district has a surplus of middle school buildings not needed for the present enrollment, and operation and maintenance of these buildings is a drain on dollars available for instructional operations. — The school district has a very successful Spanish language immersion school which could benefit from a more appropriately sized building for its program. Reorganization Background Rationale Financial and Facilities Considerations (continued) _ — Because of inefficient use of facilities, maintenance of the present enrollment patterns, inefficient staffing due to structure, loss of students to other districts, and loss of students due to lack of academic success, an estimate of nearly $3,000,000 dollars in revenue is lost annually that could be used to serve the present, the retained, and the newly enrolled resident students in the school district. — Seek appropriate means of distributing Community Education programs in a decentralized manner across the school districts' facilities. Reorganization Background Rationale Ir Financial and Facilities Considerations — Elementary school facilities are presently under- utilized due to declining enrollment. — The school district has a surplus of elementary school buildings not needed for the present enrollment. Operation and maintenance of these buildings is a drain on dollars available for instructional operations. — The school district is losing 100 to 200 resident elementary pupils to other school districts because neighborhood schools are not conveniently available. Reorganization Background Rationale Ir Financial and Facilities Considerations (continued) — The school district has a mutually beneficial lease relationship with Intermediate School District 287 for the Hosterman Middle School site and that relationship should be continued. — The school district must find a way to stop the loss from its two high schools - some 300- plus students annually. A Proposed School District Reorganization Plan `A Time To Think Outside The Box For Students of Today and Tomorrow" f 2 l Proposed Elementary Reorganization a Pair all elementary schools into geographically related Primary K-3 and Intermediate 4-6 elementary schools under a single leadership team, including a head principal, appropriate associates and support staff. Average class sizes and more focused delivery of curriculum and instruction would result from this change. It Re -draw all elementary attendance areas reflective of the present geographic pattern to accommodate a second attendance area in Golden Valley and to accommodate re -use of a large elementary school for the Spanish Immersion School. Reorganization a Re-establish a focused 101h to 121h grade comprehensive high school program, enhanced by sharing of program offerings between the two high schools. 1k Continue and expand student use of courses offered in technical education and selected gifted offerings through Intermediate School District 287. Proposed Improvements: Kindergarten —12th Grade Program Delivery R Using a continued middle school model of delivery, explore and possibly implement looping* by subject area teachers in 70 — 911, grade, where teaching licenses permit. 'Looping subject area teachers would stay with students in 7th through 9th grade. It Explore utilizing all middle school licensed staff in establishing a homeroom and advisor/advisee program to establish and maintain academic, social and emotional support for students and their parents. 11 Proposed Middle School Reorganization s Balance enrollment in all three middle schools, resulting in approximately 1,000 to 1,100 students per middle school. s Establish a geographic attendance area for each middle school, retain and strengthen present magnet offerings and allow students cross -district selection. F Return 90° grade to the middle schools with a stronger curriculum for students of all abilities, and enhance study skills preparation for high school. Proposed Improvements: Kindergarten — 12th Grade Program Delivery • Explore and possibly implement K or 15— 31d grade looping' of teachers. 'Looping teachers would stay with students for 3 years I" through 31" grade. ■ Explore and possibly implement 41h — 6'h grade looping' of teachers. 'Looping teachers would stay with students for 3 years: 41h through 611, grade. Proposed Improvements: Kindergarten —12th Grade Program Delivery Explore looping' by 10th— 121h grade subject area teachers in selected areas where licensure and expertise permit. 'Looping teachers would stay with students in 101, through 121h grade. Explore utilizing all high school licensed staff in establishing a homeroom and advisor/advisee program to establish and maintain academic, social and emotional support for students and their parents. 3 Timeline for Feasibility Study and Possible Implementation "Doing nothing is not a choice, as it will force the closing of schools, diminished enrollment, and offer less quality education for students." Timeline for Feasibility K March 3 to September 15, 2004 — Feasibility Study reports due to Superintendent from all committees and study groups { September 16 to October 1, 2004 — Final preparation of recommendations to Board of Education by Superintendent and Cabinet Timeline for Implementation October 20, 2004 — Appointment of committees and study groups for implementation r October 25, 2004 to August 15, 2005 — Final preparation of implementation plans from all committees and task forces r August, 2005 — Implementation of reorganization plan at all levels, Pre K through 121h grade and Community Education Timeline For Feasibility it January 20, 2004 — Initial presentation to Board of Education s January 20 to March 1, 2004 — Presentation of the Proposed Reorganization Plan to staff and community/school groups w March 1, 2004 — Appointment of committees and study groups for Feasibility Study Timeline For Implementation c October 4, 2004 — Presentation of feasibility recommendations supported for implementation to the Board of Education October 18, 2004 — Approval of Implementation Plan uy Board of Education Questions? "Remember: the only reason we are in business is to provide the best possible education — supported by our community — for every student who walks in our school doors." S c .O CL 3 Q O O .= Q j �, s �i H O w� W L r01 .r. Ln cr r W w O Cl.,� O v v C Q g `'. a s r O v id v, C) M�, �N Z iv. a r r0 O '�-° x 0 c 00 C Qi a L O x = cs Q w U rrC�%: L G G C C -I cz cz CL ii "�� c u = ;� O x to ° w ,� r cd O ma` 4w-� `' y ,fidC'. v �� ... � •tY.. � 111 � � :J �• � `J � p N O iy J t��/O�jj � ��j W U p Ci as C • V r O ^r r j `^' J••' cz i--1 Cl.rpt �+ C� 0 G ♦ ♦ ♦ Q Z Zr V cUa G z c O r r �..� ¢ ¢ Cd r. 110 LE v C = -� c3C o v :IN ■ c u v CC. ct ar Q, G C C 9 r T h _y v u C. •- O �� hZZ ate, N 40 r r u p ,U v C u U u O L v U c'cz Cl. 00 J cz C yr:, `'`" O ^� C -. C-. � cOs v.. vOi � cOV' _ �' � v r r O 4: O � U cn v "n T •—. � E O � Q. o r c- r �- V z v c O _� u Cl.Ct 3 -`- r v {� l a cz ^A O r J�� +' u rr C c >~ .0 V O •• I— ,. O h y ap `= ai r c v� w 3 ,� O p s- r Q. u¢ 'x v b 4.1 � ct O4.1 .0 o r u 0 Z Q. Q. °� H x Q r � r X N N y _ v O z � O o 43 +� w .O C-. a°' U 0 Ln r o cL 0 .� c c �. U> ,- O�. _ 0 U c c r y ¢ cC3 V> � j c o c �. r c J2 u o a - c .X o a y n U1 d' C c �3 O � N-, �1 v° UO .x 'O G ^' U Ln a v r ci v u �°A v r q) O o V E o a .r. Ln cr r W w O Cl.,� O v v C Q g `'. a s r O v id v, C) M�, �N Z iv. a r r0 O '�-° x 0 c 00 C Qi a L O x = cs Q w U rrC�%: L G G C C -I cz cz CL ii "�� c u = ;� O x to ° w ,� r cd O ma` 4w-� `' y ,fidC'. v �� ... � •tY.. � 111 � � :J �• � `J � p N O iy J t��/O�jj � ��j W U p Ci as C • V r O ^r r j `^' J••' cz i--1 Cl.rpt �+ C� 0 G ♦ ♦ ♦ Q Z Zr V cUa G z c O r r �..