HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Packet 08-09-2004 SpecialAgenda
City of Plymouth
Special City Council Meeting
Monday, August 9, 2004
5:30 p.m.
City Hall Lower Level
Recognition of Surface Water Task Force
7:00 p.m.
City Hall Council Chambers
1. Call to Order
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Introduction of Surface Water Task Force
4. Receive Presentation of Surface Water Task
Force Report
5. Adj ourn
City of Plymouth, Minnesota
Surface Water Task Force
Final Report
May 26, 2004
City of Plymouth
3400 Plymouth Boulevard
Plymouth, MN 55447
763) 509-5000
www.ci.plymouth.mn.us
Task Force Members
in alphabetical order)
Gracie Azine, 4160 Lawndale Lane
Karla Anderson, 1810 Magnolia Lane No.
Cal Baldry, 1115 Peony Lane
Bonnie Bronstad, 13420 60th Place No. (Ex -Officio)
Steve Chesebrough, 11255 36th Place No.
Paul Christgau, 4325 Jonquil Lane No.
Terrie Christian, 9910 South Shore Drive
Richard Dunn, 17815 4th Ave. No.
Jack Gassner, 5570-1 Nathan Lane No.
James Griffin, 18530 32nd Ave. No.
Lee Keeley, 16525 Birch Briar Trail
Ken King, 16470 41 st Ave. No.
Richard Manthe, 3010 Alvarado
Larry Marofsky, 2835 Medicine Ridge Road
Don Maxwell, 2630 Medicine Lake Blvd. E.
Jack Moe, 1955 Lanewood Lane No.
Gary Ness, 5350 Larch Lane
Tom Orr, 317 Deerwood Lane (Ex -Officio)
Kathy Osborne, 14905 38th Place North (Ex -Officio)
Keith Pizzala, 2700 Pineview Lane No.
Dick Plufka, 4095 Terraceview Lane
Tov Rezabek, 17420 49th Ave. No.
David Roy, 1385 Kingsview Lane No.
Pete Savage, 16255 38th Place
Robert Schafer, 17700 38th Ave. No.
Jerry Unger, 10607 57th Place No.
Mark Wollschlager, 4785 Valley Forge Lane No.
Key Staff
Task Force Facilitator: Anne W. Hurlburt, Community Development Director
Laurie Ahrens, City Manager
Dan Faulkner, Public Works Director
Ron Quanbeck, City Engineer
Dale Hahn, Finance Director
Mike Kohn, Financial Analyst
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
1
Task Force Mission
The Plymouth Surface Water Task Force was created by the City Council to:
Study the extent of the issues associated with water quality mandates,
pond cleaning, flooding, and drainage issues.
Provide recommendations to the City Council on the appropriate City
role in pond cleaning, flooding, and drainage correction issues.
Work with staff to create options for funding programs involving pond
cleaning, flooding and drainage issues and provide recommendations
to the City Council.
Task Force Process
Forming the Task Force
On January 13, 2004, the Plymouth City Council held a special information meeting to
discuss the City's surface water fee and whether it should be used for cleaning ponds
throughout Plymouth. Of particular concern were water quality ponds currently covered
by pond maintenance agreements with homeowners associations (HOAs) and other
landowners. Over 100 residents attended and voiced opinions on all sides of the pond
cleaning issue. After the meeting, the Council determined that the broader issue of
maintaining Plymouth's entire drainage network—not just federally required ponds—
should be addressed. The Council decided to create the Surface Water Task Force at
its February 10, 2004 meeting.
Task Force members were selected by the Council from an interest list of residents who
attended the information meeting and others who contacted the City. The Council
chose a group of 27 citizens with varied interests, including an ex -officio member
representing the City's Environmental Quality Committee. Members included
representatives of homeowners associations responsible for ponds, members of lake
associations, residents who opposed the City taking over ponds or increasing surface
water fees or taxes, residents who had experienced surface water flooding problems,
as well as residents who indicated they were neutral but who were willing to study the
issue.
The Task Force held seven meetings. At their first meeting on Saturday, March 6,
2004, the Task Force reviewed their mission, agreed to a process and set ground rules
for all participants. The attachments to this report include copies of the process outline
and meeting schedule, ground rules, meeting attendance chart and the minutes of all
seven meetings. The extensive list of background materials on surface water issues
that the Task Force received has also been provided. All of these materials have been
made available to the public and are on the City's website (www.ci.Plymouth. mn.us)
with the Task Force meeting packets.
2
Understanding Water Issues
Most of the first two Task Force meetings were devoted to background presentations to
ensure all members had a basic understanding of the City's responsibilities for drainage
and water quality issues. City Engineering staff gave the group a short course on
drainage and water quality 101 ", the basics of the natural and man-made drainage
systems, how they function and how they have evolved over time. The roles of the
various agencies involved in water issues were discussed. Finance Department staff
explained how all the various activities are paid for, including some basics of municipal
finance. The Task Force received a briefing on the various water quality mandates
imposed by state and federal governments, and on the water planning efforts of the City
and the four watershed organizations of which the City is a part. They learned about
the City's Surface Water Fee, which was established in 2001 to help pay for the wide
range of activities encompassed by the City's Water Resources Management Plan.
The Task Force learned that the City has over 800 "water features" that help filter
pollutants and sediment from storm water runoff before it reaches Plymouth's eight
lakes. In addition, there are over 200 ponds that were required by the federal Clean
Water Act to help protect water quality. All of these water features may require
maintenance at some point. The Task Force learned that the City's Surface Water Fee
does not currently generate enough revenue to pay for this maintenance, and has fallen
behind due to inflation since it was established in 2001.
The Task Force also learned about recent flooding problems that have pointed out the
need for maintenance of the City's drainage system. The system that protects against
water quantity (flooding) problems is inextricably linked with the system that protects
against water quality (pollution and sedimentation) problems.
Criteria for Evaluating Options
Prior to considering any specific solutions or recommendations, the Task Force agreed
on a set of criteria they would use to evaluate options. The following general criteria
were chosen. More detailed descriptions of the criteria are in the attachments (see the
Criteria for Evaluation of Options" (3) and the minutes of the March 18 meeting (6b)).
1. Comprehensive 7. Helps Meet Water Quality Goals
2. Equitable 8. Helps Prevent Flooding
3. Affordable 9. Manageable
4. Legal 10. Priorities/ Ranking
5. Politically Acceptable 11. Timely
6. Sustainable into the Future
3
Brainstorming Possible Options
The April 1 Task Force meeting was devoted to brainstorming options for the City's role
in dealing with pond cleaning, flooding problems and drainage systems, and how to pay
for it. As individuals, and in small groups, Task Force members worked to generate a
long list of possible ideas. With staffs assistance, the Task Force organized and
refined the list into the following categories:
Do nothing
Pond design
Planning
Preventive maintenance
Goals
Education
Make developers pay
Making flooding first priority
Assess to benefiting property owners
Pond cleaning
City takes over ponds
Budgeting
Make other agencies pay
Increase surface water fee
Increase taxes
Bonding
Landscaping/ education • Increase funding
Change development standards/ regulations
A complete list of all the ideas generated is found in the minutes of the April 1 Task
Force Meeting (attachment 6c.)
Reaching Agreement
For the April 22 meeting, staff prepared a list of possible recommendations capturing
the ideas generated by the Task Force. The list was offered as a starting point for the
Task Force discussion (see Attachment 7.) Each grouping of recommendations was
discussed and debated. Staff presented some additional information at the meeting to
help the Task Force evaluate which options best met the agreed upon criteria.
The Task Force easily agreed upon many of the general recommendations, some of
which support work that the City is already engaged in; for example, preparing water
quality plans in cooperation with Plymouth's four watersheds, and educating the public
about water quality issues and what they can do in their own yards to help. Some of
the recommendations concern basic principles that the Task Force believes the City
should adhere to in its operations, such as ensuring that the drainage system is
properly designed to prevent flooding and decrease the need for maintenance in the
future, and providing a funding source adequate to cover the City's responsibilities for
surface water infrastructure. Others reflect legal requirements. For example, state
statutes require that all funds from the surface water fee must be dedicated to that
purpose.
4
Much of the Task Force discussion focused on the City's responsibilities for maintaining
the water quality and flood prevention functions of ponds (man-made) and wetlands
natural) which are part of the City's drainage system, whether or not these ponds are
subject to maintenance agreements with HOAs or other landowners. The Task Force
found that all of these ponds are part of the City's surface water infrastructure and will
need maintenance at some point for a comprehensive solution. The legal structure of
the majority of pond maintenance agreements will not allow the City to assume
responsibility for any pond in the City without establishing a program to take over
responsibility for all of them. Setting conditions for the City taking over maintenance of
HOA -owned ponds, such as a payment to the City, would not be manageable or legally
enforceable, as each agreement will be subject to individual negotiation.
The Task Force agreed that the City should take responsibility for maintaining all ponds
and wetlands that are part of the City's drainage system. An inventory and inspection
of the drainage system would be used to determine when maintenance is needed. The
City's specific course of action would need to be determined for each pond when
maintenance is needed. Because the City's legal rights to maintain some ponds are
not clearly established by easements, because pond maintenance agreements vary in
their provisions, and because some of the parties to the agreements may no longer
exist, this will need to happen over time and on a case-by-case basis.
Once the Task Force agreed upon the City's role in pond maintenance, the debate
centered upon the best way to fund the cost; whether it should be through the surface
water fee, property taxes, or some other method. The Task Force rejected some
options, such as assessing benefited and/or abutting property owners for the cost of
pond maintenance, after considering equity, legality and manageability. Looking for
outside sources of revenues for on-going operations (such as grants or getting other
agencies to pay) should be done, but would not likely provide adequate funding.
Bonding to raise revenues for backlogged capital projects was evaluated and found not
to be needed at this time. While some Task Force members believed other City funds
could help pay some surface water costs (such as administration and street sweeping,
formerly paid from the general fund) the general agreement was that the City would
need to raise additional revenue.
The Task Force found that levy limits would currently prevent the City from changing
the surface water fee to a property tax, an option some favor due to the ability of some
taxpayers to deduct property taxes on their income taxes. While there may be ways to
use a property tax, even with levy limits (such as creating one or more special taxing
districts), the Task Force agreed that additional revenue should be raised through the
surface water fee.
Some, but not all, Plymouth residents would benefit from income tax deductibility, as
IRS statistics (for 1998, the latest year available) show that about 54% of returns from
Plymouth used itemized deductions. Based on the current fee, the average savings to
such taxpayers is estimated to be about $12.50 per return. Over half of the savings to
taxpayers would, however, be offset by the loss of revenues from tax-exempt properties
that would no longer pay a share of the cost. A property tax would also fall more
heavily on residential properties than commercial properties, raising the cost to
residential properties owners. This could wipe out any savings due to deductibility.
Furthermore, unlike the property tax the surface water fee paid for each property is
related to its surface water impacts, as rates are based on land area and average
amount of impervious surface. Staff prepared several handouts for the April 22
meeting to illustrate these and other factors used to compare utility fees to taxes, which
are attached to this report (see attachments 8, 9 and 10.)
Lastly, the Task Force discussed options concerning whether the City should finance
internal costs with the surface water fee, or only use it to pay for contracted work.
While some members have concerns about specific budget items and management
practices, the group generally agreed that this was outside the scope of the Task Force
mission.
Task Force Recommendations
The Surface Water Task Force makes the following recommendations to the City
Council:
General Recommendations
1. Continue water quality planning efforts in cooperation with Plymouth's four
watersheds and state and federal agencies. Set specific goals and priorities, and
monitor their achievement.
2. Continue to educate and provide technical assistance to the public about water
quality and drainage issues, and about what they as homeowners and property
owners can do in their own yards to take personal responsibility. Evaluate the
effectiveness of education programs.
3. Consider changing any development and maintenance standards and regulations
that conflict with water quality goals, such as limitations on alternatives to lawns or
requirements that increase impervious surfaces.
4. Ensure that the drainage system and ponds are designed with adequate capacity so
as to reduce flooding and decrease the need for maintenance in the future.
5. The preventive maintenance program must include regular inspection of the
drainage system and ponds, to identify problems and set priorities for both water
quality and flood control.
Can
6. Investigate ways to make pond cleaning more economical and efficient, such as
using volunteers, new technology, and/or finding economic uses for resulting fill
materials.
7. Publicize to residents and fee payers what the surface water fee and any proposed
increases will be used for, and account for spending from the fund in City
newsletters and annual reports.
Budgeting Principles
8. Funding shall be adequate to cover the City's operating and maintenance
responsibilities for surface water infrastructure.
9. The budget must reflect the City's priorities as well as provide for response to
emergencies.
10. Any funds collected for surface water management shall be dedicated to that
purpose.
Pond Maintenance
11. The City should take responsibility for maintaining the water quality and flood
prevention functions of all ponds (man-made) and wetlands (natural) that are part of
the City's drainage system.
12. The City should inventory and inspect all of the various components of the drainage
system, to determine when a pond or other facility is not meeting standards or
needs maintenance.
13. As needed to assume responsibility for the water quality and flood prevention
functions of pond and wetlands, the City will negotiate easements and/or changes to
pond maintenance agreements on a case-by-case basis.
Funding
14. The surface water fee should be a fee, not a tax, so it applies to all property in the
City.
15. Increase the surface water fee gradually over five years to reach the level needed to
cover long-term needs for water quality mandates, pond cleaning, flooding and
drainage issues.
VA
16. Continue to charge higher surface water fees for properties that have higher water
quality impacts, and look for other opportunities to use fees to provide incentives or
disincentives as appropriate.
17. Investigate and apply for any available grants or aid to supplement local funding
sources.
Surface Water Utility Fee
The Surface Water Task Force recommendations would require an increase in the
water resources budget to provide for pond maintenance, and a corresponding increase
in the surface water utility fee to provide sufficient revenues for this and existing
ongoing activities.
Staff prepared estimates of the minimum revenues needed to fund the
recommendations, and the fees required to provide the revenues, based on the
following assumptions about costs and the basic level of maintenance to be provided:
For existing water features without maintenance agreements (about 800), the
average maintenance cost would be $7,500 per pond, or about $400,000 per year
on a 15 -year cycle. The City is currently spending about $75,000 per year on the
existing ponds, for water quantity purposes only. Therefore, the budget would need
to increase by $325,000 per year to fund maintenance of existing ponds without
agreements.
o For these existing water features, the base level of maintenance would be the
removal of obstructions to the flow of water which could have flood -related
impacts, by cleaning inlets and outlets, and maintaining a clear "channel' for
the conveyance of storm water. The estimates do not provide for restoration
or enhancement of the water features for water quality or aesthetic purposes.
For the 214 existing ponds with maintenance agreements the average maintenance
cost would be $15,000 per pond, or about $214,000 per year on a 15 -year cycle.
o For the ponds with maintenance agreements, the base level of maintenance
would be the removal of obstructions from inlets and outlets, and returning
the pond to the depth and volume required to meet its original design
standard. Most of these were designed to meet NURP standards. Ponds
would be cleaned for water quality but not aesthetic purposes.
Attachment 12 to this report, Costs and Options of Maintaining Ponds and Water
Features, provides additional information on this issue. If the City would choose to
provide a higher level of maintenance, the additional costs could be substantial. Any
decision with respect to a particular water feature or pond would require a detailed
evaluation of each feature's role in the City's drainage system and the potential impacts
of any additional cleaning or maintenance that may be desired.