� ¢ ¢ Cd r. 110 LE v C = -� c3C o v :IN ■ c u v CC. ct ar Q, G C C 9 r T h _y v u C. •- O �� hZZ ate, N 40 r r u p ,U v C u U u O L v U c'cz Cl. 00 J cz C yr:, `'`" O ^� C -. C-. � cOs v.. vOi � cOV' _ �' � v r r O 4: O � U cn v "n T •—. � E O � Q. o r c- r �- V z v c O _� u Cl.Ct 3 -`- r v {� l a cz ^A O r J�� +' u rr C c >~ .0 V O •• I— ,. O h y ap `= ai r c v� w 3 ,� O p s- r Q. u¢ 'x v b 4.1 � ct O4.1 .0 o r u 0 Z Q. Q. °� H x Q r � r Government Revenue and Spending Where Does Minnesota Rank? Given cuts in government services and an uncertain fiscal future, the battle over taxes and spending rages at the state capitol. Opposing camps use dueling statistics regarding the size of Minnesota's government relative to other states. Does Minnesota rank 4`h among the states—as some have claimed—or somewhere below 30`h—as others have argued? State rankings are—at best—only one of many factors that should be considered in the budget debate. However, to the extent that tax rankings are used at all, they should be based on relevant criteria. Most of the claims regarding Minnesota's ranking among the fifty states are technically accurate, but many are not particularly meaningful. Various state rankings on the size of government differ in at least three ways. First, some rankings look only at state government, while others look at state and local government. Second, some rankings compare taxes, while others examine total government revenues or spending. Third, some look at the size of government on a per capita basis, whereas others examine government size as a percentage of personal income. Rankings of the size of government in a state that focus exclusively on state government to the exclusion of local governments are generally not very meaningful. State governments in different states have different funding and service responsibilities. For example, state government in Minnesota collects more taxes than in most other states, but it also shares more revenue with local governments. Consequently, state taxes in Minnesota are well above the national average, but local taxes are below the national average. Because different levels of government have different funding and services responsibilities in different states, a meaningful ranking of the total size of government among the states should be based upon both state and local governments. Taxes are only one source of revenue that funds government. Other sources—such as fees, service charges, and special assessments—are a significant portion of government revenue and are part of the total price tag that citizens pay for government services. An inclusive and meaningful measure of the total size of government should be based upon total revenues consumed by government—not just upon tax revenue. An acceptable alternative to total state and local government revenues is total state and local government spending. Should government revenue and spending among the states be examined on a per capita basis or as a percentage of personal income? Salary and wages are a major component of government spending. In a state with high average income, government wages and salaries will typically be higher than in a state with low average income. For example, it will be difficult to attract and keep qualified teachers in Connecticut—a high- income state—by offering wages similar to those earned by teachers in Louisiana—a low wage state—because Connecticut teachers would simply leave to find more lucrative employment in the private sector. Personal incomes are much higher in Connecticut than in Louisiana and thus governments in Connecticut must offer higher wages in order to compete with the private sector. 23 State rankings based on government revenues or expenditures per capita do not take into account higher labor costs in high wage states. Ranking states based upon revenues or expenditures as a percentage of personal income is a practical way to adjust for the higher labor costs in high-income states and thus enables a more useful comparison than simple per capita rankings. The most meaningful way to rank the size of government in the fifty states would be based upon total revenues or expenditures of state and local governments as a percentage of personal income. Rankings of state revenue and spending based on these criteria appear in the table on the following page. Based on this information, Minnesota is not a low revenue or a low spending state. Minnesota ranks 19`h highest in terms of state and local government revenue and spending as a percentage of personal income. In addition, Minnesota state and local government revenue as a percentage of personal income is 1.3% above the U.S. total, while spending is 1.6% above the U.S. total. On the other hand, Minnesota is not among the highest spending states in the nation. In fact, Minnesota is closer to the middle of the pack than the front of the pack in terms of government revenue and spending as a percentage of personal income. Furthermore, revenue and spending as a percentage of personal income are lower in Minnesota than in Wisconsin—the state that Governor Pawlenty says we should emulate. State rankings of government revenues and expenditures—even those based on sound criteria and solid data—do not tell the whole story. Each state has factors beyond its control that may require higher spending in particular areas. For example, states with low population density will generally have to spend a larger share of statewide personal income on roads and highways than states with high population density. In addition, rankings based on revenue and spending alone do not take into account outcomes in each state. For example, a high level of government spending in a state may be a wise investment if it is producing high quality roads, schools, and other public services that contribute significantly to a state's quality of life and economic vitality. In short, an examination of government revenue and spending that does not take into account the outcomes resulting from that spending is incomplete. As imperfect as government revenue and spending rankings can be, they should at least be based upon solid criteria. Rankings based on such criteria place Minnesota close to the middle of the pack in terms of government revenues and expenditures, not at the front of the pack as some would argue. Van Wychen, 1/28/04 Best way to rankdoo State & Local Government Revenues & Spending as a Percentage of Personal Income FY 2000 Total Revenue I Total Spending % Rank % Rank Alabama 25.0% 24 24.6% 14 Alaska 57.9% 1 47.5% 1 Arizona 22.1% 37 21.7%° 28 Arkansas 24.1% 29 21.3% 32 California 25.9% 16 22.7% 23 Coloration'. 21.9% 38 19.4% 41 Connecticut 19.0% 49 17.7% 48 Delaware 26.5% 15 21.9% 26 Florida 21.1% 41 19.2% 44 Georgia 22.2% 36 19.6% 37 Hawaii 25.3% 20 24.6% 13 Idaho 25.2% 21 21.3% 33 Illinois 20.9% 42 19.3% 43 Indiana 20.5% 46 19.6% 38 Iowa 22.8% 33 22.9% 21 Kansas 22.6% 34 20.1% 34 Kentucky 26.6% 14 22.7% 22 Louisiana 26.8% 13 24.7% 12 Maine 26.9% 12 24.0% 15 Maryland 19.6% 48 17.6% 49 Massachusetts 20.1% 47 19.4% 42 Michigan 24.6% 27 21.6%1 30 Minnesota 25.4% 19 23.2%19 Mississippi " 28.6% 9 26.4% 5 Missouri 21.3% 40 18.8% 45 Montana 28.2% 10 24.9% 10 Nebraska 25.0% 22 23.3% 18 Nevada 20.6% 45 19.5% 40 New Hampshire 17.7% 50 15.9% 50 New Jersey 20.7% 44 18.1% 46 New Mexico 33.8% 3 29.0% 2 New York 29.6% 5 27.0% 4 North Carolina 24.1% 28 22.0% 24 North Dakota 29.1% 7 26.1% 6 Ohio 25.6% 17 21.9% 27 Oklahoma 23.5% 30 20.0% 35 Oregon 31.0% 4 26.1% 7 Pennsylvania 22.8% 32 21.4% 31 Rhode Island 25.0% 23 21.6% 29 South Carolina 24.9% 25 24.9% 11 South Dakota 22.4% 35 19.7% 36 Tennessee 23.1% 31 22.0% 25` Texas 21.5% 39 19.5% 39 Utah 29.5% 6 25.7% 9 Vermont 24.8% 26 23.3% 17 Virginia 20.8% 43 17.9% 47 Washington 25.5% 18 23.0% 20 West Virginia 28.0% 11 26.0% 8 Wisconsin 29.0% 8 23.3% 16 Wyoming 52.7% 2 28.1% 3 District of Columbia 1 29.3% 30.0% - United States 1 24.1%1 21.6% - V J Total Revenue information for FY 2000 (i.e., July 1, 1999 to June 30,2000) from the U.S. Census Bureau and includes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust revenue. If the ranking is based on "general revenue" (which excludes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust revenue), Minnesota would rank 20th among the the 50 states. Total Spending information for FY 2000 (i.e., July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000) from the U.S. Census Bureau and includes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust spending. If the ranking is based on "direct general expenditures" (which excludes utility, liquor store, and insurance trust spending), Minnesota would still rank 19th among the the 50 states. Total Personal Income from the U.S. Dept. of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis for the period from July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000. These dates correspond to the dates of the revenue and spending information used in this analysis. Unlike some rankings, these rankings do not include the District of Columbia. If the District of Columbia was included in these rankings, Minnesota's revenue and spending rank would be 20th instead of 19th. G7, 1/28/04 Van Wychen U.S. by state-rev,exp,pers V.xls a._a 'a , Y �..h ] AI a V li 1 g CLICK TO PRINT RETURN TO ARTICLE Q E -MAI 1 , �, ., January 2004 Table of Contents An acquired taste for public goodies State and local government spending has steadily increased across the district, and states have unique spending priorities By Ronald A. Wirtz Editor Charlene Nelson is on a mission to limit government's ability to spend your money. Nelson is the founder, co-chair and spokeswoman of Protect and Empower the People (PEP), a newly formed group in North Dakota bent on curbing government's appetite for taxpayers' money, because she believes "without a doubt" that government is overspending. Total government outlays are increasing in North Dakota, Nelson said, "but I don't see a huge outcry from citizens for additional services." Indeed, given stagnant or declining state population for the last decade, she added, "the need for government services is decreasing. But government leaders don't see that." So Nelson founded PEP in the spring of last year after being approached by "two dozen people at least ... of all political stripes and professions" who said they "were getting eaten alive by taxes, especially property taxes." The group's central focus is to get a proposal on the November 2004 ballot that would require all state and local taxing jurisdictions to get 60 percent approval in a voter referendum if they wanted to raise taxes. The intent is not necessarily to strangle government budgets, Nelson said, but to make the process of increasing taxes more deliberate "so [that] whatever decisions are made are done with general [taxpayer] interests in mind and not just small vocal interests." The group must get about 26,000 signatures by August, and by early last November it had "a few thousand," Nelson said. But she added that "80 percent to 90 percent of the people we approach are willing to support it." The same rhetorical theme is evident across the district: Government at all levels is spending more money—too much tax money— for services of dubious value to most taxpayers, the argument goes. Much of the discussion stems from widespread state budget shortfalls, which some states have seen three years running. The sentiment for "no new taxes" helped elect new governors in Minnesota and Wisconsin; in the latter state, a Democratic challenger beat a Republican incumbent, with both running no -tax - increase campaigns. In both states, the gubernatorial winner faced a multibillion dollar state budget shortfall while having one revenue arm tied behind his back. The inference that government is overspending today is almost taken as fact—at least cumulatively, if not for every program. Blame is widely dispersed to all parties. Tax -and -spend liberals. Pork -barrel Republicans. Unfunded mandates. Fat -cat lobbyists and "everyone else's" special interests. According to a Montana state senator, "It is an incredibly dismal situation." In a republic by the people, for the people, it's also arguable that elected bodies are simply giving the public what it's asking for. If spending reflects the desires of the average citizen, as some contend, the lesson to be learned about supposed government overspending is more complex than is often portrayed. Whether government is spending too much money is an issue that poses more questions than answers. Some contend that the role of government and government spending "depends on your philosophical viewpoint," as another Montana state senator put it. Others contend that government spending is an economic issue, where returns on public investments must be weighed against returns on private investments. This issue of the fedgazette looks at a trail of related questions concerning government spending. First it identifies trends in government spending compared with personal income over the last two and a half decades. Next, it looks at public opinion polls and voter referenda for insights regarding the public's appetite for government services and its willingness to pay for those public goods. Lastly, it looks at how district states have dealt with serious budget shortfalls and whether the resulting budget solutions suggest a changing pattern in both government spending and the public's desire for such goods. Well, so whadya find out? The fedgazette analyzed the combined expenditures of state and local government in each district state over a 23 -year period (1977 to 2000 because these data are the most recent and comprehensive) using data from the federal bureaus of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census. Growth in local and state expenditures were then compared (on a per capita basis) with each state's growth in per capita personal income over this same 23 -year period. The fedgazette then sought to understand the ebb and flow of public spending to uncover funding priorities over time in each district state. State and local Grovernmeapt 12eN•c mics Wee, $:rue I'Al (nittl I V%41111,1 «a, .1 1'Wr(VW II "it il, 264yb') q x NYMI � t�nw, �a 3 sa+as u..» At" 14. N ., so 54u0 & 4$ 15 Source: U.S. Census Bureau The central finding of this research is fairly simple: Combined spending by state and local governments from 1977 to 2000 rose slightly faster than income growth. But increases in government spending were not consistent among district states or for individual categories of public goods. (See charts for summary data and additional findings for district states and major spending categories. [xls]) Total local and state spending. District states fell in the same ballpark as the national average when it came to total growth in f local and state government expenditures compared with income growth. Michigan, North Dakota and Wisconsin were above the U.S. average, Montana was the same, and Minnesota and South Dakota came in below the national average. South Dakota was the only district state where per capita state and local public expenditures grew more slowly than per capita personal income over the 23 -year period—though it just barely got under that bar. The other five district states saw local and state public expenditures grow slightly to modestly faster than income, with Wisconsin experiencing the fastest overall growth. More