The estimates also include the following assumptions:
All of the cost estimates assume that a City -owned disposal site for dredged
material is available; if not, costs will increase.
Inflation is assumed at 3%.
In addition to surface water fees, the Finance Department projects non -fee revenue
such as interest earnings) will continue at the current level ($88,675 per year based
on 2003 actual revenues.)
Current Revenue Shortfall
The City's 2004 budget assumed an increase in the surface water utility fee of 5%, the
first increase since the fee was first charged in 2001. The fee increase has not yet
been implemented, creating a projected budget shortfall of $82,032. If the budget were
increased to cover the additional pond maintenance not now included in the budget, the
revenue shortfall would be $621,032 per year based on 2004 costs, as shown in the
following calculation:
2004 Water Resources Budget
Projected on-going revenues (excludes one-time revenues)
On-going costs (excludes one-time costs)
Current shortfall for existing activities
Current projected additional cost of maintaining water features
not covered by maintenance agreements
Current projected cost of maintaining ponds currently under
maintenance agreements
Shortfall
Includes one-time costs funded from reserves and Bassett Creek WMO
Possible Surface Water Fee Increases
3,706,040*
1,699,808
1,781,840
82,032
325,000
214,000
621,032
The Task Force has recommended that the surface water fee be increased, with the
added cost to cover pond maintenance phased into the budget over a five- year period.
The following table shows the rate increases that could result, using the assumptions
previously listed. The increase in the first year, 2004 (already half over) would be to
E
catch up with inflation. In the following five years, the increases would cover inflation
and phase in one-fifth of the estimated cost of pond maintenance each year.
Illustration of Possible Surface Water Fee Increases
Total Revenue and Expenditures
Illustration of Possible Surface Water Fee Increases
Single Family Home Rate
Ongoing
Expenditures
New Pond
Maintenance
Cost
Revenue
Needed
Non -Fee
Revenues
Net Surface
Water Fee
Revenue
Percent
Increase
Required
Yearly
Increase
Mo./ Yr.
Total
Monthly
Fee
Total
Yearly
Fee
Current
Fee 3.25 39.00
2004 1,781,840 1,781,840 88,675 1,693,165 5.15%
2005 1,835,295 111,034 1,946,329 88,675 1,857,654 8.63%
2006 1,890,354 228,730 2,119,084 88,675 2,030,409 8.22%
2007 1,947,065 353,388 2,300,453 88,675 2,211,778 7.85%
2008 2,005,477 1485,319 12,490,796 88,675 12,402,121 1 7.53%
2009 12,065,641 1624,849 12,690,490 1 88,675 12,601,815 1 7.24%
Illustration of Possible Surface Water Fee Increases
Single Family Home Rate
The cumulative rate increase in this scenario is about 53.85% from 2004 to 2009.
Inflation alone accounts for about a 20.05% increase, with the new costs of pond
maintenance accounting for the remaining 33.8%. Of the 33.8% for pond maintenance,
the increased costs to maintain existing ponds account for 20.38%, and the costs for
ponds currently under maintenance agreements account for 13.42%.
The table shows the fees for single-family detached properties. The rates for multi-
family and commercial properties are based on a multiple of the assumed half -acre
single-family lot rate. For multi -family, the ratio is 3.32 times the single-family rate, or a
current rate of $10.79 per acre. By 2009, the rate would be $16.60 per acre, an
increase of 53.85%. For commercial properties, the ratio is 7.18, or a current rate of
23.34 per acre. By 2009, the rate would be $35.90 per acre, an increase of 53.85%.
10
Ongoing
Expenditures $
New Pond
Maintenance Cost $ Total Surface Water Fee $
Monthly Yearly Yearly
Increase
Mo./ Yr.
Total
Monthly
Fee
Total
Yearly
Fee
Current
Fee 3.25 39.00
Monthly
3.25 39.00
2004 3.42 41.04 17/2.04 3.42 41.04
2005 3.49 41.88 0.22 2.64 29/3.48 3.71 44.52
2006 3.56 42.72 0.46 5.52 31/3.72 4.02 48.24
2007 3.64 43.68 0.69 8.28 31/3.72 4.33 51.96
2008 3.72 44.64 0.94 11.28 33/3.96 4.66 55.92
2009 3.80 45.60 1.20 14.40 34/4.08 5.00 60.00
The cumulative rate increase in this scenario is about 53.85% from 2004 to 2009.
Inflation alone accounts for about a 20.05% increase, with the new costs of pond
maintenance accounting for the remaining 33.8%. Of the 33.8% for pond maintenance,
the increased costs to maintain existing ponds account for 20.38%, and the costs for
ponds currently under maintenance agreements account for 13.42%.
The table shows the fees for single-family detached properties. The rates for multi-
family and commercial properties are based on a multiple of the assumed half -acre
single-family lot rate. For multi -family, the ratio is 3.32 times the single-family rate, or a
current rate of $10.79 per acre. By 2009, the rate would be $16.60 per acre, an
increase of 53.85%. For commercial properties, the ratio is 7.18, or a current rate of
23.34 per acre. By 2009, the rate would be $35.90 per acre, an increase of 53.85%.
10
It should be noted that the projected expenditures and rate increases do not include
any funding for new initiatives or projects that might be identified in future Water
Resources Plan updates. The projections do not include any new mandates from the
State or Federal governments, such as the pending TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load)
requirements for impaired waters. The projections do not include any new
assessments from any of the City's watersheds, which have been paid from this fund in
the past. And, the projections do not assume any transfers of existing expenditures to
or from other funding sources. All of the assumptions and the priorities for funding
should be reviewed each year to determine the appropriate amount of any fee increase.
At build -out, the City may have an additional 100 NURP ponds, eventually increasing
the annual maintenance cost by an additional $100,000 per year beyond the current
estimates. Because the costs for maintaining these new ponds will fall outside of the
five-year period covered by the illustration, they are not included in the projection of
possible fee increases.
In order to realize a $100,000 per year increase in revenues from the surface water
utility fee, the fee for a single family home would need to increase by approximately
0.21 per month, or $2.52 per year, based on the current rate structure.
The Task Force considered the residential surface water utility rates charged by other
Metropolitan Area cities (see attachment 11.) The projected 2009 rate of $5.00 per
month for single-family homes is significantly less than the 2004 rates of several of our
neighboring communities.
Cd/plan/memos/ahurlbur/surface water task force/ Surface Water Task Force Final Report.doc
11
List of Attachments
1. Process/ Meeting Schedule (March 6, 2004)
2. Task Force Ground Rules (March 6, 2004)
3. Criteria for Evaluation of Options (March 18, 2004)
4. List of Packet Materials provided to Task Force
5. Surface Water Task Force Attendance
6. Task Force Meeting Minutes
a. March 6, 2004
b. March 28, 2004
c. April 1, 2004
d. April 22, 2004
e. May 10, 2004
f. May 18, 2004
g. May 26, 2004
7. Draft Recommendations for Discussion, April 22, 2004
8. Utility Fee vs. Tax — Points to Consider
9. Itemized Deductions
10. Incidence of Surface Water Revenues
11. 2004 Residential Storm Water Utility Rates
12. Costs and Options of Maintaining Ponds and Water Features
12
Meeting 1
Saturday, March 6
8:30 a.m. to Noon
Meeting 2
Thursday, March 18,
7-10 p. m.
Meeting 3
Thursday, April 1
7-10 p. m.
Meeting 4
Thursday, April 22
7-10 p. m.
Meeting S
Monday, May 10
7-10 p. m.
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 1
City of Plymouth
Surface Water Task Force
Process/ Meeting Schedule
3/6/04
1. Agree on Goals, Ground Rules & Process
2. Background Presentations
a. Drainage and water quality "101"
b. Who's Who—roles of various agencies in water
issues
c. Financing
3. Overview of Issues
a. Water quality mandates
b. Pond cleaning/ maintenance
c. Flooding & drainage problems
4. Develop criteria for evaluating options
5. Identify options
6. Evaluate options against agreed criteria
7. Reach consensus recommendations on:
a. What should be the city's role & responsibility
b. How to pay for it
8. Review draft of Task Force Report
Meeting with City 9. Presentation to City Council—May 18, 2004 City
Council Council Special Meeting, 6:30 p.m.
Tuesday, May 18 Location: City Council Chambers
6:30 p.m.
Location of Task Force Meetings: Plymouth City Hall Lunchroom, Lower Level
unless otherwise noted
Surface Water Task Force Report
City of Plymouth Attachment 2
Surface Water Task Force
Ground Rules
Approved 3/6/04
Participant Roles:
Facilitator . Help Task Force complete its task
Chair meetings
Prepare agendas with Task Force input
Substantively neutral
No decision-making authority
Task Force . Educate selves about the issues surrounding pond cleaning, flooding and
Members drainage issues
Ask questions and seek out the facts needed to make informed decisions
Develop and agree upon criteria for evaluating possible solutions
Identify and evaluate options
Make recommendation(s) to the City Council by a consensus of the group
Ex -Officio • Same role as Task Force Members, but have no vote
Members
City • Observe during Task Force meetings
Council . Do not participate in Task Force deliberations
Receive Task Force recommendations and make final decisions
Staff • Provide background information and research
Provide data to help Task Force evaluate options
Prepare notes and meeting summaries, distribute written materials and
agendas
Public • Observe during Task Force meetings
Comment or ask questions at times allowed by the Task Force
General Ground Rules for All:
Respect each other • Ask questions if you don't understand
Criticize ideas, not people • Start and end meetings on time
One person talks at a time • No beepers/ cellular phones
Everyone participates • Silence and absence are consensus
Keep an open mind 0 Share information with the group
Criteria for Evaluation of Options
Surface Water Task Force
March 18, 2003
1. Comprehensive
Addresses big picture and covers 800 existing ponds, future ponds
including higher and lower ground)
Addresses all types of water features
Doesn't just focus on all 200 original ponds
Improves water quality and quality management
2. Equitable
Has consensus of the group
All pay fair share based on water contributed (homeowners and
businesses)
Considers tax exempt properties
3. Affordable
6. Sustainable into the Future
Allows for future needs
Provides future funding
Functions with minimal changes in future
7. Helps to Meet Water Quality Goals
Meets Federal, State, County water quality standards
Uses measures already in place within City
8. Helps Prevent Flooding
Storm control structures maintained and perform as designed
Matters to those with flooding potential.
Measure using storm damage reports; goal of zero % homes flooded
City budget can afford (property tax and surface water fees) 9. Manageable
Staged — short and long term Plymouth's administration & personnel capacity not exceeded
Cost of not doing something considered - litigation Feasible CO)
C
4. Legal 10. Priority/Ranking
Meets State and Federal laws Addressing critical issues by importance
City's responsibility clear (what and how to do) Varies by individual —difficult to prioritize M
Comply in good faith, not minimally — with mandates Must weigh generalized damage vs. one persons' damage C
Lawsuits avoided/keep out of jail Avoid damage from critical incidents
5. Politically Acceptable 11. Timely
Mr
2
Compromise Progress met in standards being set
Politically acceptable if group endorses
Timeline to measure periodic progress
N
Council is test of politically acceptable 7C'
Solution benefits outweigh costs (cost -benefit ratio) n
Citizens must be educated - surveys, etc. O
C) 0
S M
CD
O
W AL
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 4
Surface Water Task Force
Packet Materials
1. Surface Water Task Force Roster
Revised on 3/10/04 and re -issued to members 3/12
2. News Releases on Surface Water Fee and Ponds, and on Establishment of the Task Force
3. City Council Minutes of 1/13/04
4. Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 6 — Surface Water Management Plan
5. Council Agenda Report of 6/12/01 on Adoption of Surface Water Utility Ordinance
6. City Code Section 725 — Storm Water Utility
7. 2004 Residential Storm Water Utility Rates — Cities Comparison
8. 2004 Water Resources Budget and Cashflow Projections
9. LMC Information on Mandates and Paying for Impaired Waters
10. Council Agenda Report of 6/16/03 on Bassett Creek Watershed Management Commission
CIP Funding Proposals
11. Council Agenda Report of 10/28/03 on Construction of Medicine Lake Water Quality ponds
12. Council agenda report of 1/13/04 on Maintenance of Water Quality Ponds Under
Maintenance Agreements
13. Council Agenda Report of 1/27/04 on Bassett Creek Water Management Commission Second
Generation Watershed Management Plan
14. Council Agenda Report of 1/20/04 on Flood Analysis Report update and Project
Recommendations
15. Council Agenda Report of 2/10/04 on Establishing Task Force to Develop Options for Pond
Cleaning, Flooding, and Drainage Issues, and Related Flooding.
16. Council agenda report of 3/9/04 on Flood Analysis updated reports on 2 additional sites
17. Environmental Quality Committee -- 2003 Annual Report & 2004 Work Plan
18. City of Plymouth Storm Water System— Who Pays and How? By Mike Kohn
19. Samples of various public education pieces related to water quality
20. List of Key Staff Members
21. Ground Rules Approved 3/6/04 — Surface Water Task Force
22. Process/Meeting Schedule Approved 3/6/04 — Surface Water Task Force
23. News article: "The Governor's All For Cleaning Up Minnesota's Lakes and Rivers, Provided
It Can Be Done For Free"
24. Surface Water Task Force minutes of March 6, 2004
25. Phone survey conducted the week of March 8 by Mike Kohn related to storm water ponds
and funding
26. Storm Water Fixed Asset Summary Report as of January 31, 2002
27. Utility Report for 2003
28. Storm Sewer Replacement 2004-2008
29. Fixed Asset Replacement Projection
30. List of abbreviations, acronyms, and terms
31. Background on NPDES
32. Brief Chronology of State Laws on Wetlands/Public Waters Management, dated March 10,
2004
33. Estimated Numbers of Drainage Features, March 2004
34. Future Surface Water Mandates
35. Update on Legislative Funding for Impaired Water
36. Sources of Urban Stormwater Pollutants Defined in Wisconsin
37. Agenda for Meeting #3, Thurday, April 1", 2004
38. Exert from the Capital Improvement Program
39. Proposed Minutes from March 18, 2004
40. Surface Water Management Fee, How it Came to Be and How Your Dollars Are Being
Spent".
41. Proposed Minutes for April 1, 2004
42. Terrie Christian's NEMO presentation of March 17, 2004
43. Environmental Extra May/June 2001
44. Environmental Extra July/August 2002
45. Environmental Extra July/August 2003
46. Anne's memo on the exercise for the next meeting
47. Revenue Detail/Expenditure Detail
48. Parkers Lake Connection
49. Cost and Impact of Items 10 & 11
50. Water Resources Fund — Ongoing Revenues and Expenditures
51. Water Resources Fund Impact of Potential Rate Increases
52. Utility Fee vs. Tax Points to Consider
53. Surface Water Revenues
Agenda Meeting #5
54 Memo Regarding Draft Task Force Report
55. Proposed Minutes, Surface Water Task Force, Thursday April 22°
56. Surface Water Task Force Draft Report
57. Memo from City Manager Ahrens
58. Agenda for Meeting #6
59. Proposed Minutes 5/16/04
60. Surface Water Task Force Draft Report
61. Correspondence from Steve Chesebrough dated May17, 2004
62. Correspondence from Karla Anderson May, 2004
63. Costs and Options of Maintaining Ponds and Water Features
64. Continuum of Possible Recommendations: Policy vs. Implementation
Examples for Surface Water Task Force
65. Correspondence from Terrie Christian dated May 18, 2004
66. Power Point Presentation— Surface Water Task Force Draft 5/18/04
67. LMC Legislative Update
68. Agenda, Meeting #7 Wednesday, May 26, 2004 at 6:30 p.m.
69. Proposed Minutes, Surface Water Task Force — Monday, May 18 1h, 2004
70. Surface Water Task Force Draft Report — Changes through May 18"', 2004
71. Prioritize Funding for Surface Water Management Fee by Terrie Christian
72. Report on Water Resources Management Activities from Ron Quanbeck dated
11/2/03(Agenda #9.1) and Report on Approving Plans and Specifications for the Met Council
Environmental Partnership Grant City Project No. 4119E dated 5/19/04 (Agenda #6.18)
73. Memo to Surface Water Task Force From City Manager Ahrens Regarding Green Tour
Invitation
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 5
Surface Water Task Force Attendance
Task Force Members ]3/6/(04 3/18/04 4/01/04 4/22/04 5/10/04 5/18/04 5/25/04
1. Gracie Azine X
2. Karla Anderson X
3. Cal Baldry X X X X
4. Bonnie Bronstad X X X X X X X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. Paul Christgau
7. Terrie Christian X
8. IRichard Dunn X X
9. IJack Gassner
10. IJames Griffin X
11. ILee Keeley X
12. Ken King
13. Richard Manthe X X X X
14. Larry Marofsky X X
15. Don Maxwell X X X X
16. Jack Moe X
17. Gary Ness X X X
18. Tom Orr X X X X X X X
19. Kathy Osborne X
20. Keith Pizzala X X
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek X
23. IDavid Roy X I X X I X-
24. IPete Savage
25. Robert Schafer X X X
26. Jerry Unger
27. Mark Wollschlager X
X = Absent
Attendence'rask Force Members.doc
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6a
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Saturday, March 6, 2004
Task Force Members Present Absent
I IGracie Azine
2. Karla Anderson
3. Cal Baldry X
4. Bonnie Bronstad X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. Paul Christgau
7. Terrie Christian
8. Richard Dunn
9. Jack Gassner
10. James Griffin
11. Lee Keeley X
12. Herb Marth
13. Richard Manthe
14. Larry Marofsky X
15. Don Maxwell X
16. Jack Moe
17. Gary Ness X
18. Tom Orr X
19. Kathy Osborne
20. Keith Pizzala
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek
23. David Roy
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer X
26. Jerry Unger
27. IMark Wollschlager
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director
Faulkner, City Engineer Quanbeck, Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analysis Kohn,
City Manager Ahrens, Office Support Representative Langer, Mayor Johnson and
Councilmember Black.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the
Council Chambers of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Saturday, March 6.
Surface Water Task Force
March 6, 2004
Page 2 of 7
Mayor Judy Johnson welcomed the task force members.
Mayor Johnson explained that the charge of the Task Force is to hold several meetings
and to build a consensus relating to surface water issues. This would be presented to the
Council to aid them in making a decision on how to proceed. The task force will study
the issues and present their findings and recommendations to the City Council at a study
session on Tuesday, May 18.
Community Development Director Hurlburt introduced staff members and gave an
overview of the Task Force Process. Task Force members introduced themselves and
gave a brief description of their concerns and special interests.
Ground Rules and Roles of Participants were discussed and a draft of the suggested
process of how to proceed was distributed.
Staff Report - Drainage and Water Quality 101
City Engineer Ron Quanbeck stated that surface water is generally discussed in two ways
water quality and water quantity. Rainfall is not just about how much falls, but also
about distribution. Plymouth is 36 square miles in size, and rainfall is not evenly
distributed. When rain falls, it is affected by infiltration, evaporation, retention, and
drainage. Infiltration relates to the water soaking into the ground, and the rate varies
depending on the type of soil and slope. Plymouth has a lot of clay soils that don't drain
well.
Engineer Quanbeck discussed the meaning of "100 -year storm". There is a 1 percent
chance of that storm happening each year. There is a 20 percent chance of a 5 -year storm
event occurring each year. One standard for determining a 100 -year storm is 6" of
rainfall within 24 hours. However, 100 -year storm events can occur within that 24 hour
period. For example, .66" could fall within 5 minutes, which would qualify as a 100 -year
event. The City's entire storm water system is designed around the 100 -year, 24 hour
storm events and the SCS standards.
As part of the system, ponds are intended to store water. Ponds can be a natural wetland,
a lake, or a constructed pond. He explained the impact of sediment, phosphorus, heavy
metals running off hard surfaces, and floatables. It is difficult to detect a pond type
natural wetland, constructed pond, or nurp pond) just by looking at it. For example, the
pond behind city hall was a natural wetland, but control structures were later added so it
serves as a pond. Water flows into the pond and slows down, allowing sediment to settle
out. Ponds are constructed to improve water quality, and most water quality ponds have
skimmers" installed so things such as oil and debris don't float further downstream.
In the early years of century, attention was given to water quantity. The storm water
system was constructed to address only quantity of flows. Ditches were frequently used
for drainage when Plymouth was an agricultural area. With urban development, the
wetlands were just filled in and buildings were constructed on top of them. Initial
Surface Water Task Force
March 6, 2004
Page 3 of 7
development was done at the mouth of a waterway, and as development progressed, there
was more runoff and more flooding occurred. In 1972-3, the City's first drainage plan
was done. Most of Plymouth has developed after that time. The drainage plan was
updated in 1980. This system set up drainage basins to handle water. The concept is to
take care of the water at "the top of the hill" so it doesn't cause problems for those at the
bottom. Plymouth is divided into four drainage basins. The entire system includes
ditches, detention areas, pipes, outlets, etc. Bassett Creek had massive flooding and
major flood control projects were done in the 1980's to take care of that problem. In the
early 1990's, ideas started changing and the focus became water quality.
In the 1990's, ponds started to be built to collect sediment. All natural wetlands also
serve this water quality purpose. In Plymouth, a developer is responsible for constructing
a system for that property to control water drainage. This must address the rate of water
flow, as well as water quality. These costs are absorbed by the developer and eventually
passed on to the home buyer. Maintenance of these ponds, the replacement of catch
basins, and similar issues are the discussion at hand.
City Engineer Quanbeck explained that the DNR has jurisdiction over protected waters,
which are generally wetlands larger than two acres. Smaller wetlands are not under DNR
jurisdiction, but are subject to the Wetland Conservation Act. This provides for no net
loss of wetlands. When a wetland is filled, it must be replaced (mitigated) at a 2:1 ratio.
This amount is sometimes less if buffers and similar features are included.
He stated that a NURP Pond is a pond that meets specific criteria in the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program. These are the constructed ponds covered by pond maintenance
agreements. All constructed water quality ponds are not NURP ponds — only those built
to the specific standard. NURP standards ensure that the first 85 to 90% of sediment is
removed, as well as about 50% of the phosphorus. This NURP standard has been
determined to be economically efficient. The two water quality ponds being built on the
east side of Medicine Lake are not being built to NURP standards.
A task force member asked if the City has the option in a development of not
constructing these ponds. Engineer Quanbeck stated that there is a requirement for
improving the water quality.
In the early 1990's, watershed districts starting requiring ponds. The federal Clean Water
Act was adopted, and from that law all sorts of programs and regulations have evolved to
accomplish the Clean Water Act standards.
The holding capacity of a pond relates to water quality and quantity. The area below the
normal elevation, which settles sediment, determines the water quality. Water quantity is
determined by the area above the normal elevation — how high the water bounces after a
rainstorm. If a pond is filled, it will bounce higher with the same amount of water
coming in, than if the pond had capacity to hold some of the rainfall. The normal
elevation of a pond is at the pipe elevation.
Surface Water Task Force
March 6, 2004
Page 4 of 7
He stated that various problems can occur. Ponds can have reduced storage which
impacts quality and quantity, as well as blockages in the system. He described how
bounce is impacted. When development occurs and more impervious surface is added,
water runs off faster and can't infiltrate. This can increase bounce. Task Force member
Terrie Christian said that it used to take days for Medicine Lake to bounce higher after a
significant rain event. Now it takes hours.
Engineer Quanbeck said that removal of silt has no impact on flood control unless there
are blockages. He described the city standards for concrete curb and gutter. He said that
the most vulnerable part of a street is the edge. A lot of money is put into constructing
streets, and curb and gutter helps to move water. Streets are degraded by standing water
and by the freeze and thaw. Concrete curb and gutter is used to affect grade, and this
reduces water problems. He noted that there are a few streets in Plymouth that were built
as temporary streets without curb and gutter. These tend to be in relatively sandy areas,
such as near Parkers Lake. Another approach is to use ditches to move the water, but the
downside is having many culverts to install and maintain at the driveways and wider
right-of-way is needed.
Future Meetings
Community Development Director Hulbert suggested that dates for future meetings be
selected. The focus of the next meeting would be developing criteria and options. Dates
selected were: March 18, April 1, April 22, and May 10, from 7:00 p.m. — 10:00 p.m. A
study session will be recommended to the City Council for May 18 in order for the Task
Force to present its recommendations. This meeting will be cablecast and held in the
Council Chambers.
Staff Report - Who's Who in Water Quality
Engineer Quanbeck explained that the Federal Corp of Engineers regulates storm water
activities, along with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The initial focus of
the EPA after the adoption of the Clean Water Act was point -source pollutants such as
wastewater discharge and industrial waste discharge. Plymouth's sanitary sewer system
and storm water systems have always been separated. Next, the EPA started considering
non -point sources, such as agricultural run-off and the affects of urbanization, such as
increased impervious surface resulting in increased pollutants in runoff.
The National Pollution Drainage Elimination System (NPDES) adopted about 10 years
ago addressed industrial sites in cities over 100,000 population. It now applies to cities
the size of Plymouth. Plymouth now needs to map its system, track maintenance of the
system, monitor and inspect the system. It involves a lot of recordkeeping and the intent
is to "improve water quality to the maximum extent practical."
Each state has the option of following the federal requirements, or developing its own
requirements to comply with the federal act. In Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution
Surface Water Task Force
March 6, 2004
Page 5 of 7
Control Agency has done a statewide program. These requirements flow to local
governments to implement and administer.
Engineer Quanbeck stated that Total Daily Maximum Loads (TDML) considers water
bodies and defines what is an impaired water body. Standards are set for various types of
water bodies and if a water body does not meet the minimum standard, it is declared to be
impaired waters." In Plymouth, Medicine Lake and Bassett Creek are impaired bodies
of water. In the future, if a body of water is determined to be impaired, a study will be
done to determine the cause and to consider all inputs into the system in order to reach an
acceptable TDML. Shingle Creek was listed as impaired with respect to chlorides, and it
has been monitored for two years. Road salt is another pollutant, but it needs to be
balanced with safety. It is unclear who will be doing these studies, but all of these
programs are things that cities will likely be mandated to spend money on. The extent of
the problem and the amount of money is unknown.
He said that the City has an Aquatic Vegetation Management Group, which is
considering an aggressive program to regulate curly leaf pond week. DNR approval is
needed for this program.
Engineer Quanbeck stated the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates public
waters. Permits are required to do various activities, such as manage vegetation, and the
DNR reviews storm water plans. Protected waters are the primary focus of the DNR.
The Board of Water and Sewer Resources (BWSR) oversees the Wetland Conservation
Act. He noted that wetlands are not always discernable by viewing — there are technical
requirements. A Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) is comprised of local government
officials, representative from BWSR and from the Hennepin County Conservation
District, etc., and is charged with determining the location of wetlands using vegetation,
hydrology and other factors.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) has many highways with run-
off and a system to handle that. Their philosophy is that if it is in their right-of-way they
deal with it and if not, the City does.
The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) takes the federal rules and applies
state regulations to comply. MPCA has some funding available, but it is very
competitive. An example is the Clean Lakes Program. We have applied without much
success.
The MPCA has a program called Non -Point Source System (NPS) which relates to
construction sites. Previously a permit was required for any site larger than 5 acres, now
a permit is required for any site disturbance of more than one acre.
The Metropolitan Council is the regional government. It is a regional planning agency
that looks at the entire metropolitan area, and it does get somewhat involved in water
Surface Water Task Force
March 6, 2004
Page 6 of 7
issues, such as the review of watershed plans. The Met Council has some grants
available, but nothing substantial.
Engineer Quanbeck next discussed local governments involved in water quality.
Hennepin County has a storm water system similar to MNDOT; however, they only
handle issues to the curb line. Beyond that, the City is responsible for maintenance The
County also comments on watershed plans, has an environmental services group, and
provides some technical expertise.
Hennepin Conversation District is an entity separate from Hennepin County. The
Hennepin County Board recently took over some of their staff and duties, but they still
have a role in the Wetland Conservation Act and need to approve requests related to
wetlands.
Plymouth is covered by four Water Management areas. There are two types — districts
and joint powers agreements. Minnehaha Creek Water Management District covers 20
cities and has 7 managers appointed by the County Board. The other three areas, Elm
Creek, Bassett Creek, and Shingle Creek, are joint powers organizations. For example,
Bassett Creek covers nine cities and has nine commissioners, one appointed by each city
council. All of the area in the metropolitan area must be covered by a water management
organization. The differences between a district and an organization established by a
joint powers agreement relate to governance, funding, and operations. Minnehaha Creek
is regulatory, while the others are not. It also has the authority to independently tax for
operations and projects. Joint powers organizations do not have the authority to tax.
The agreement establishes the funding formulas which are paid by member cities. The
funding is typically based on two criteria — 50% based on the area of the city in the
watershed and 50% based on valuation of land in the watershed. For example, in Bassett
Creek WMO, Plymouth has 41 % of the geographic area and 47% of the property
valuation. Plymouth pays 46-47% of the total budget of Bassett Creek WMO. The City
has indirect influence, but little voice in the decisions. Both watershed types can mandate
projects. Once a watershed organization as a plan approved, the City is required to
update its plan to comply with it. Watersheds rarely get involved in maintenance issues.
Those are left to cities.
Engineer Quanbeck said that cities are responsible for everything else related to storm
water. This includes running, operating, and maintaining the system, serving as the
regulatory authority when people do projects, implementing the Wetland Conservation
Act, and perhaps in the future the TMDL requirements.
Staff Report — Who Pays and How?
Financial Analyst Mike Kohn presented information on who pays the various costs for
storm water systems and how it is paid. His comments are summarized in Handout #18,
provided to the Task Force. He discussed construction, maintenance, and replacement of
the system, the background of the surface water fee in Plymouth, and possible funding
sources for water quality purposes.
Surface Water Task Force
March 6, 2004
Page 7 of 7
He said that key financial points to consider are that the 2004 Budget (as adopted) calls
for a 5% rate increase in 2004. The cashflow projection provided to the Task Force calls
for additional rate increases to cover inflation. The current activities outlined in the 2004
budget and cashflow projection show available cash falling to a marginally acceptable
level of $487,000 in 2007. Staff would prefer a slightly higher cash balance to cover
cashflow and emergencies, such as the 2003 flooding problems. He concluded that any
additional activities related to storm water quality would require additional revenue.
Task force members were requested to retain all of their materials throughout their work.
All questions should be routed through Facilitator Anne Hurlburt.
Community Development Director Anne Hurlburt concluded the Task Force Meeting at
12:00 noon.