recently, however, government spending growth has slowed compared with income growth. From about 1995 to 2000, only Montana and Michigan saw local and state expenditures grow faster than income. A cross section of states was also analyzed for the relationship, if any, between states' per capita income and government as a share of income at particular points in time (in other words, the relationship between average state income levels—be they high or low—and the percentage of that income that goes to government in any given year). There was little correlation, which indicates that state -specific characteristics affect government spending more than income levels. However, a correlation did appear when the relationship was analyzed over time. As states grew richer, spending on government increased proportionally. K-12 education. Average state and local K-12 spending was slightly lower than average income growth with the exception of Michigan and Wisconsin, where K-12 spending was modestly higher than income growth. However, there was a considerable amount of fluctuation in comparative spending rates in all states over time. Higher education. Average spending growth in higher education saw wide disparity among states. In Michigan, Montana and North Dakota, local and state expenditures for higher education grew moderately to much faster than income, while spending in the other three states was slightly to much slower. South Dakota's average rate of spending growth for higher education was easily the lowest among district states. During the 1990s, both North Dakota and Minnesota saw significant declines in the growth rate of higher education spending compared with income. Montana's rate of spending growth in higher education skyrocketed compared with personal income between 1993 and 2000, apparently the result not of increased state appropriations, but much higher fees in the form of tuition—a trend also evident in other district states. Health and welfare. Average local and state spending on health and welfare (which includes public hospitals and health programs, the state's portion of Medicaid not including federal transfers, and assistance to the poor) grew as fast or faster than average income in all states, but there has been significant fluctuation over the 23 -year period. Three states experienced growth that was on par with or higher than income growth but were below the national average. North Dakota, Minnesota and Montana saw average spending growth on health and welfare that was considerably faster than average income growth. However, average growth in health and welfare spending trended down strongly in most states during the last half of the 1990s, the likely result of changes in welfare programs in 1996 and before significant increases in Medicaid enrollments and rising health care expenditures, whose costs are also shared with the federal government. Public safety. State and local spending on public safety (which includes corrections, the judicial system, and police and fire protection) had the highest average growth against income among all categories, with all district states posting moderate to high growth during the 23 -year period, with Montana and Wisconsin leading the way. Montana and North Dakota have seen particularly strong spending growth rates in this category since the early to mid-1990s. Transportation. For transportation (roads and bridges), local and state spending increased at a rate slower than personal income for all states. Wisconsin's highway spending growth rate was the highest among district states (virtually on par with income growth), but that masks a legacy of high per capita spending that the Dakotas and Montana have for their transportation systems. Own -source revenue and the spending effect of federal transfers. Own -source revenue is that collected specifically through state and local taxes or fees. Put another way, it's the sum of all state and local revenue minus federal intergovernmental transfers. District states saw own -source revenue grow faster than personal income over the 23 -year period, though there have been small declines in the growth rate since the mid-1980s. At the same time, the Dakotas, Montana and (to a lesser degree) Michigan have seen strong growth overall in federal transfers since 1983, while growth of federal transfers to Minnesota and Wisconsin was significantly lower than growth in personal income or tax revenue from in-state sources. However, from 1995 to 2000, the rate of growth in federal transfers has been negative among all states nationwide and in four of six district states. Only Montana and South Dakota continued to see federal transfers increase over that period, with Montana's growing significantly. (For more information on individual states and categories, see the charts, the underlying data, along with additional "income elasticity of demand" charts for individual spending categories.) Un -surprised party That central finding—local and state government spending has grown faster than personal income—did not come as a shock to many of the dozens of sources contacted for this project. One particularly common theme among district legislators involved government's penchant for simply piling new programs onto old, without much consideration for whether the old programs are needed. "Government responds to new needs and technological changes, but it doesn't give up old, outdated, special-interest expenditures due to political clout of affected industries," said Dick Kelly, a Republican state senator in South Dakota, via e-mail. "Government, with its unilateral taxing authority, bows to pressure of small groups or to the desire of the bureaucracy to keep its job." elr Jim Peterson is a Republican in the Montana House, as well as a farmer and rancher, and owner of a small rural mercantile store. He wrote, "There are no easy answers, but I do know once a new program is approved, it's almost impossible to, at a later date, when budgets are tight, to cut programs.... People want the services, but as our tax base shrinks in a state like Montana, the revenue simply is not there." Linda Nelson, a Montana Democratic state senator, echoed Peterson. "During good times, we have created many good programs that, once created, are very hard to discontinue. The public does, indeed, expect their needs to be met in an expedient manner once they have been introduced to a service. However, legislators, lobbyists and bureaucrats are all at least partly to blame for instigating new programs." Beware of caveats Readers should be aware of a single, overriding caveat to this research on government spending—namely, that there are a lot of smaller caveats to keep in mind. Just as the nature of government spending is subject to considerable interpretation, and therefore debate, so too are data on government spending, because there are innumerable data points to choose from and many ways to interpret them in combination. • For starters, the fedgazette chose to analyze combined state and local government expenditures, rather than state and local spending separately, because the mix of public goods purchased by state and local authorities is not only different among the states but also changes regularly. For example, each state assumes a slightly different share of K-12 education expenditure, which means the local share is also different in each state. States also occasionally change their share of funding. The state of Minnesota, for example, assumed 100 percent of K-12 funding under the recently ended Ventura administration, and Wisconsin had paid two-thirds of K-12 costs since the mid- 1990s but repealed that responsibility in its latest budget. • Figures