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6b
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Task Force Members Present Absent
1. Gracie Azine
2. Karla Anderson
3. Cal Baldry
4. Bonnie Bronstad x
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. IPaul Christgau
7. ITerrie Christian
8. Richard Dunn
9. Jack Gassner
10, James Griffin X
11. Lee Keeley
12. Ken King
13. Richard Manthe X
14. Larry Marofsky X
15. Don Maxwell X
16. Jack Moe
17. Gary Ness
18, Tom Orr X
19. Kathy Osborne
20. Keith Pizzala
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek
23. David Roy
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer
26. Jerry Unger
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director
Faulkner, City Engineer Quanbeck, Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analyst Kohn, City
Manager Ahrens, Mayor Judy Johnson, Councilmember Black & Office Support
Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Thursday, March 18`", 2004. Mayor Judy
Johnson welcomed the task force members.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 2 of 10
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for approval of the minutes from the
March 6th, 2004 Surface Water Task Force meeting. One correction was made and the
minutes were approved. There were no requests for clarifications on information
presented at the first meeting.
Continuation of Background Presentations
Community Development Director Hurlburt outlined the presentations to be given
including water quality mandates, flooding and drainage problems and pond cleaning.
City Engineer Quanbeck spoke about the Clean Water Act, which originally addressed
point source pollution and explained how the program is now moving on to non -point
pollution. In response to the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed Phase I of the NPDES (National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Storm Water Program in 1990. The Phase I
program addressed sources of storm water runoff that had the greatest potential to
negatively impact water quality. Under Phase I, EPA required NPDES permit coverage
for storm water discharges from:
Medium and large municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) located in
incorporated places or counties with populations greater than 100,000.
Eleven categories of industrial activity, which includes construction activity that
disturbs five or more acres of land.
Phase II Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on December 8, 1999 requires
NPDES permit coverage for storm water discharges from:
Certain regulated small MS4s; and
Construction activity disturbing between 1 and 5 acres of land (i.e., small
construction activities).
Phase II Final Rule requires the no exposure exclusion and the temporary exemption for
certain industrial facilities under Phase I of the NPDES Storm Water Program and certain
exemptions relating to ISTEA. The Phase II rule also established two potential waivers
for small construction activities.
City Engineer Quanbeck explained that the basic rule is that we are required to improve
water quality to the maximum extent practical. The EPA has put together a program and
asked the State Pollution Control Agency to take it over. From there it was handed down
to local government.
The program requires we address six main control measures:
Public Education Outreach
Plymouth has been doing this for a number of years.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 3 of 10
Public Participation
This program gives people a chance to see our storm water pollution prevention
plan and gives people a chance to comment on it, including a public meeting once
a year.
Illicit Discharge Detection
We haven't had a lot of problems in this area based on the age of our City.
Construction Site Storm Water Run-off Control
We have had a program in place for a number of years — which includes an
erosion control ordinance and financial guarantees from builders.
Post Construction Run -Off Control
This includes permanent facilities such as ponds and land rain gardens to control
run-off after construction.
Pollution Prevention and Good Housekeeping.
Keeping track of things and making sure everything is maintained. These
programs require a lot of our effort — we need to inventory the system and inspect
20% of the outfalls each year. In Plymouth, we tend to exceed that number. The
City also needs to inspect all devices — sump manholes etc. and make sure they
are taken care of.
As part of that overall program we are required to put together a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). That plan outlines how we as a City are going to address
these six control measures. We are required to turn in an annual report as part of this.
Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL) program requires the state to prepare an Impaired
Waters list that is submitted to the Federal Government. A study is done for each water
body on the list that can cost between $50-$100,000.00 or more. The study's purpose is
to find out where the pollution is coming from. Discharge of the pollutant has to be
limited in those areas.
City Engineer Quanbeck then reviewed other water quality mandates and spoke about the
vast amount of record keeping and software maintenance that the City is involved with.
The system needs to be maintained — but there is no clear definition. What we do has to
be both reasonable and defensible.
Plymouth is a member of four watersheds - Bassett Creek, Shingle Creek, Minnehaha
Creek, and Elm Creek. If a TMDL is done we may have limits put on us. Studies are
likely to originate from these watersheds. Programs are far reaching with unknown cost
or results.
The watersheds are completing development of their 2nd generation Storm water
Management Plans and state law says that we need to revise our plan to be consistent
with the watersheds' plans. Bassett Creek is just finishing up their 2nd generation plan.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 4 of 10
They are the last of the four watersheds to finish. Minnehaha Creek is working on a 3rd
generation plan and other watersheds are starting in on that process. These plans need to
be updated on a consistent basis.
In 1991 we became the LGU (Local Governmental Unit) for our area under the Wetlands
Conservation Act. The LGU is responsible for implementation of the Act, including
identifying and delineating wetlands and approving sequencing and mitigation plans.
This gives us limited enforcement power and we sometimes work with conservation
officers from the DNR.
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked if there were any other questions
about the mandates. None were presented.
Flooding and Drainage Problems
Director of Public Works Faulkner referred to the 1980 storm drainage plan map. There
is a series of ponds throughout the City whose function is to hold water and not flush
everything downstream. The 1980 plan includes calculated volumes, flow rates and
proposed outlet pipes for these ponding areas in order to contain the 100 -year storm. As
development occurs, the designated ponding areas are incorporated into the development
and control structures installed in accordance with the 1980 plan. Ponding easements are
required over the area that would be inundated by the 100 -year storm. When a large
storm does occur, many people living around ponds indicate that their properties have
been flooded, but actually the ponds and high water levels are typically functioning as
designed. When flood damage does occur, it may be the result of a greater than 100 -yr.
storm and/or due to sediment that has blocked or plugged outlets. Sediment caused by
erosion causes problems throughout the system and requires much maintenance
The City of Plymouth 1994 Wetland Inventory Map has identified 803 wetland basins in
the city. The 803 -wetland basins were classified as:
43 Exceptional Quality Wetlands
131 High Quality wetlands
501 Medium Quality Wetlands
95 Low Quality Wetlands
22 Storm Water Ponds
11 Non -classified
About 96 of the 800 wetland basins are also part of MN DNR Protected Waters
Wetland)
Since 1992, the City has entered into 150 Water Quality Pond Maintenance Agreements
for 214 NURP (Water Quality) ponds.
According to the City's Storm Sewer Map, there are:
757 Outlets (taking water away from a drainage feature)
1243 Inlets (bringing water into a drainage feature)
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 5 of 10
It appears that out of the 757 outlets:
214 are associated with the identified water quality ponds
about 350 (rough estimate) are associated with wetland basins
and the remaining 193 are associated with road culverts, ditches, or water storage
ponds that have not been classified yet.
Public Works Direct Faulkner explained that students are hired during the summer to
monitor erosion in new developments. The majority of sediment happens with new
developments, making it important to make sure that ponds are cleaned up before all the
financial guarantees are released. In areas where development is complete, most
sediment is transported in run-off from impervious areas, especially streets.
In 2001 we initiated the Storm Water Utility Fee, which helped further our maintenance
efforts, but much more needs to be done. Last June's storm event caused a significant
amount of problems, including separation of pipes and additional erosion. Plymouth got
hit a bit worse than most cities (stronger rainfall). Amounts were in excess of the 100 -
year storm. Over 20 residents contacted the City regarding flood related problems. They
actually had surface water entering their homes from a surface water system. In the area
of 11th and Sycamore a pipe collapsed. This resulted in a resident being flooded due to
the large upstream drainage area. Cost of that repair was $45,000.00 and in that same
system downstream due to large upstream drainage area, we will incur a cost of over
100,000.00 to fix another large pipe that had partially collapsed.
We hired a consultant to analyze 10 different sites that were difficult to tell exactly what
happened during the June storm. Staff checked out our entire drainage system and
specifically areas such as Larch and Co. Road 9. We spent weeks cleaning that area out.
There was dredging to make sure the water could get through — downstream blockages
were problematic.
Financial Analyst Kohn summarized that funds are already allocated in the 2004 budget
for Surface Water Fee for solving flooding problems. Money is coming from 3 sources —
ad valorem tax from the Basset Creek watershed district, which is targeted for the ponds
at Medicine Lake; surface water fee of $1.6 million dollars in new revenue; and $2.5
million cash accumulated over the years. We will be using surplus to fund operations and
capital projects this year. We will we get the money back for the Medicine Lake ponds
850,000.00), from the Basset Creek Watershed Organization.
POND CLEANING
Of the 757 drainage ways and ponds (anything with an outlet that we would need to
clean) we would have to be cleaning 50 per year to meet a 15 -year cleaning cycle. With
the 214 existing water quality ponds and another 100 ponds that will probably be added
before the city is fully developed — we would have to be maintaining 20 water quality
ponds per year. The estimated cost is $15,000 each per year to clean those ponds or a
total of $300,000 per year.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 6 of 10
MAINTENANCE OF WATER QUALITY PONDS UNDER MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENTS
Public Works Director Faulkner said that as of December, 2003, we have record of 150
signed Pond Maintenance Agreements covering a total of 214 water quality ponds, 24 of
which are older than 10 years. It is expected that approximately 10 ponds, covered by
maintenance agreements, will be added each year for the next 10 years. In addition, there
are approximately 520 other ponds, drainage basin areas, and wetlands which the City is
responsible for maintaining. Developers are originally responsible for pond cleaning.
Most, if not all, developers sign the responsibility over to homeowner associations. The
problem is that many homeowner associations exist on paper only. Many residents may
technically be part of a homeowners association and they have a financial burden and
responsibility that they don't even realize they have. Not all new homeowners have this
information disclosed to them.
City Engineer Quanbeck explained that a developer first signs the pond maintenance
agreement with the City. That agreement should then be part of the homeowner's
documents when a home is purchased from the developer and is recorded with a deed for
the property. The title search should show pond maintenance as one of the obligations
that go with that property.
Public Works Director Faulkner said that if the City wants to establish a policy to take
over the responsibility of maintenance of these ponds, then there needs to be a significant
increase in the storm water utility fee. Approximately 214 homeowners associations
have a pond maintenance agreement, which allows them to petition the City to take over
pond maintenance if the City establishes such a policy. He further explained that it was
the City's intent with the language in Article 4 of the agreements that we would assume
future maintenance of water quality ponds if two things occurred: 1) if the City
established a storm water utility fee; and 2) the City adopts a policy to maintain water
quality ponds. The fee has been instituted, but the policy has not.
This provision was not included in recent (approximately 12) agreements.
While the agreements do indicate special assessments could be used to have the ponds
cleaned, it would be very difficult — properties would have to show a benefit meaning
their property value would have to show an increase equal to or greater than the
assessment. Public Works Director Faulkner referred to three alternatives that were
discussed in the January 9th 2004 Special Council Meeting (handout #12) regarding
maintenance of water quality ponds under maintenance agreements.
1. Have the City assume responsibility for maintaining and cleaning water
quality treatment ponds currently under pond maintenance agreements.
2. Enforce the existing pond maintenance agreements. This would mean that
water quality ponds under maintenance agreements would have to be
maintained and cleaned by the responsible party for each pond maintenance
agreement.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 7 of 10
Defer the matter of maintaining and cleaning water quality ponds under
maintenance agreements for a specified or indefinite period of time. Under
this option, the City could choose not to enforce the existing maintenance
agreements.
The conclusion was that this is a very complex issue, which mixes legal, practical,
economic, and contractual responsibility issues. We do have a lot of water quality ponds
that do need to be maintained. It is something that needs to be done; we just need to
figure out the best way.
A resident asked about article four in the maintenance agreement that has since been
removed from the contract, and desired an explanation from the City Attorney.
City Manager Ahrens said that a special assessment would be a way that the City could
recover costs of enforcing the pond maintenance agreement, however the City would
need to show benefit to the property value.
Mayor Johnson said that assessments of pond cleaning would be difficult to enforce.
There would be an additional cost because of lawsuits with homeowners associations.
The City would be fighting more battles than cleaning ponds. There is concern that state
statute does not appear to specifically authorize such assessments.
Community Development Director Hurlburt suggested that we needed to move on to the
criteria and options section of the meeting. The group brainstormed to develop criteria
for evaluating the options as follows:
Criteria for Evaluating Options
1. Comprehensive
2. Equitable
3. Affordable
4. Legal
5. Politically Acceptable
6. Sustainable into the Future
7. Helps Meet Water Quality Goals
8. Helps Prevent Flooding
9. Manageable
10. Priorities/Ranking
11. Timely
The task force was divided in four groups and each group was given half of the criteria to
brainstorm the meaning of each of the criteria, answering the following questions:
What does it mean?
Who does it matter to?
How do we measure it?
How will we know when we get there?
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 8 of 10
The results were reported back to the group, as follows:
1. Comprehensive
Addresses big picture and covers 800 existing ponds, future ponds (including
higher and lower ground)
Addresses all types of water features
Doesn't just focus on all 200 original ponds
Improves water quality and quality management
2. Equitable
Has consensus of the group
All pay fair share based on water contributed (homeowners and businesses)
Considers tax exempt properties
3. Affordable
City budget can afford (property tax and surface water fees)
Staged — short and long term
Cost of not doing something considered - litigation
4. Legal
Meets State and Federal laws
City's responsibility clear (what and how to do)
Comply in good faith, not minimally — with mandates
Lawsuits avoided/keep out of jail
5. Politically Acceptable
Compromise
Politically acceptable if group endorses
Council is test of politically acceptable
Solution benefits outweigh costs (cost -benefit ratio)
Citizens must be educated - surveys, etc.
6. Sustainable into the Future
Allows for future needs
Provides future funding
Functions with minimal changes in future
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 9 of 10
7. Help to Meet Water Quality Goals
Meets Federal, State, County water quality standards
Uses measures already in place within City
Helps Prevent Flooding
Storm control structures maintained and perform as designed
Matters to those with flooding potential.
Measure using storm damage reports; goal of zero % homes flooded
9. Manageable
Plymouth's administration & personnel capacity not exceeded
Feasible
10. Priority/Ranking
Addressing critical issues by importance
Varies by individual — difficult to prioritize
Must weigh generalized damage vs. one persons' damage
Avoid damage from critical incidents
11. Timely
Progress met in standards being set
Timeline to measure periodic progress
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked if there was anything that needed to be
part of criteria that wasn't included. No further criteria were offered.
A task force member posed the question "how can we have any faith in the Council when
only two are represented here tonight"?
Mayor Johnson said that she advised the Council that they would have to listen to what
the task force suggests. Mayor Johnson assured everyone that she and Councilmember
Black would inform Council of the amount of work the task force is doing, and explain
questions that have come forward. She advised the force that all material the task force
has received is also being distributed to the Council.
Community Development Hurlburt added that members of the City Council are also
getting minutes and will be sent a final report.
Councilmember Black suggested task force members call and let the Council know that
this task force matters and that it is important. The City's web site was given as
www.ci.plymouth.mn.us.
Community Development Director Hurlburt concluded by stating that the next meeting
was two weeks away — and that there would be more opportunity for brainstorming. The
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on March 18, 2004
Page 10 of 10
task force has developed criteria for evaluating options and next time members will
brainstorm those options.
Dates for future taskforce meetings are, April 1St, April 22nd and May
10th from 7:00 p.m.
to 10:00 p.m. in the Lunchroom of Plymouth City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Boulevard. A
study session will be recommended to the City Council for May
18th in order for the Task
Force to present its recommendations. This meeting will be cablecast and held in the
Council Chambers.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6c
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Thursday, April
1St, 2004
Task Force Members Present Absent
1. Gracie Azine
2. Karla Anderson
3. Cal Baldry X
4. Bonnie Bronstad X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. Paul Christgau
7. Terrie Christian
8. Richard Dunn X
9. Jack Gassner
10. James Griffin
11. Lee Keeley
12. Ken King
13. Richard Manthe
14. Larry Marofsky
15. Don Maxwell
16. Jack Moe
17. Gary Ness
18. Tom Orr X
19. Kathy Osborne X
20. Keith Pizzala
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek
23. David Roy X
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer X
26. Jerry Unger
27. Mark Wollschlager
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, Public Works Director
Faulkner, City Engineer Quanbeck, Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analysis Kohn,
City Manager Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Thursday, April 1st, 2004.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 1, 2004
Page 2 of 6
Community Development Director Hurlburt welcomed the task force members and asked
for introductions.
Approval of Minutes
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for approval of the minutes from the
March 18th
2004 Surface Water Task Force meeting. A Task Force Member asked for
clarification of the main source of surface water pollution. It was explained that in new
development erosion is the main concern, but in areas where development is complete
most sediment is transported in runoff from impervious areas, especially streets. The
minutes were approved.
Background Presentations
A Task Force member asked for clarification regarding handout #26 (Fixed Asset
Summary Report as of 12/31/02) and handout #29 (Fixed Asset Replacement Projection).
Financial Analyst Mike Kohn explained that handout #26 lists storm sewer pipes & other
components of the system along with their cost. The life expectancy and current
replacement costs are estimated. Handout #29 sorts each pipe by the year they were
believed to have been constructed. Early records are not completely accurate. He
referred to handout #27, which shows the specific pipes and other elements added in
2003. Each year the list is updated. These reports are used to estimate how much the
City should be spending each year for replacement. It is unknown how long these pipes
will last. Pipes were made of brick 100 years ago, and some of those still exist. Later,
concrete pipes were installed. Today we are using plastic pipes, which haven't been in the
ground long enough to determine how long they will last, but they could last as long as
100 years. Most estimates show that the City currently should be spending about
500,000 dollars per year for replacements, but this will go up dramatically in 2020 —
2030. Current replacement cost is estimated at $40 million. As things age the cost to
maintain will be greater. In the future we may not always replace pipes, but could use
other methods such as lining and repair, which would change the cost estimates.
A task force member asked how replacing storm water pipe in the ground related to the
task force's charge, and wondered whether the focus was getting larger than it needed to
be.
Community Development Director Hurlburt said that all these items were connected
since pipe systems and flooding are linked. Water quality and quantity are connected,
and affects what the City has to pay for. The Council requested the task force to address
water quality, storm water runoff and flooding.
A Task Force member asked if the City currently provides for replacement of these
underground storm water pipes?
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 1, 2004
Page 3 of 6
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked Financial Analyst Kohn what was in
the Capital Improvement Program for storm sewer pipe replacements. Kohn explained
that the general operating budget provides funds for maintenance crews to replace
manholes and catch basins when they are beyond repair, and they repair and refurbish 40-
50 per year. The 2004 Capital Improvement Program (handout #36, 2004-2008 Capital
Improvements Program for Water Quality and Drainage) shows $50,000 budgeted for
replacement of West Medicine Lake pipe and $100,000 for pipe replacement at 15th Ave.
and Pineview. These projects are paid for form the Water Resources Fund.
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked whether this means that the City does
not have a program in place to do those replacements other than the catch basins and the
few things that are in the CIP today, and that a reserve to fund future replacements has
not been established. This was confirmed.
A Task Force member asked how the City identifies water quality and drainage projects
and how they are prioritized. Public Works Director Faulkner responded that they are
prioritized based on staffs best engineering judgment and where there will be the most
benefit.
A Task Force member asked if the City also inspects and cleans out debris in drainage
pipes on a regular basis. Public Works Director Faulkner answered that staff tries to do
annual inspections, and sometimes we need to televise in order to really know what's in
the pipes. That inspection includes debris cleaning where applicable.
Community Development Director Hurlburt reviewed the Criteria for Evaluating
Options, which were identified at the March 181h Meeting. No changes or additions were
made to the criteria.
Brainstorming Exercise: Identify Options
Community Development Hurlburt led the task force in a brainstorming exercise to
identify options for the city's role in dealing with pond cleaning, flooding problems and
drainage systems, and how to pay for it.
As individuals, or in small groups, task force members worked to generate ideas, each of
which was written on an individual piece of paper. Members took turns adding their
ideas to lists put on the wall. Staff organized the ideas into themes or categories. During
group discussion, the groupings were further refined as follows:
1. Do nothing-- what other areas are affected if we do nothing?
2. Pond design—assess the size of drainage pipes & ponds, are they large enough to
hold large volumes of water; plant more evergreens around ponds to soak up more
water year round; make new ponds deeper to forestall the dredging issue; are
retaining walls around ponds needed to prevent flooding; who decides on pipe size?
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 1, 2004
Page 4 of 6
3. Planning-- are there any other city/states facing a similar issue, how has it been dealt
with; move from reaction to prevention for surface water; do benchmarking, not just
local; consistent plan across Plymouth; city-wide evaluation of flooding—highlight
highest risk areas, address through: const., education/awareness, planting/landscape;
how does this coordinate with the City of Plymouth Water Plan; co-ordinate activities
work among the 4 watersheds in Plymouth; prework to set priorities by 2005+/-,
what causes lakes to be impaired? site specific, what causes wetlands to become poor
eco -system? Set up a loop to revisit goals once original ones are met; objectives
S.M.A.R.T.) specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time -bound; upstream work
connected to downstream issue resulting in lakes & wetlands; monitor lakes &
wetlands for changes desired; monitor all public developments or improvements for
run-off potential.
4. Preventive maintenance --create program to inspect & decide on action; set up a
preventive maintenance schedule for lakes, wetlands and ponds; use volunteer water
task force personnel; include weed & algae control into city pond maintenance
function; cleaning start at top of "hill" beginning of 4 watersheds; yearly inspection
of water quality; database on all water ponds looking at needs; inspect ponds for
function, water quality & flood control; clean culverts on a schedule to prevent
flooding or damage.
5. Goals --optimize watershed to maximize quality and minimize flood damage by 2008
3 yrs; return wetlands to an average healthy eco -system status by 2011 +/- 3 yrs;
return lakes to non -impaired status by 2014 +/- 3 yrs.
6. Education-- improve water quality education; divide NURP vs. wetlands; education
on BMP's such as rain gardens, no curb & gutter, pervious parking lot surfaces, green
industrial roofs, etc.; make "Best Management Practices" / BMP's household words.
7. Make developers pay—hold developers responsible for review of existing properties
up & down stream; determine legacy responsibilities of developers; cost breaks for
developers that use landscape designs that improve water quality; water quality fee
for developers of new properties to fund future pond cleaning; hold developers more
accountable for cleaning, build better NURP ponds; worry about first cleaning after a
couple years.
8. Making flooding first priority—inspection of storm sewer pipes of ponds that have
flooded; prioritize problems.
9. Landscaping/ educate property owners— add gypsum into the lawns to breakdown
the clay; plant long rooted plants to increase infiltration; reduce Kentucky Blue Grass;
encourage flat roof industry- garden roofs; geese impact on water quality; individual
homeowner responsibility to reduce run-off, plantings of deep rooted plants native
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 1, 2004
Page 5 of 6
varieties; encourage rain gardens, public & private; rain barrels; rain gardens;
decrease soil compaction.
10. Change development standards/regulations-- make streets narrower; increase
infiltration; require removal of docks made from treated lumber containing
chromate/copper/arsenic; require lakeshore owners to do property landscaping;
boat/motor ordinance; rethink existing grass height regulation to allow for plants with
longer roots to increase infiltration.
11. Assess to benefiting property owners—surface water fee should be slightly higher for
properties abutting ponds; who pays for "commercial" ponds (assessment?); assign as
many ponds as possible; assign as many wetlands as possible; charge extra fee for
variances which exceed impervious surface standards; add fees to docks that have
treated lumber.
12. Pond cleaning-- ponds must be cleaned to maintain water quality; pond maintenance
should be on a rotating basis, probably 10/12 year cycle; sub work out to get
experience (5 years?); investigate dredging material for possible recycle on new
development lawns; find takers for free fill; evaluate pond cleaning options -1.
dredging 2. pumping 3. new technology.
13. City takes over ponds—City should maintain all ponds & wetlands in the City; clean
natural wetlands too; City manages pond cleaning & funding; prior to City taking
over pond it must meet city's new standards or receive $$ to do so; assume
responsibility for all ponds; City takes over, subs out or cleans itself.
14. Budgeting—distinguish budgets capital vs. O & M; city to use "0" base budgeting;
make a wish -list budget, to study; balance budget for Plymouth with surface water
funds for future (400k min. annually after proposed projects); all funds collected
under the surface water fee should be dedicated funds; protect fee from "dumping" &
raiding"; cut other things in city budgets to fund surface water; make fee tax-
deductible (pay from taxes); City give credit for any group maintains own pond.
15. Make other agencies pay—approach watershed commissions or districts; wait for the
governor to establish a funding mechanism for TMDL's; NRCS funding (federal);
fund at higher level (state/ feds/ DNR); City to ensure receipt of all available funds
from other govt. units; can DNR or Bassett Creek Watershed provide funding; carp
contest; using existing city staff to pursue impaired water funding, grants & TMDL $.
16. Increase surface water fee—raise water fees for next years +; re -assess existing
water fees to create provision for larger long-term maintenance plan, create 5-10 year
plan & funding scenario; cost to maintain should be from added surface water fee;
minimize tax (fee) increase < 10+/-% specifically for surface water (annually), note:
5% is for inflation; spend fee on outside costs (not internal).
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 1, 2004
Page 6 of 6
17. Increase taxes-- water quality $ should be tax $ not fee $-
18. Bonding—bond for immediate needs (3 years), raise surface water fee for annual
needs thereafter.
19. Increase funding—increase taxes or fees, doesn't matter what you call it, $ are
needed; new avenues of resources to increase the efficiency of the city (time, $), i.e.
monitoring of pond depth and quality by trained residents near each site;
Set Preliminary Agenda for Meeting #4
Hurlburt explained that the next step would be for the Task Force to review the list and
evaluate which options best meet the criteria. Staff will prepare some materials to help
with this task. The next meeting will be held in three weeks, on Thursday, April
22na
Terrie Christian provided handout # 40, an article with background information on the
surface water fee.
This meeting was adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6d
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Thursday, April 22nd, 2004
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, City Engineer Quanbeck,
Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analyst Kohn, Mayor Judy Johnson, City Manager
Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Thursday, April 22nd, 2004.
Task Force Members Present Absent
1. Gracie Azine
2. Karla Anderson X
3. Cal Baldry
4. Bonnie Bronstad X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. Paul Christgau
7. Terrie Christian
8. Richard Dunn
9. Jack Gassner
10. James Griffin
11. Lee Keeley
12. Ken King
13. Richard Manthe
14. Larry Marofsky
15. Don Maxwell
16. Jack Moe
17. Gary Ness X
18. Tom Orr X
19. jKathy Osborne
20. Keith Pizzala
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek
23. David Roy
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer
26. Jerry Unger
27. Mark Wollschlager
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, City Engineer Quanbeck,
Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analyst Kohn, Mayor Judy Johnson, City Manager
Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Thursday, April 22nd, 2004.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 22, 2004
Page 2 of 7
Community Development Director Hurlburt welcomed the Task Force members and
asked for introductions.
Approval of Minutes
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for approval of the minutes from the
April 1St, 2004 Surface Water Task Force meeting. With two changes the minutes were
approved. There was a request for clarification on page four under goal #5 regarding the
date to return wetlands to an average healthy eco -system status because the date did not
appear right. Staff verified that the year "2001" should have been "2011" as stated on
Post -It notes collected at the last meeting, and this change was made in the minutes as
well.
Review Draft List of Possible Recommendations/Options
Community Development Director Hurlburt explained that she drafted recommendations,
trying to incorporate all the main ideas and concepts from the last meeting, to give the
Task Force a place to start. These ideas were grouped in order from more general to
more specific. Hurlburt explained that the goal for this meeting was to get through as
many of these recommendations as possible so that we could begin drafting the final
report for review at the May 10th meeting. Each category will be reviewed, discussed as
a group, and then we will try to reach some consensus on the recommendations. A Task
Force member requested that it be noted in our final draft if consensus was evenly split
on some of these areas.
Hurlburt reviewed the following draft of general recommendations:
1. Continue water quality planning efforts in cooperation with Plymouth's four
watersheds. Set specific goals and priorities, and monitor their achievement.
2. Continue to educate the public about water quality issues, and about what they as
homeowners and property owners can do in their own yards to help.
3. Consider changing any development and maintenance standards and regulations
that conflict with water quality goals, such as limitations on alternatives to lawns
or requirements that increase impervious surfaces.
4. Ensure that the drainage system and ponds are designed with adequate capacity so
as to prevent flooding and decrease the need for maintenance in the future.
5. The preventive maintenance program must include regular inspection of the
drainage system and ponds, to identify problems and set priorities for both water
quality and flood control.
6. Investigate and apply for any available grants or aid to supplement local funding
sources.
7. Investigate ways to make pond cleaning more economical and efficient, such as
using volunteers; new technology, and/or finding economic uses for resulting fill
materials.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 22, 2004
Page 3 of 7
Hurlburt asked for consensus on first seven recommendations. The Task Force members
agreed.
Community Development Director Hurlburt reviewed the draft recommendations on
budgeting principles. Task Force members asked for clarification of #8—if funding were
not adequate, would the City be obligated to increase it? Community Development
Director Hurlburt explained that the intent of this statement was to indicate that if the
City decides to do something, part of that decision includes planning an adequate source
of funds to pay for it. Task Force members indicated that this statement should be
mandatory, so Hurlburt changed the draft "should" to "shall":
8. Funding shall be adequate to cover the City's operating and maintenance
responsibilities for surface water infrastructure.
9. Any funds collected for surface water management shall be dedicated to that
purpose.
There was discussion regarding the need to set priorities for funding. Hurlburt suggested
that an additional statement could be added to state that the budget must reflect the City's
priorities, with top priority going to preventing property damage and meeting legal
mandates.
Financial Analyst Kohn said that the budget is reviewed annually. Councilmember Black
added that the Surface Water Management plan is updated every 10 years, and is used to
determine budget priorities.
The Task Force agreed to add the following statement to the budgeting principles,
without the specific priorities):
8.5 The budget must reflect the City's priorities.
Hurlburt asked for consensus on these three recommendations for budgeting principles.
The Task Force members agreed.
Community Development Director Hurlburt reviewed possible recommendations
concerning responsibility for ponds—what is the City's role (items 10 through 13 in the
draft.) She explained that this issue is key to meeting the Council's request of the Task
Force and to the other recommendations that would follow.
Hurlburt said that since one of the criteria for recommendations is legality, staff had
reviewed the draft recommendations with City Attorney Roger Knutson. The Attorney
had pointed out that there might be legal barriers to the City taking responsibility for
maintaining the water quality and flood prevention functions of all ponds (man-made)
and wetlands (natural) not subject to pond maintenance agreements. City Engineer
Quanbeck explained that we do not have the right to go onto another person's property
unless there is an easement or to respond to an emergency. A Task Force member asked
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 22, 2004
Page 4 of 7
for an estimate on the number of properties without easements, suggesting that we need
an inventory of where we have easements/rights and where we don't.