on combined state and local spending also include federal payments made to (and spent by) state and local governments. But they do not include spending from federally run programs—like Medicare, Social Security, defense and farm payments—that occurs within states. Some might argue that including federal intergovernmental transfers as part of state and local spending skews the results, particularly for those states (like the Dakotas and Montana) that tend to receive proportionally more per capita. But in the long run, spending is spending, regardless of source, and it can be said that federal funding displaces or substitutes for at least some spending at the state and local levels. In other words, if federal funding was to suddenly vanish, state and local taxes would likely go up to fill the hole. One can only guess how much funding substitution is occurring, but including federal transfers in the analysis helps round out the full spending picture. • Rather than use annual figures, which tend to have a lot of volatility, all spending and income comparisons use a five-year moving average. Under such a methodology, five-year periods (say, 1991 to 1995) for spending on government services and personal income are added and then divided by five to arrive at a "smoother" annual average. The five-year average for both categories is then divided by the average of the previous five-year period (in this case, 1986 to 1990) to generate a growth rate. Per capita figures for both income and spending were used to control for any impact that population changes might have had on these data. • The central comparison used here—rate of spending growth against the rate of personal income growth—provides only one view of the spending prism. Other important measures of government spending over time include base spending and base income, because they provide a context for the growth path of both. Comparatively speaking, Minnesota is a high -spending state and Montana is a low -spending state in terms of per capita dollars spent on public goods. That generalization holds true even though Montana's spending -to -income growth was higher than Minnesota's over the 23 - year period analyzed. The reason for this is the disparity in per capita income and government spending in the base year, 1977. Despite a higher rate of spending, Montana was far enough behind Minnesota that it didn't significantly close the annual spending gap. • Lastly, none of the data presented here have much to say about either spending efficiency or the return on public investment (what we get for the money spent). These two important measures are beyond the scope of this project but are critical in answering that elusive question of whether government is spending too much, too little or just the right amount. Research for these articles was contributed by Tobias Madden, regional economist; Rob Grunewald, regional economic analyst; research assistant Eva Lassemo and shefali Mehta; and intern Naomi Cytron. Related articles in this issue: Put it on my ,., er, his tab After the fiscal gold rush Thanks for nothin', bro Charts and data: State and local governmentspending data [xls] zI ' {A f -t: US Army Corps of Engineers APPLICANT: City of Golden St Paul District Valley REFER TO: 2004-01953-JJY Public Notice ISSUED: 02 February 2004 EXPIRES: 03 March 2004 SECTION: 404 - Clean Water Act 1. APPLICATION FOR PERMIT TO DISCHARGE FILL AND DREDGED MATERIAL IN 1 ACRE OF WETLAND ADJACENT TO BASSETT CREEK FOR STORM WATER POND CONSTRUCTION AND TO DISCHARGE FILL AND DREDGED MATERIAL INTO 7 ACRES OF WETLAND ADJACENT TO BASSETT CREEK FOR WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION, AS PART OF THE TRUNK HIGHWAY 55/BOONE AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS. 2. SPECIFIC INFORMATION. APPLICANT'S ADDRESS: City of Golden Valley 7800 Golden Valley Road Minneapolis, MN 55427 (763) 593-3988 PROJECT LOCATION: The primary project site is at the northeast corner of the intersection of Boone Avenue and 7th Avenue North/Golden Valley Road, in the NE 1/4 Sec. 31, T. 118 N., R. 21 W., Hennepin County, Minnesota. The compensatory mitigation/floodplain storage site is east of Trunk Highway 169 and north of Betty Crocker Drive, in the SW 1/4 Sec. 31, T. 118 N., R. 21 W., Hennepin County, Minnesota. The approximate UTM coordinates for the primary project site are Zone 15, North 4981500, East 469300. The UTM coordinates for the compensation/floodplain storage site are Zone 15, North 4980900, East 468600. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed project is part of the Trunk Highway 55/Boone Avenue road improvements. The intersection routinely floods when Bassett Creek is high, closing the roads. The road improvements address public safety and traffic concerns. The project includes excavation and grading in 1 acre of wetland near the intersection of Boone Avenue and Golden Valley Road, along Bassett Creek north of Trunk Highway 55, plus the excavation and grading in 7 acres of wetland north of Betty Crocker Drive, east of Trunk Highway 169, and south of Trunk Highway 55. In addition to the 7 acres of wetland excavation north of Betty Crocker Drive, 7 acres of upland would be excavated and converted to wetland. The excavation would involve some temporary sidecasting, grading and shaping, and other discharges of dredged and fill material in wetland. The project includes the following features: a. Excavation of 1 acre of Type 3 (shallow marsh) wetland in the northeast corner of Boone Avenue and Golden Valley Road for storm water treatment and storage. The storage pond would provide 2.26 acre-feet of dead pool providing treatment for the 0.9 acre of CEMVP-CO-R (2004-01953-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit additional impervious area from both the road improvements and future BP/Amoco station improvements. Mitigation for the wetland impact would occur at the area north of Betty Crocker Drive. b. Storm sewer improvements and berms to prevent the back flow of Bassett Creek flood waters into the Trunk Highway 55/Boone Avenue intersection (no direct wetland impact). This work would result in the loss of 26 acre-feet of floodplain storage. Floodplain storage mitigation would be provided in the excavated area north of Betty Crocker Drive. C. Mitigation for the loss of 26 acre-feet of floodplain storage and 1 acre of wetland, with excess wetland and floodplain credits that may be applied to future projects. The proposed mitigation includes excavation and grading of 7 acres of an existing Type 2/7 (wet meadow/bottomland hardwood) wetland. Excavation would be limited to 6 feet or less of soil. This excavation would convert the existing wetland to Type 3/4/5 (shallow marsh/deep marsh/open water) wetland but should not involve the loss of any wetland area. An additional 8 acres of excavation would occur in upland, to create Type 2/3/4/5 (wet meadow/shallow marsh/deep marsh/open-water) wetland, with a 2 - acre upland buffer. The work would also remove undesirable invasive species on the site, including reed canary grass and buckthorn. The proposed excavation would create 8 acres of new wetland and provide 39 acre-feet of storage. VEGETATION IN AFFECTED AREA: The 1 acre of marsh to be excavated is dominated by lake sedge, reed canary grass, sandbar willow, and eastern cottonwood. The 7 acres of emergent/forested wetland to be excavated north of Betty Crocker Drive is dominated by reed canary grass, white snakeroot, common buckthorn, green ash, box elder, and eastern cottonwood. Because of the dominance of invasive species such as reed canary grass in the open areas and buckthorn in the shrub layer, this wetland may be low quality in some