Hurlburt said that City Attorney Knutson had pointed out that even with those properties
where the City has pond maintenance agreements, the City's rights are not always clear
or language isn't consistent There are over 150 agreements which would need to be
dealt with individually. If the City establishes a policy for ponds not subject to
agreements, the language in many of the pond maintenance agreements will require that
the City have a policy for those subject to agreements. Some homeowners associations
with agreements may no longer be active or their existence never disclosed to current
owners, so a representative would not be available for negotiations.
Community Development Director Hurlburt explained that staff had asked City Attorney
Knutson if conditions could be placed on the City taking over ponds subject to
maintenance agreements, such as requiring that ponds are first brought up to City
standards, are cleaned for the first time, or that a payment be made to the City. The
Attorney has advised that each HOA or property owner would have to be negotiated with
individually, so uniform conditions would not be practical or enforceable.
Financial Analyst Kohn reviewed handout #49, "Cost and Impact Items 10 & 11 ".
Summarizing option #10: "The City shall take responsibility for maintaining the water
quality and flood prevention functions of all ponds (man-made) and wetlands (natural)
not subject to pond maintenance agreements but are part of the City's drainage system."
It is estimated that there are about 800 water features falling into this category. Average
maintenance cycle would be approximately 15 years. The average cost of maintenance
assuming we have a disposal site available would be about $7,500 per pond or wetland.
This amounts to an annual maintenance cost of $350,000. Currently we are maintaining
10 ponds per year for flood prevention and not for water quality purposes. The net
average annual cost for option #10 is $275,000 per year, which is in addition to what we
are spending now. Currently the maintenance fee for those 10 ponds is coming from the
Surface Water Fee. This would require a permanent 17.25% increase or $6.73 per year
per residential customer or $1.12 per billing. This is on top of a 5% increase ($1.95 per
year) that we feel is necessary right now just to fund our current operations.
Kohn gave a summary of option #11: "The City should take over responsibility for all
HOA/property owners for maintaining the water quality and flood prevention functions
of all ponds subject to maintenance agreements". Currently there are 214 ponds and the
estimated average cost for maintenance is $15,000 each since they must be maintained to
a higher standard. It is estimated that it would cost about $214,000 per year to maintain
the current ponds covered by maintenance agreements, assuming the City has a disposal
site available. Staff projects adding another 100 water quality ponds before build -out,
resulting in a total of 314 ponds that would need to be maintained, at an estimated cost of
314,000 per year. This would require a 13% rate increase to maintain existing ponds, or
a 19% increase to maintain all ponds at build -out.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 22, 2004
Page 5 of 7
The bottom item summarizes option #10 and option #11 together. Currently, if we were
to take over all ponds (those with maintenance agreements and those without) it would
amount to $489,000 per year or if you add the 5% required for inflation-- a 36% rate
increase, or in the future closer to $600,000 and about a 42% rate increase. Cost would
be $14.04 per year in the near term, and eventually $16.38 per year when the additional
ponds are included, over and above the current fee.
Financial Analyst Kohn referred to Handout #50 — "Water Resources Fund Ongoing
Revenues and Expenditure". He said that ongoing revenues are currently less than
projected ongoing expenses. A 5% rate increase is required to close the gap. Any
additional ongoing expenditure for ponds will require a rate increases beyond 5%.
Currently contemplated capital projects are funded from existing reserves. The City has
not raised the rate since July 2001. CPI -U has increased by 5.58 % from July 2001 to
March 2004. He also referred to Handout #51 "Water Resources Fund Impact of
Potential Rate Increases". The difference that people would see is $16.38 annual
increase. Right now it is $3.25 per month.
A Task Force member commented on utility fees verses property taxes. Financial
Analyst Kohn referred to handout #52 "Utility Fee vs. Tax — Points to Consider":
The property tax has been and may continue to be subject to levy limits.
The only way to raise the property tax and avoid levy limits would be to establish
a series of special taxing districts. This would require public hearings for each
district and extensive segregations of costs.
Utility fees can be set based upon any reasonable criteria. Property taxes are
based purely on tax capacity value.
Property taxes are eligible for itemization on state and federal income tax. Utility
fees are not.
Utility fees can be levied on tax-exempt properties.
Shifting from a utility fee to a property tax basis would result in a 46% rate
increase to the average residential property. Commercial properties, which have
a greater percentage of impervious surfaces, would see a reduction in costs.
Utility fees are more economically efficient since they can be constructed to
reward or punish consumer behavior.
Property taxes are not legally dedicated. Surface water utility funds can only be
used for storm water purposes as defined by state statute.
The consensus of the Task Force was that utility fees were favored over property taxes.
Mayor Johnson informed the Task Force that she and Councilmember Black were going
to approach the Legislature to ask for fee deductibility on state tax bills.
Kohn reviewed Handout #53 "Incidence of Surface Water Revenues", showing how
surface water fees and property taxes currently fall on residential and commercial
properties. He explained that if revenues currently raised by fees were levied on the
property tax, the burden would fall more heavily on residential properties.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 22, 2004
Page 6 of 7
At this point a Task Force Member asked for a consensus on combining draft options #10
and #11, to state that the City should take responsibility for maintaining the water quality
and flood prevention functions of all ponds (man-made) and wetlands (natural) which are
part of the City's drainage system. There was agreement.
A Task Force Member asked that the City hold developers responsible before taking over
maintenance of ponds. It was clarified that the City would take over ponds only after the
developer's obligations under City ordinances and development contracts have been
fulfilled and verified, and they become part of the City's drainage system. There would
no longer be a need for maintenance agreements for future homeowner associations.
There was discussion on how the City would go about assuming responsibility for the
ponds, such as whether the City would initiate negotiation with landowners or
homeowners associations for ponds covered by agreements, or where there may not be
easements in place.
Community Development Director Hurlburt summarized the following key points, which
will be included in Task Forces' report:
The City should take responsibility for maintaining the water quality and flood
prevention functions of all ponds (man-made) and wetlands (natural) that are part
of the City's drainage system.
The City should inventory and inspect all of the various components of the
drainage system, to determine when a pond or other facility is not meeting
standards or needs maintenance.
The City will negotiate easements and/or changes to pond maintenance
agreements on a case-by-case basis.
Hurlburt asked for consensus on whether surface water costs should be paid from a
surface water fee or a tax. (draft statements 14 & 15.) The Task Force agreed to
recommend that surface water fee should be a fee, not a tax, so it applies to all property in
the City.
Hurlburt reviewed the draft recommendations concerning the surface water fee (draft
statements 16 through 19.) Financial Analyst Kohn explained that the City's
responsibility is going to phase in gradually, so it would make sense to phase in the
funding gradually. Kohn suggested a 5 -year period. Kohn explained that there were only
a few projects that could be accelerated by the use of bonds, so he did not recommend
that. The Task Force discussed the difficulties of assessing costs to specific properties,
including determining benefit, the management burden, and the related legal and equity
issues.
Hurlburt asked for consensus that the needed surface water fee increase should be phased
in over a five-year period. The Task Force agreed.
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on April 22, 2004
Page 7 of 7
By consensus, the Task Force eliminated draft options 17 through 21.
The Task Force agreed that the City should conceptually retain part of draft option 22,
which read: "charge fees or increase fees for activities that have water quality impacts."
They agreed that the City should continue to charge higher surface water fees for
properties with more impervious surface, as is currently the case, and look for other
opportunities to increase fees for activities that have greater surface water impacts.
There was consensus was that options 23 through 25 should not be considered any
further.
Mayor Johnson suggested an article for the Sun Sailor or newsletter summarizing the
Task Force's findings in the form of a press release and also putting the information on
the City's web site.
Set Preliminary Agenda for Meeting #5
Community Development Director Hurlburt explained that the next step would be for
staff to draft a summary report before the next meeting. The next meeting will be held on
Monday, May 10th, 7:00 p.m. The Task Force will meet with the Council on May 18tH
Any action that the Council would take would occur at a future City Council meeting.
This meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p,
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6e
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Monday, May 10th, 2004
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, City Engineer Quanbeck,
Public Works Director Faulkner, Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analyst Kohn, City
Manager Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Monday, May 10th, 2004.
Task Force Members Present Absent
I IGracie Azine
2. Karla Anderson
3. Cal Baldry X
4. Bonnie Bronstad X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. Paul Christgau
7. Terrie Christian X
8. Richard Duren
9. Jack Gassner
10. James Griffin
11. Lee Keeley
12. Ken King
13. Richard Manthe X
14. Larry Marofsky
15. Don Maxwell X
16. Jack Moe
17. Gary Ness X
18. Tom Orr X
19. Kathy Osborne
20. Keith Pizzala X
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek
23. David Roy X
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer X
26. Jerry Unger
27. Mark Wollschlager X
Also present: Community Development Director Hurlburt, City Engineer Quanbeck,
Public Works Director Faulkner, Finance Director Hahn, Financial Analyst Kohn, City
Manager Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 7:00 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Monday, May 10th, 2004.
Community Development Director Hurlburt welcomed the Task Force members and
asked for introductions.
Approval of Minutes
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for approval of the minutes from the
April 22nd, 2004 Surface Water Task Force meeting. The minutes were corrected to
indicate that Lee Keeley had been present at the meeting. A task force member
questioned page four, which referenced 700 ponds and wetlands. Public Works Director
Faulkner suggested that instead of ponds and wetlands the minutes should read water
features, and for accuracy the number should be changed from 700 to 800. With those
two changes the minutes were approved.
Review and Approve Task Force Report
Community Development Director Hurlburt gave an overview of the Task Force Report
explaining how the report was organized into four main sections.
Task Force Mission
Task Force Process
Task Force Recommendations
Surface Water Utility Fee Proposal
Hurlburt added that surface water utility fee proposal was not part of the
recommendations but was an illustration of what would happen to the surface water
utility fee as a resolute of the Task Force's recommendations. The attachments that are
necessary to understand the basic process of the group are also attached to the report.
This material includes the detailed criteria and the complete list of the draft
recommendations considered at the last meeting. Also included is the list of all the
packet materials so that if someone wants to delve more deeply into a particular area
everything will be available to them.
A Task Force member thanked the entire staff for their support and asked that this
acknowledgement to be noted in the minutes.
A Task Force member asked that the reference to "water features" on page 3 under
Understanding Water Issues" be changed from 700 to 800.
A Task Force member referenced page 5, paragraph 3 under "Reaching a Consensus" and
she said would like to add "administration costs" to the list of examples.
A Task Force member recommended that on page 6, item #1 under "General
Recommendations" that we add "in cooperation with Plymouth's four water sheds and
state and federal agencies ".
A Task Force member suggested that page 6, item #2 be changed as follows: "continue
to educate the public about water quality and drainage issues and about what they as
homeowners and property owners can do in their own yards to help".
A Task Force member stated that on page 7, item #9 under "Budgeting Principles" the
budget must reflect the City's priorities we should add "as well as provide for response to
emergencies".
Community Development Director Hurlburt explained that staff prepared estimates of the
revenues needed to fund the recommendations, and the fees required to provide the
revenues, based on bulleted assumptions listed on page 8 under the "Surface Water
Utility Fee Proposal".
Referencing the first bulleted item, Task Force members asked that the term "existing
ponds" be changed to "drainage features" and the number of ponds without maintenance
agreements be changed from 700 to 800. These changes would then increase
maintenance costs from $350,000 per year on a 15 -year cycle to $385,000.
Financial Analyst Kohn pointed out there was an error in the second bullet point. The
amount that the City is currently spending on existing ponds without maintenance
agreements is $75,000, not $100,000. Task Force members asked that the first and
second bulleted items be combined for clarity. Kohn will re -calculate numbers for this
entire report to reflect the changes made at tonight's meeting..
Task Force members indicated a consensus on the Surface Water Task Force Report with
the above noted changes.
Hurlburt extended an invitation to the Task Force Members on behalf of the Plymouth
City Council to join them for a light dinner in recognition of their efforts. Dinner will
be served at 5:30 p.m. in the employee lunchroom before the 6:30 p.m. May 18th Council
Meeting.
Discuss Presentation to City Council
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked the Task Force members how they
wanted to present their report to the Council. She said options include presentation by
Task Force members, staff or a combination thereof. Hurlburt suggested the possibility
of a brief power point presentation summarizing key issues. Two Task Force members
suggested that having Hurlburt make the presentation would eliminate biased opinions.
Hurlburt agreed to prepare and deliver the presentation. She added that the Council
would possibly ask questions based on the Task Force recommendations and suggested
that other staff could also help with technical answers. The Task Force agreed that this
was their report and they would all stand behind it.
It was understood that any action that the Council would take would occur at a future
City Council meeting.
This meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m.
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6f
Adopted Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Monday, May
18th, 2004
Task Force Members Present Absent
1. Gracie Azine
2. Karla Anderson
3. Cal Baldry 8:07 arrival
4. Bonnie Bronstad X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. Paul Christgau
7. Terrie Christian
8. Richard Dunn
9. Jack Gassner
10. James Griffin
11. Lee Keeley
12. Ken King
13. Richard Manthe X
14. Larry Marofsky
15. Don Maxwell X
16. Jack Moe
17. Gary Ness
18. Tom Orr X
19. Kathy Osborne
20. Keith Pizzala
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek X
23. David Roy X
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer
26. Jerry Unger
27. Mark Wollschlager
Also present: Mayor Johnson, Community Development Director Hurlburt, City
Engineer Quanbeck, Public Works Director Faulkner, Finance Director Hahn, Financial
Analyst Kohn, City Manager Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support
Representative Langer.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18th, 2004
Page 2 of 8
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Tuesday, May 18th, 2004.
Community Development Director Hurlburt welcomed the task force members and asked
for introductions.
Approval of Minutes
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for approval of the minutes from the
May 10th, 2004 Surface Water Task Force meeting. With no changes, the minutes were
approved.
Review Surface Water Task Force Draft Report to City Council 5/18/04
City Manager Laurie Ahrens began by explaining the reason for tonight's meeting.
Since the May 10th meeting six members have indicated they were not comfortable with
the Surface Water Task Force report as it stands because they felt that some of their
issues had not been addressed. Because of these concerns, she felt that we needed to
address the issue again. City Manager Ahrens cautioned that she did not want to see all
the work up until this point wasted, and expressed her hope that there may be a
consensus if we work through some issues.
City Manager Ahrens agreed the process had been hurried, explaining that the Council
gave the task force a deadline and staff had worked backwards from that date to set up
the meetings. Work to address flood damage suffered by nine property owners in June of
2003 is on hold, pending the recommendations of the task force. Ahrens cautioned that
there is some hurry in moving forward, but at the same time this is an important issue that
will take time.
Community Development Director Hurlburt presented the draft PowerPoint Presentation
Handout # 66) based on the draft task force report as of the May 10 meeting. Task force
members pointed out a couple of typographical errors in the presentation. Hurlburt
explained that these would be corrected, and any other changes necessary to reflect the
final task force report, before it is presented to the City Council.
A task force member referenced recommendation #15 and asked if it should read
minimize the annual fee increase" or "minimize the initial fee increase". Hurlburt
suggested that the group clarify the intent of this recommendation when reviewing that
portion of the report.
Discuss Issues Raised since May
10th
Meeting
Handouts #61, #62, and #65, comments submitted by task force members, were
distributed and the group was given time to review them.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18"', 2004
Page 3 of 8
Community Development Director Hurlburt suggested that the first issue that should be
addressed is "what is consensus and how do you achieve it". She asked if the group
thought it was reasonable to say that silence was agreement, adding that she wanted to
make sure everyone's issues were brought in. Hurlburt explained that as the report is
written, consensus is defined as general agreement of the group, not that every individual
opinion was represented.
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for a definition from the group on
consensus. A task force member said he doesn't mean 100% agreement, but more of a
general agreement. People may have to compromise. Another task force member said it
is the absence of disagreement (failing to speak out etc.). We ask for people to speak up
and if no one says "no" that is the absence of disagreement. We left the meeting last
week with an overwhelming majority of agreement. That is consensus. Hurlburt asked if
we had 90 % agreement, would that be consensus? A task force member responded that
51/49 is too close, and that would demand a minority report. There is going to be
disagreement in the final process. This is a majority agreement recommendation.
Mayor Johnson said the Council knew this group was diverse asked that it was important
that every individual be treated with respect. If you have concerns, please raise them.
This is your work and we respect this. Johnson said if anyone has something they feel
they needed to get out, to do so tonight.
A task force member said he thought consensus meant a general agreement that the report
was moving forward. Another task force member said that to him consensus was the
absence of disagreement. Hurlburt asked how that would be determined. Another task
force member said consensus was if no one disagrees. A task force member said that she
understands peoples' fear about not wanting to speak up. Another task force member
added that when we left the meeting last week, we had an overwhelming majority of
agreement adding that people can voice their disagreement. He thought that if it's one
out of 27 and all others are agreeing, that would be consensus. He added that 5% is too
small a minority to eliminate consensus.
Another task force member suggested that we just use the term majority opinion instead
of getting hung-up on the word consensus.
Mayor Johnson re -iterated that everyone should speak up, encouraging everyone to raise
their concerns and added that it was critical to the process.
A task force member asked that percentages be clearly identified. Another member
commented that the practical way would be a general agreement, talking concerns
through as we went along point by point. Hurlburt advised going through all the
recommendation statements individually to identify whether there was agreement.
A task force member suggested that consensus was general agreement, while reviewing
the minority and then modifying what you can to bring everyone into general agreement.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18'", 2004
Page 4 of 8
Another task force member added that we need to note in the report if someone has a real
issue — then we've brought it to light.
A task force member thought that the Council should be told that not everyone agrees and
the group liked the idea of a vote rather than a consensus, listing key points and for the
purpose of accuracy, adding how many were for and how many were against rather than
using the word consensus. Another task force member added that it is not just that they
disagreed but how many disagreed and what the substance was behind that.
A task force member said that other members might have thought that the definition of
consensus meant that no one had another opinion on a certain item or could not voice
another opinion in any other way, thinking that they had to absolutely adhere to what had
been decided.
A task force member stated that even though not all the ideas might reach total
agreement, we needed to find a way to identify them, get those ideas into the report and
pass them along to the Council.
Mayor Johnson recapped the process that had been used to select a balanced task force.
The next issue discussed was whether or not everyone understood the assumptions behind
the cost estimates for pond maintenance estimates and the level of maintenance assumed
for the various types of water features. See handout # 63 "Costs and Options of
Maintaining Ponds and Water Features". Financial Analyst Kohn took the group through
the information.
A task force member asked for the definition of maintaining a "clear channel". Financial
analyst Kohn's defined it as removing obstructions that inhibit the flow of water, so that
water does not back up and cause damage. Ponds or wetlands would not be returned to
pre -development conditions. The work to be done would address basic functionality, and
not the aesthetics of these ponds. Each pond needs to be evaluated individually depending
on what we want to do and how much funds are available.
A task force member commented that he objected to the report because the City would be
agreeing to cover ponds that have maintenance agreements, asking why these
maintenance agreements aren't being enforced? Why is the City assuming that
responsibility? Hurlburt explained that that task force had previously learned that if the
City has a program to clean a pond (any of the 800) then we also have an obligation to
consider a request from any homeowner association to also take over their pond (the over
200 covered by maintenance agreements.) Public Works Director Faulkner added
everyone pays the surface water fee so it would be equitable for the City to maintain all
of the ponds, which is why specific language was included in the agreement.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18'h, 2004
Page 5 of 8
A task force member said that when they were appointed to the task force, they believed
that pond cleaning was defined as removing silt, decayed leaves and sediment. Mayor
Johnson and Councilman Black agreed with that recollection.
A task force member stated that the purpose of this task force was to look at water quality
ponds and coming up with some recommendations to gets things started. If future
mandates are coming, we are already way ahead of other communities because we are
accumulating money that will begin the process of taking care of the problem.
A task force member said that the importance of this report was to look at the water
quality ponds and their function in the drainage system of the City and come up with
some recommendations. This report is an excellent first step. It gets the ball rolling and
it provides funding and we all need to remember how important it is to get this process
started.
City Engineer Quanbeck said that the City would need more funds if we chose a level of
maintenance beyond the minimum.
A task force member suggested that we need to ask the question "how much do we want
to do in a pond." If we establish this fund and it starts getting diverted because of other
mandates we will be undermining everything that we have done here because money can
be used for other purposes. When that happens, there needs to be some dialogue as to
additional mandates.
Councilmember Black explained that it is difficult to establish a cost when the costs of
the future mandates are not known. This is an area that is high on the list for grants and
LCMR is one of those places we can go to for grants, and build a budget. This could take
5 years and more likely 8-10 years. These are statewide issues.
Mayor Johnson objected to the term "mission creep" explaining that Council is trying to
stay even with mandates. Every year Council reviews their budget and every year that
budget needs to be re -prioritized.
A task force member suggested that it was beyond the task force's scope to determine
how much pond cleaning we will do adding that she sees magical things happening with
partners, lake associations, water sheds, etc. when it comes to getting this job done.
A task member said that with this report we are just putting a stake in the ground. It has
to be an ongoing type of process.
A task force member suggested that table showing potential fee increases could show a
dollar amount for inflation and a dollar amount for pond funding but not have a column
for enhancements and TMDL's. He thought the last slide in the presentation was where it
belonged. We can also say which ponds may need to have additional funding.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18s', 2004
Page 6 of 8
A task force member said we want to make it very clear what our recommendations are
and what they aren't. If Council wants to have a higher level of maintenance, the
numbers have to be higher. Hurlburt explained that the dollars that are in the example are
strictly for inflation to catch up and added cost of the ponds and nothing else.
Councilmember Black asked that we make clear that the basic level of maintenance.
Black asked that we add a better description of what is included, to make it clear that this
plan means only doing the minimum so people know we are not talking about restoring
those 800 water bodies. Handout #63 could be made an attachment to the report.
Hurlburt asked for a show of hands to see if there is agreement that the report should
include a clear identification of the level of maintenance assumed, and that mandates
such as Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements are not included in the future
fee increases shown in the report. A task force member said that this was actually two
statements rolled into one, and the decision was then made to separate them. Hurlburt
asked if members thought it was clear from the example that the assumption was that we
were assuming a minimum level of maintenance.
A task force member added that what he would like to see is that if the City takes over
the ponds, the City shouldn't maintain the ponds, adding that work should be done by the
resident who owns the property. He thought there should be some standards that they
should have to live by and obey. Hurlburt pointed out that his statement was different
than what we assumed was the general agreement on the basic responsibility of the City,
suggesting that when we go through the individual recommendations, we would get to
that (see recommendation #11). Mayor Johnson added that this was more of the
implementation and detail but she wanted the comment noted. Hurlburt said that we
would get back to this statement clarifying that what we are referring to was that example
of the fee and what kinds of assumptions are in there and how that fee is portrayed.
A task force member added that if we were going to change the handout, the paragraph
about restoration and enhancement should be separated from the paragraph about
aesthetics.
A task force member asked for clarification on the term maintenance, asking if we were
actually talking about cleaning operations. Hurlburt said that maintenance here referred
to ponds and the basic level of maintenance assumed for the fee example. It is one thing
for the NURP ponds and it's another thing for the other 800 ponds.
Hurlburt added that we would have to decide if we are going to come back in a meeting
to see what the final version of the report is going to look like. Staff will make changes
based on the direction given tonight. Any changes would also be made in the visual
presentation.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18'h, 2004
Page 7 of 8
Hurlburt also suggested that we could reference the surface water plan and what could be
covered by the fee in the background section of the report about understanding water
issues. There were no objections.
A task force member requested adding a specific list of other funding sources. Hurlburt
referred the task force members to page 6, recommendation #6, which states, "investigate
and apply for any available grants or aid to supplement local funding sources." She said
that a lot of specific programs were available, but our report was written generally to
cover any such funding source.
A task force member suggested that we move recommendation # 6 into the section on
funding, changing it from #6 to #16, and renumber all the recommendations. Task force
members moved and seconded that change, and the motion passed unanimously.
A task force member suggested to take the table from the bottom of page 9 and make it
an attachment, rather than in the body of the report, so that it would be seen more clearly
as an example rather than a recommendation. Hurlburt said the entire section on the
utility fee proposal could be made an attachment if the group desired.
Hurlburt asked the group how many wanted to leave the table of possible fee increases in
the report and how many wanted it out of the body of the report and added as an
attachment. 10 task force members wanted to leave the table in the body of the report
and 8 task force members disagreed. Discussion continued. A task force member
expressed his fears that we may not agree with these numbers, and we have debated
whether these numbers were a good assumption as far as where the Council should be.
He added it should state that this is our assumption and where Council could start their
work. Hurlburt said if we could re -frame the table on #9 and make sure that it is clearly
presented as an example, perhaps we could leave it in the body of the report.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the figures be kept it in the body of the report when it is
presented to the Council. Another vote was taken, and this time a majority (11 to 9)
appeared to agree to keep the table in the report.
A task force member expressed concerns that our recommendations were very general
and very much at a policy level commenting that we needed to educate people, change
regulations that encourage folks to help with water quality. This task force report was
written as a very general policy level, not at an implementation level. Staff distributed
handout #64 "Continuum of Possible Recommendations Policy vs. Implementation,
Examples for Surface Water Task Force." Mayor Johnson commented that the Council
expected recommendations to be at a policy level, not implementation. A motion was
made that we try to stay at a policy level per Council's direction. The motion passed
unanimously.
Adopted
Surface Water Task Force on May 18'", 2004
Page 8 of 8
A task force member asked if there was any way we could recommend implementing the
proposed 2004 fee increase, and send it to the Council tonight and get the flooding issue
taken care of
Hurlburt pointed out that recommendation # 15 should probably refer specifically to pond
maintenance. She asked if it was okay if staff made this and other changes discussed so
the task force could review them at the next meeting. Task force members agreed
overwhelmingly.
A task force member stated that they understood that there were a lot of water quality
issues, adding that the ponds are a part of that but not the whole of it. Council directed
the task force to look at ponds but the concern is that are we just focusing on the ponds
and then might not have enough money for surface water management. Councilmember
Black said that Council will have to set priorities.
Community Development Director Hurlburt suggested that at the next meeting the task
force should go through the entire report item by item. If an issue does not have general
agreement, we would include it in the report indicating to Council specific concerns and
results of a show of hands.
Task force members agreed to meet again at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 26th. The
meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 6g
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force
Monday, May
26th, 2004
Also present: Mayor Johnson, Community Development Director Hurlburt, City
Engineer Quanbeck, Public Works Director Faulkner, Financial Analyst Kohn, City
Manager Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Tuesday, May 26th, 2004
Task Force Members Present Absent
1. Gracie Azine X
2. Karla Anderson
3. Cal Baldry X
4. Bonnie Bronstad X
5. Steve Chesebrough
6. IPaul Christ au
7. Terrie Christian
8. Richard Dunn X
9. Jack Gassner
10. James Griffin
11. Lee Keeley
12. IKen Kin
13. Richard Manthe X
14. Larry Marofsky
15. Don Maxwell
16. Jack Moe X
17. lGary Ness
18. Tom Orr X
19. Kathy Osborne (Non-voting)
20. Keith Pizzala
21. Dick Plufka
22. Tov Rezabek
23. jDavid Roy X
24. Pete Savage
25. Robert Schafer
26. Jerry Unger
27. Mark Wollschla er
Also present: Mayor Johnson, Community Development Director Hurlburt, City
Engineer Quanbeck, Public Works Director Faulkner, Financial Analyst Kohn, City
Manager Ahrens, Councilmember Black & Office Support Representative Langer.
A meeting of the Surface Water Task Force was held beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the Lunch
Room of City Hall, 3400 Plymouth Blvd. on Tuesday, May 26th, 2004
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26", 2004
Page 2 of 1 I
Community Development Director Hurlburt welcomed the task force members and asked
for introductions.
Approval of Minutes
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for approval of the minutes from the
May 18th, 2004 Surface Water Task Force meeting. With no changes, the minutes were
approved with all members in favor.
Review Draft Report
Hurlburt suggested going through the report page -by -page and paragraph -by -paragraph to
make any changes.
Motion made by Dick Plufka that the task force approve all of the report through page
four. The motion was seconded.
A change was requested to reflect the correct number of meetings held by the task force.
Hurlburt said the number would be changed to reflect the final number. Hurlburt asked if
any member had an issue with the report up to "Reaching Agreement" on page 4. With
no objections, that portion of the report was approved with the technical correction to the
number of meetings.
Amendment: On page 5, second paragraph, under "Reaching Agreement", the request
was made to change the word "found" to "agreed". Larry Marofsky suggested adding the
word "likely" to a sentence in the third paragraph on page 5, to read as follows:
Looking for outside sources of revenues for on-going operations (such as grants or
getting other agencies to pay) should be done but would likely not provide adequate
funding."
With those two changes noted, Hurlburt asked if everyone was in agreement with the
section titled "Reaching Agreement", through the middle of page 6. With all in favor and
none opposed, there was agreement.
Motion made by Dick Plufka to adopt general recommendation 1 as written. Tov
Rezabek seconded that motion. Hurlburt asked if there was any discussion. With none
raised, Hurlburt asked for a show of hands on recommendation 1. With 17 members
voting, and 1 abstention the motion passed.
Motion made by Dick Plufka for the adoption of general recommendation 2 as written.
Lee Keeley seconded the motion.
Amendment: Steve Chesebrough suggested taking the word "help" at the end of the
sentence and changing it to "take personal responsibility." Hurlburt asked who would
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26'x, 2004
Page 3 of 11
like to see that change made. With a show of hands, 11 members were in favor and three
were against. Four members abstained.
Amendment: Kathy Osborne suggested adding "and provide technical assistance" to the
first sentence of recommendation 2. Keith Pizzala seconded the motion.
Mark Wollschlager asked for a definition of "technical assistance." Councilmember
Black clarified that we currently provide a level of technical assistance by organizing
workshops, going out to a site to identify erosion areas, suggest plantings, phone calls,
etc. Hurlburt asked for a vote on adding the language "and provide technical assistance"
to the beginning of recommendation 2. With 12 in favor, two opposed, and 4 abstaining,
general agreement was reached.
Amendment: Jerry Unger suggested adding the sentence, "Evaluate the effectiveness of
education programs" to the end of recommendation 2. Dick Plufka seconded that motion.
With 12 members in favor, 2 against and 4 abstaining, the motion to approve the
amendment passed.