respects, although it may be a moderate to high quality in some other respects, according to a Minnesota Routine Assessment Method for Evaluating Wetland Functions (MnRAM) analysis conducted by WSB & Associates for the City of Golden Valley. This site is also a partly wooded wetland. If the buckthorn is not controlled, it may eradicate other species in the area. SURROUNDING LAND USE: Much of the surrounding area is developed. North of Trunk Highway 55 are residential and commercial areas. South of Trunk Highway 55 are other residential and commercial areas, including the General Mills campus, which includes the mitigation site, and Brookview Golf Course. Nearby areas that are not developed are either wetland or are areas proposed for future development. THE FOLLOWING POTENTIALLY TOXIC MATERIALS COULD BE USED AT THE PROJECT SITE: The project is not expected to require the use of any unusual potentially toxic materials. THE FOLLOWING PRECAUTIONS TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY HAVE BEEN DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT: The project itself is intended to 32 C$MVP-CO-R (2004-01953-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit protect and improve water quality in the Bassett Creek system. During construction, erosion control measures would minimize potentially polluted runoff and sedimentation. Planting native species and cover crops would help minimize erosion and sedimentation after construction is complete. 3. REPLIES/COMMENTS. Interested parties are invited to submit to this office written facts, arguments, or objections within 30 days of the date of this notice. These statements should bear upon the suitability of the location and the adequacy of the project and should, if appropriate, suggest any changes believed to be desirable. Comments received may be forwarded to the applicant. Replies may be sent to the following address: Regulatory Branch St. Paul District, Corps of Engineers Attention: 2004-01953-JJY 190 Fifth Street East Saint Paul, MN 55101-1638 Or, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROJECT, call Mr. Joseph Yanta at the St. Paul office of the Corps, telephone number (651) 290-5362. 4. FEDERALLY -LISTED THREATENED OR ENDANGERED WILDLIFE OR PLANTS OR THEIR CRITICAL HABITAT. None were identified by the applicant or are known to exist in the permit area. However, Hennepin County is within the known or historic range of the following Federally -listed threatened (T) and endangered (E) species: Species Habitat Bald eagle (T) Mature forest near water Higgins' eye pearly mussel (E) Mississippi River This application is being coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Any comments it may have concerning Federally -listed threatened or endangered wildlife or plants or their critical habitat will be considered in our final assessment of the described work. 5. JURISDICTION. This project comes under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers because Bassett Creek is tributary to the Mississippi River, a navigable water of the United States. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: This application will be reviewed according to the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Therefore, our public interest review will consider the guidelines set forth under 3 32, CEMVP-CO-R (2004-01953-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act (40 Code of Federal Regulations 230) . THE APPLICANT HAS STATED THAT THE FOLLOWING STATE, COUNTY, AND/OR LOCAL PERMITS HAVE BEEN APPLIED FOR/ISSUED: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency - NPDES Permit Bassett Creek Water Management Commission - Project Approval City of Golden Valley - Wetland Conservation Act City of Golden Valley - Tree Preservation Permit City of Golden Valley - Grading Permit 6. STATE SECTION 401 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION. Valid Section 404 permits cannot be issued for any activity unless state water quality certification for the activity is granted or waived pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. The state Section 401 authority in Minnesota is the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPGA). The St. Paul District has provided this public notice and a copy of the applicant's Section 404 permit application form to the MPCA. If MPCA needs any additional information for the Section 401 application to be considered complete by MPCA, the MPCA has indicated that it will request such information from the applicant. It is the permit applicant's responsibility to ensure that the MPCA has received a valid, complete application for state Section 401 certification and to obtain a final Section 401 action from the MPCA. The MPCA has indicated that this public notice serves as its public notice of the application for Section 401 water quality certification under Minnesota Rules Part 7001. The MPCA has also indicated that the Section 401 process shall begin to commence upon the issuance date of this public notice unless the MPCA notifies both the St. Paul District and the permit applicant to the contrary, in writing, before the expiration date of this public notice. The MPCA has eliminated the staffing resources for the Section 401 certification program due to budgetary limitations. Due to staff reductions, MPCA is intending to waive many Section 401 certification applications with limited exceptions but the MPCA reserves the right and authority to proceed differently if extreme or unique circumstances merit a different approach. In many cases, the waiver of Section 401 certification means that the MPCA has not reviewed federally permitted projects in detail for conformance with state water quality standards nor has the MPCA made a determination of the proposal's compliance with state water quality standards. This waiver action, however, will not exempt the applicant from the responsibility of complying with all applicable water quality standards and requirements as contained in Minn. R. Ch. 7050 and all other applicable state rules regarding water quality. The applicant will need to make a self-determination of water quality compliance of their proposal. In the event of water quality violations caused by the applicant's project, enforcement action may be taken by the MPCA. 4 CEMVP-CO-R (2004-01953-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit Any comments relative to MPCA's intention to waive Section 401 certification for the activity proposed in this public notice may be sent to the following address: Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Regional Environmental Management Division Attention: Section 401 Certification 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 7. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL. This public notice is being sent to the National Park Service, the State Archaeologist, and the State Historic Preservation Officer to determine if any known cultural resources may be affected by the described work. Unknown archaeological, scientific, or historical data could be lost or destroyed by the work described in the permit application. However, the latest version of the National Register of Historic Places has been consulted, and no listed properties (known to be eligible for inclusion, or included in the Register) are in the project area. 8. PUBLIC HEARING REQUESTS. Any person may request, in writing, within the comment period specified in this notice, that a public hearing be held to consider this application. Requests for public hearings shall state, in detail, the reasons for holding a public hearing. A request may be denied if substantive reasons for holding a hearing are not provided or if there is otherwise no valid interest to be served. PUBLIC INTEREST REVIEW. The decision whether to issue a permit will be based on an evaluation of the probable impact, including cumulative impacts, of the proposed activity on the public interest. That decision will reflect the national concern for both protection and utilization of important resources. The benefit which reasonably may be expected to accrue from the proposal must be balanced against its reasonably foreseeable detriments. All factors which may be relevant to the proposal will be considered, including the cumulative effects. Among those are conservation, economics, aesthetics, general environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values, fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain values, land use, navigation, shoreline erosion and accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation, water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber production and, in general, the needs and welfare of the people. Environmental and other documents will be available for review in the St. Paul District Office. The Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments from Federal, State, and local agencies and officials; other interested parties in order to consider and 35§1 the public; Indian tribes; and evaluate the CEMVP-CO-R (2004-01953-JJY) SUBJECT: Notice of Application for Permit impacts of this proposed activity. Any comments received will be considered by the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue, modify, condition, or deny a permit for this proposal. To make this decision, comments are used to assess impacts on endangered species, historic properties, water quality, general environmental effects, and the other public interest factors listed above. Comments are used in the preparation of an environmental assessment and/or an environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Comments are also used to determine the need for a public hearing and to determine the overall public interest of the proposed activity. i2 (�� '� Ralph J. Augustin ief, Metro Permit Section Enclosures NOTICE TO EDITORS: This public notice is provided as background information and is not a request or contract for publication. WAYZATA PUBLIC SCHOOLS Independent School District 284 Wmau, Minnesou BOARD OF EDUCATION Regular Meeting — February 9, 2004 — 7:30 p.m. District Administration Building 210 County Road 101 North, Plymouth AGENDA Consent Agenda Items (Indicated by an asterisk') are considered to be routine In nature and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these Items unless a Board member or citizen so requests, In which event the Item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and addressed in sequence. • 3. Approval of Minutes 4. Recognitions a. Employee of the Month — Alice WlDiams, Oakwood Elementary b. National Soccer Coach of the Year — Girls' Division I — Tony Peszneker C. Intel Science Talent Search Finalist — Ning Zhou d. TIES 2003 Computer Art Contest Winner — e. MSBA Directors' Award — Constance Doepke, Board Treasurer S. Reports from Organizadons This section of the agenda provides the opportunity for parent, teacher, and/or student associations/organizations to provide the School Board with reports/updates. Superintendent 1) Proclamation — National Career and Technical Education Week — February 8-14, 2004 b. Curriculum and Instruction 1) Proposed Sunset Hill Shared Decisions Agreement — Karla Thompson C. Finance and Business Services 1) Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2003 2) Monthly Financial Reports ' 3) Finance and Business Recommendations ' 4) Bid Award — Indoor Alr Quality — Plymouth Creek Elementary ' 5) Bid Award — Indoor Alr Quality — Kimberly Lane Elementary • 6) Bid Award — Indoor Alr Quality — Adminbiration BuUdtng d. Human Resource Services ' 1) Human Resource Recommendations 7. Other Board Action a. Proposed Athletic Field Improvements b. Additions or Changes to School Board Meeting Schedule 1) Reschedule March Regular Board Meeting from Monday, March 8, 2004 to Monday, March 15, 2004 at the District Administration Building beginning at 7:30 p.m. 8. Audience Opportunity to Address School Board This section of the agenda provides an opportunity for those who have called in and placed their names on the list and for members of the audience who wish to address the School Board. 9. Board Reports 10. New Business i t . Adlourn OBE:1 POSTED: 2/5/04 Plymouth Police Annual Recognition Event You and your significant other a , are cordially invited to attend the Plymouth Police Department's Annual Recognition Event Thursday, February 12, 2004 Plymouth Creek Center 14800 34th Avenue North The Evening begins with a Coffee, Punch, & Hors d'oeuvres Reception beginning 6: oo p.m. The recognition event begins At 6:30 p.m. with Several Citizen Recognitions, Several employee service awards, And Recognition of Several Police Officers for their Outstanding work during 2003. J �' MEMO CITY OF PLYMOUTH 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD, PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 DATE: February 4, 2004 TO: The Mayor, City Council and City Manager FROM: Lieutenant Scott Webb SUBJECT: D.A.R.E Vehicle In June of 2003 the Police Department arrested a young adult for a felony level DWI. (To qualify for a felony DWI a person must have at least three prior DWI violations in the last ten years.) This level of a DWI arrest also provides for the arresting agency to start forfeiture proceedings against the vehicle that was being driven as long as the person is the sole owner of the vehicle. In this particular case the arrested person owned the 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee 4X4 and had no liens out on it. I learned later that defendant had been given the Jeep as a sobriety present from his parents after completing a treatment program. The defendant was convicted of the felony DWI offense and did not contest the forfeiture of his vehicle. The vehicle then became the property of the City of Plymouth. I spoke at the time with the former City Manager Dwight Johnson about the possibility of converting this forfeited 2000 Jeep Grand Cherokee into a D.A.R.E. car. The Jeep was in great shape and had only 48,000 miles on it. The D.A.R.E. vehicle would be used as teaching aid for the D.A.R.E. instructors, transportation for the D.A.R.E. officers to and from their elementary schools and because it was four wheel drive could be used by the patrol division during heavy snow storms. The City Manager authorized me to go ahead with converting the Jeep into a D.A.R.E. vehicle. The graphic work on the Jeep was paid for by a grant that we received earlier this year from the Target Corporation and the Crime and Fire Prevention Fund. A police mobile radio was also obtained through a grant from the Metropolitan Radio Board. The lighting package, which includes a light bar, grill lights and corner strobes were purchased with finds from our DWI forfeiture account. The D.A.R.E. vehicle will be put into service in the next week. If you have any questions or comments please e-mail me or call me at extension 5188. Thank you for your support of the D.A.R.E program! � d� 79 I?LMM>E°UT11 FIRE -RESCUE PLYMOUTH FIRE DEPARTMENT 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447 (763) 509-5120 FIRE -RESCUE INCIDENT OF INTEREST DATE: February 3, 2004 TIME: 3:01 p.m. ADDRESS: 13825 5th Avenue DETAILS: A working house fire was reported during a Duty Crew shift change that allowed an increased staffing level to control the fire expeditiously and safely. First arriving Captain 1 (Evenson) reported a split-level residential dwelling with smoke showing from sides "B/C". The residents were not accounted for and Captain 1 proceeded with a quick primary search of the entry point and stair areas. Duty Crews from Engine 21 (Lanning, Hoadley, Couser, Marti), Aerial 21 (Malty, Starr) and Utility 22 (Dreelan, Nordby) established a water supply and advanced two attack lines. Primary and secondary searches were negative. Fire extended from the basement area upwards through the second floor. The third arriving company assumed RIT duty. Minnetonka Fire (auto -aid) provided horizontal ventilation. The fire was placed under control ten (10) minutes following fire department arrival. There were no firefighter or civilian injuries. Twenty-seven Plymouth firefighters responded or were on stand-by for this event. RESPONSE TIME: 7 minutes FIRE ORIGIN/CAUSE: Basement laundry room. Cause is under investigation. ESTIMATED FIRE LOSS: $150,000. P.F.D. RESPONDING UNITS: Engine Companies: E-21 Ladder Companies: L-31, TW -11, A-21 Support Units: U-22 Rescue Companies: R-11 Chief Officers: C-1, C-2 Mutual Aid: Minnetonka, Wayzata ASSISTING AGENCIES: EMS: Yes Red Cross: Yes Salvation Army: No Public Works: No State FM: No SECTOR 0FF1('F.RS: Chief Kline (Command), Lieutenant Weldon/Captain Evenson (Interior), Deputy Chicf I lurr (Relief/Rehab), IT Magy (Investigation). qv fib February 4, 2004 C I TV OF PLYMOUTI4 Mark and Katie Pitman 2740 Sycamore Lane Plymouth, MN 55441 SUBJECT: SITE 6 (28TH AVENUE AND SYCAMORE LANE) CITY PROJECT NO. 3126 Dear Mark and Katie: I am responding to your January 27, 2004 letter to the members of the City Council regarding the Flood Analysis Report involving your property. As you indicate, the City Council's direction to staff was to permanently install the now temporary six-inch pipe and provide dirt to raise the grade in your back/side yard at a cost not -to -exceed the approved budget amount of $7,800. At the end of this meeting the City Council requested staff to clarify funding for all flood improvement projects before proceeding. The Finance Director prepared a report that the City Council received at their January 27, 2004 meeting which included six funding options. With the exception of Site 1, Weston Lane west of Vicksburg Lane and north of County Road 6, the City Council delayed action on the funding of the flood site improvement projects until the remaining Flood Analysis Reports are presented to the City Council at their March 9 meeting. If you have any immediate questions, please contact me at 763-509-5520. Sincerely, (IGC(/cc Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Director of Public Works cc: Laurie Ahrens, City Manager Councilmembers 4O:\Engiwering`PROJECiS\2000 - 200%3126\Ln\Paman 3L'_6.dm PLYMOUTH :4 Beautilul Place to ive 3400 PLYMOUTH BOULEVARD • PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447-1482 • TELEPHONE (763) 509-5000 O WW'N.ci.plymouth.mn.us Mark & Katie Pitman 2740 Sycamore Lane North Plymouth, MN 55441 January 27, 2004 Members of the City Council City of Plymouth 3400 Plymouth Boulevard Plymouth, MN 55447-1482 RE: 1/20/04 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY PROJECT NO. 3126; SITE 6 (28TH AV & SYCAMORE LN) Dear Council Members: Thank you for allowing us to participate during your January 20`h Council Meeting. Your willingness to hear our concerns about implementing the proposed recommendation to protect our home from the city storm drainage system is appreciated. As expected, we are very pleased with the meeting's outcome. We understand that the Council's direction is to permanently install the now temporary six inch pipe and provide the dirt to raise the grade of our side/back yard up to the approved budget amount of $7,800. If our understanding of the meeting's outcome is not correct, please let us know. We look forward to working together with City staff to complete the approved resolution in a timely fashion. Once complete, these actions will provide us with the assurance we need to complete our home repairs and reclaim a large living portion of our home. Thank you again. Sincerely, Mark & Katie Pitman 763-553-0444 cc: -Daniel L. Faulkner, P.E. Ronald S. Quanbeck, P.E., City Engineer �ti 43 U O U d � e0 N rn O . p � y O 'fl C rn u Cr" N N N u u cs ro u N N ro C v v v v s c y c y 'D bD M � � L � � u U M M s V1 N N C C p •� v Q i0 U � R �v Y � L L CO IS. LOX. 44: U CC co C N M 7' N r V V'1V II r--00 C 43 Dear Mayor and Council Members, The members of the board of Friends of Parkers Lake would like to make the following observations subsequent to the special council meeting of January 13th regarding pond maintenance. It is the position of FOPL that going forward new homeowners associations take full responsibility for the ponds in their developments. That is why these associations exist: to manage the common areas and resources of their development. I am a former board member on a homeowners association in Camelot Estates. The association spent many thousands of dollars on the 3 ponds in our development to rip rap to stop erosion, plant various aquatic plants and other trees and shrubs. One pond even had an island that we spent money on to landscape and curb erosion. A well functioning homeowners association should have these issues well in hand. If the city pursues pond cleaning as the preferred use of the surface water fee, any pond cleaning should be prioritized, first doing ponds where it is determined that the cleaning would provide the maximum benefit to the city's waters. As the city considers overall use of the surface water fee money, it seems that pond cleaning would need to be prioritized with other projects that would benefit water quality. If other projects are pursued, presumably the development ponds would still be cleaned by the homeowners' associations and the surface water fees could be spent in other ways to improve water quality. We are concerned that if all the water fee money goes to pond cleaning and storm sewer repair first, Parkers Lake would receive very little benefit. Most of the watershed around Parkers Lake was developed prior to the NURP regulations, and there are not even very many storm water quantity control ponds in the lake's watershed. Furthermore, Parkers Lake does not receive water from any other lakes, creeks, or rivers that may have benefited from upstream pond cleaning. Nearly all the water into Parkers Lake is direct runoff with no filtering. Parkers Lake is often referred to by city officials as the crown jewel of the park system, and we are interested in continuing to improve its quality. Some points to consider: 1. The sediment work at the north culvert will slow sediment into the lake, but does nothing for phosphorous in the water column that is not attached to sediment particles. 2. It is hard to understand why the culvert by the boat launch is simply a runoff trench and not designed to filter water. 3. The trench that was dug out on the south side of the lake for monitoring purposes has contributed sediment to the point of actually building up a delta A-4 where the water runs, unfiltered into the lake. At a minimum, this area should be restored to its condition prior to the trench being dug. The city could probably do a lot for the environment by setting an example in terms of lakeshore buffers, less man icuring/clearcutting near the shoreline, and preventing and repairing erosion on its property. Thank you for considering our opinion. Sincerely, David Roy, President Friends of Parkers Lake With Members of the Friends of Parkers Lake Board of Directors: Marsha Videen Lowell Anderson Cindy Browne Nadera Hyder Lynne Eldred Leif Leirfallon Cc: Shane Missaghi--SMissagh@ci.plymouth.mn.us Kathy Osborne--KOsborne@foth.com