Hurlburt read recommendation 2 as amended: "Continue to educate and provide technical
assistance to the public about water quality and drainage issues and about what they as
homeowners and property owners can do in their own yards to take personal
responsibility. Evaluate the effectiveness of education programs." Hurlburt asked for
any more amendments. With no amendments offered, the main motion was then up for a
vote. With 14 in favor, 2 against and 2 members abstaining, the motion passed.
Dick Plufka moved for the adoption of recommendation 3. The motion was seconded.
Don Maxwell proposed an amendment to recommendation 3, to add a new sentence,
Increase enforcement of regulations." After discussion, Hurlburt asked for a vote. The
vote was 8 members in favor, 9 members against and 1 member abstaining. Hurlburt
noted that there was not a consensus and the motion failed.
A motion was made to accept recommendation 3 as written, with no additions. The
motion was seconded. The vote was 15 members in favor, with 3 against. The motion
passed.
Mark Wollschlager moved to re -open recommendation 3 to revise the beginning of the
sentence from "consider changing" to "change." Lee Keeley seconded that motion.
After discussion, the motion was withdrawn.
Motion was made by Steve Chesebrough to change recommendation 4 to strike the word
prevent" and change it to "reduce". Lee Keeley seconded the motion. Hurlburt asked
for a vote. With 18 in favor and none against, the motion carried. Hurlburt asked for a
vote on recommendation 4 as amended. With all 18 members in favor, the motion
passed.
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 260', 2004
Page 4 of 11
Hurlburt asked for a vote on recommendation 5 as written. With no amendments, the
recommendation passed unanimously.
The motion was made and seconded to accept recommendation 6 as written. Hurlburt
asked for discussion or amendments. Hearing none, the vote was taken. With 18 votes in
favor the motion passed unanimously.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept recommendation 7 as written, Tov Rezabek
seconded that motion. Hurlburt asked members for a vote. With 17 votes in favor, none
against and 1 member abstaining, the motion passed.
Motion was made by Tov Rezabek to accept recommendation 8 as written. Jerry Unger
seconded that motion. Hurlburt called for a vote and with 17 members in favor and 1
abstaining, the motion passed.
Steve Chesebrough moved to amend recommendation 9 to add a second sentence that
would say the City should endeavor to maintain water quality programs once initiated.
Without a second the motion died.
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked for a show of hands to adopt
recommendation 9 as written. All 18 task force members were in favor.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept recommendation 10 as written. Steve
Chesebrough seconded that motion. With 17 in favor and 1 against, the motion carried.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept recommendation 11 as written_ Tov Rezabek
seconded that motion.
Steve Chesebrough moved to insert the word "annually" before inspect. Pete Savage
seconded that motion. After discussion, a vote was taken. With 1 member in favor and
17 members opposed, the amendment failed.
A vote was taken on recommendation 11 as written. With 17 in favor and 1 against, the
motion carried.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka for the adoption of recommendation 12. The motion
was seconded.
Don Maxwell moved an amendment to recommendation 12 to add a preamble to connect
it to recommendation 10: "As necessary to execute its responsibility to maintain water
quality and flood prevention..." The motion was seconded.
A vote was taken on the amendment. With 16 in favor, 1 against and 1 member
abstaining, the amendment passed.
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26i', 2004
Page 5 of I I
A vote was taken on recommendation 12 as amended. With 16 members in favor, none
opposed and 1 abstaining, the motion carried.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept recommendation 13 as written. Tov Rezabek
seconded that motion. With all 18 members in favor, the motion passed.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept recommendation 14. Terrie Christian said
she had concerns regarding the water quality issue. She thought this recommendation
was limiting the increase of the fee to pond maintenance only. Larry Marofsky proposed
an amendment to clarify it was for long-term water quality and flooding needs. Dick
Plufka seconded the amendment.
Robert Schafer suggested the recommendation should just say surface water funds. Keith
Pizzala asked if pond maintenance meant erosion. Hurlburt explained that the broader
language would include it. The fee increase modeled in the report is based on pond
maintenance.
It was suggested that the language should include water quality, drainage and flooding.
Hurlburt suggested using the language from the first bullet on page 2 ("water quality
mandates, pond cleaning, flooding and drainage issues") and substituting it for "pond
maintenance" at the end of recommendation 14.
Gary Ness suggested changing the wording of recommendation 14 so it would read
minimize the annual fee increase and increase it gradually over five years to cover long-
term needs for water quality mandates, pond cleaning, flooding and drainage issues."
Hurlburt asked for a vote and 16 members were in favor and 2 abstained to approve the
amendment.
Amendment was proposed by Jerry Unger to change "minimize the annual fee increase"
to "minimize the initial fee increase." Tov Rezabek seconded that motion. Asking for a
vote, Hurlburt found 18 in favor and none against.
A vote was taken on recommendation 14 as amended. With 18 members in favor, the
motion passed.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept recommendation 15 without any
amendments. James Griffin seconded that motion. Hurlburt asked for a vote and 17
members were in favor and 1 member abstained.
Motion was made by Larry Marofsky to accept recommendation 16 as written and
seconded by Steve Chesebrough. With all task force members in favor, the motion
passed.
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 260', 2004
Page 6 of 11
Motion was made by Steve Chesebrough to add a new recommendation that the City
clearly explain the surface water fee to residents and fee payers and how the funds will be
used, and include it in annual reports. This would be added in the General
Recommendations section and become number 7, with the following recommendations to
be renumbered. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken. With 16 in favor, 1
against and 1 abstaining, the motion passed.
Hurlburt then asked if there were any other recommendations.
Motion was made by Keith Pizzala that homeowners associations and property owners
work together to clean their own ponds instead of the City taking them over. Pete Savage
seconded this motion for purpose of discussion. A vote was taken. With 1 member in
favor, 16 opposed and 1 member abstaining, the motion failed.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept all recommendations as amended, and to
accept the following section on page 8 through the first bullet on page 9.
Larry Marofsky asked for an amendment to insert the word "minimum" after "revenues"
in the first paragraph, so it would read "minimum revenues." The amendment was
seconded. Hurlburt called for a vote and with 16 voting in favor, none against and 2
abstaining, the amendment carried.
Larry Marofsky made the motion that we indent and reformat the 2nd and 4th bullet
points, with no change in wording, to make it clear they were subordinate to the 1 st and
3`d bullets. With 17 in favor and 1 abstaining the amendment passed.
Maxwell expressed concern that the second bullet encourages a "dump it downstream"
attitude.
Hurlburt asked for any additional specific amendments to the document from the top of 8
to the top of page 9 besides adding the word minimum and then the two indents. Hearing
none, Hurlburt asked for a vote on accepting page 8 through the 1 st bullet on page 9 as
written. 17 were in favor, none against and 1 abstained.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept page 9 as written. Tov Rezabek seconded
that motion.
Larry Marofsky proposed that we amend the example to clarify that the revenue shortfall
was based on a budget increase to cover additional pond maintenance as contemplated in
the previous section. Marofsky also suggested deleting the word wetlands in that section.
Hurlburt clarified that the shortfall was for "additional" pond maintenance "not now
included in the budget." The word "wetland" would be more accurately stated as "water
features." A vote was taken on the amendment, and with 17 in favor and one
abstention, the amendment was approved.
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 20h, 2004
Page 7 of 11
Motion was made to accept the "Current Revenue Shortfall" section with the suggested
amendments to the text. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken, with 17 in favor
and one abstention.
Motion was made by Dick Plufka to accept pages 10 and 11. Tov Rezabek seconded that
motion.
Robert Schafer asked that the table illustrating possible surface water fee increases be
split to separate the inflationary increase from the increase needed for additional pond
maintenance.
Don Maxwell asked if the inflation factor is also applied to pond maintenance. Hurlburt
indicated that there is an inflation factor applied to both the existing and new
expenditures. Pete Savage said if the table were split it would show how much he will be
charged for cleaning another resident's pond.
Larry Marofsky expressed his concern that people might think this table is part of the
recommendations. Ken King reminded the group that not everything in this report is a
recommendation. Robert Schafer explained that there will be an increase in the fee and
what he wants to illustrate is how much more that is going to cost the average person
because of pond maintenance. Dick Plufka added that he thinks it is up to the council to
tell the public how the fee works. Mark Wollschlager suggested that if this table stays as
an example that actual fee increases could be a lot different.
Motion was made to amend the chart to show the fee increases for ongoing expenditures
and new pond maintenance costs in two separate columns. The motion was seconded.
Hurlburt asked for a vote on the amendment. The motion passed with 11 members in
favor, 7 against. The decision was made to revise the table.
Terrie Christian expressed her concern that the City does not have the money to carry out
all the projects that are needed, but that the report said that the entire fee increase would
be used for pond maintenance. Hurlburt pointed out that the illustration included an
inflationary increase for the ongoing expenditures, not just the new pond maintenance
work.
Hurlburt stated that the motion was now to accept the bottom of page 9 through page 11,
with one amendment to revise the table.
Jerry Unger suggested an amendment to the last sentence on page 10, to indicate that
there may be 100 additional "NURP" ponds in the future. The motion was seconded.
With 17 members in favor, 1 against and 1 abstaining, the amendment passed.
A vote was taken on the main motion to accept the remainder of the report as amended.
With 14 members in favor and 4 against (Christian, Maxwell, Anderson and Marofsky)
the motion carried.
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26s, 2004
Page 8 of 11
Hurlburt asked how to address the remaining concerns. One option suggested was to add
a Section 13 to the appendix for individual comments, noting that these recommendations
weren't part of the group's findings.
Motion was made by Larry Marofsky to add a Section 13 to the appendix, and Tov
Rezabek seconded that motion. People who have concerns could write a letter or send an
e-mail expressing them. This section would merely be a mechanism to include the
comments but wouldn't necessarily give specific concerns any more weight.
Lee Keeley asked exactly what problems were causing the dissention that required two
additional meetings. Robert Schafer said that the task force was supposed to reach
general agreement and that adding a Section 13 would undermine the whole task force.
Pete Savage said he was offended to have been called back after the task force had agreed
on its final report. Jerry Unger added that he felt there had been general agreement.
Mayor Johnson explained that there were 6 task force members who felt uncomfortable
about the report as it stood and these members were saying that there wasn't consensus.
Johnson added that this would have affected its credibility in front of the Council. Not
only did these 6 members of the task force say they were not going to support the report,
they had said they would actively oppose it. Mayor Johnson said that they had valid
concerns on diverse issues and suggested that we try to go back to the mission of the task
force.
Gary Ness said he had concerns about the report, but some of his questions have been
addressed regarding water quality, educating the public, preventative maintenance, pond
maintenance, and funding being all-inclusive.
Lee Keeley said everyone has a right to not agree, however in this case timing was an
issue. Concerns should have been expressed at an open meeting and the task force could
have dealt with these objections rather than prepare to go to the council with negative
reports. Larry Marofsky clarified that members should be able to suggest additional
things. The report is based on general consensus. People did raise other issues that could
be included in the report. Mayor Johnson said some of this group's concerns were about
implementation.
Larry Marofsky asked that those persons who don't care to air their grievances publicly
to stand up and speak about their disagreements. Marofsky said adding the appendix
would be similar to individuals sitting down and writing an independent letter. Jerry
Unger said that he doesn't want members taking shots at the general agreement.
Don Maxwell said there is a remarkable amount of agreement in this group and he is
surprised that there is as much agreement as we have. An honest disagreement is still an
honest disagreement. He said he was not comfortable with the examples given adding
that they were not ambitious enough. He suggested that the task force did not present
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26'', 2004
Page 9 of 11
enough options. He spoke of the pressures on the City Council when they have to
increase funding and fee revenues. What happens if we don't make ambitious and
forward-looking recommendations? He said the task force should recommend a healthy
program and let the City Council decide.
Karla Anderson said her concern was that we have identified funding but we have not
prioritized currently planned programs such as Medicine Lake, Parkers Lake and other
lake plans that are to be developed.
Dick Plufka asked what amount would cover these issues. Ginny Black said that some
people think that the surface water plan should be changed or they would like to add
priorities. Black said that the "Target Gorge" might soon become a part of the Medicine
Lake Plan. Black said Council would be reviewing all the plans in June and putting
together a budget for next year. The budget is re-examined yearly. Re -prioritizing the
surface water plan is outside the scope of the task force.
Mayor Johnson stated that one task force member had wanted more specific
recommendations for the non-NURP ponds, and was concerned that the fee increase
would not provide enough funding to clean such ponds for aesthetic purposes. His issue
was implementation. It was been mentioned that there may be a few people who felt the
process was flawed and that this task force should go in more depth regarding
implementation. The Mayor directed the group to the task force mission statement on
page 2 of the report.
City Manager Ahrens said that we had planned to cablecast the presentation to the
Council, and to invite legislators. Staff had previously suggested a 5% increase in the
surface water fee, which was not approved. Ahrens said she believed that the Council
needed to see that the bulk of members were in agreement.
A vote was taken on the motion to add Section 13 to the appendix, for individual member
comments. With 7 members in favor and I 1 against, the motion failed.
Don Maxwell said that he was supportive of what this task force has done but he would
like to see a more ambitions report.
Hurlburt asked if there were any more additions or changes to the report.
Don Maxwell suggested that staff should run one more calculation that could show the
fee increase needed to generate an additional $100,000. The motion was seconded by
Dick Plufka. The motion passed, all 18 members in favor.
Community Development Director Hurlburt asked if the group wanted to come back for
one more meeting to review the final version. If not, she suggested that the task force
take a final vote on the whole report. Mark Wollschlager asked that we vote on making
the changes before anyone leaves.
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26h, 2004
Page 10 of 11
Lee Keeley stated her concern about the flooded residents, because the meeting with the
Council might be put off until July. Hurlburt said that any action on the flooding issues
would be up to the City Council. Mark Wollschlager said he was one of the flooded
residents and he was okay with that.
A vote was taken on the entire report, as amended. The motion passed, with 15 people
voting in favor. Karla Anderson and Terrie Christian voted against the motion and Don
Maxwell abstained.
Terrie Christian said she supports everything up to page 10. Her understanding in
coming here was to look at the total of the surface water fee. She didn't understand that
this was just about ponds until the May
18th meeting. Her observation was that after page
10 the focus switched from surface water to ponds. Currently Plymouth Creek is
unfunded. She asked that the task force look at all those things that might be needed.
She would like to see flooding be a first priority. After that, she would like to see
priorities regarding how the funds are spent. We have known that the "Target NURP
Gorge" has been putting tons of sediment into the lake but there are no funds in the
budget to get that job done.
Karla Anderson said she appreciated Mike Kohn's handout showing the difference
between a tax and a fee, but that she felt levy limits protect taxpayers in a way the fee
does not.
Mayor Johnson explained that the overall priorities are played out at budget meetings.
This group was given a narrow focus and she expressed her hope that members would
keep participating in surface water issues in other ways.
Don Maxwell expressed said he had hoped that the report might include a more ambitious
program. He added that he thinks this task force has done a great job.
Hurlburt asked how the presentation to Council should be handled. It had previously
been decided that she would present, somewhat by default. Mayor Johnson reminded
everyone that the ultimate decision was up to the task force.
Motion by Tov Rezabek that Hurlburt deliver the power point presentation. Paul
Christgau seconded the motion. A vote was taken, 17 in favor and 1 against the motion.
Don Maxwell said he would like to have the presentation come from a task force
Member. City Manager Ahrens suggested Hurlburt could give the presentation and
perhaps a task force member could give an introduction. Hurlburt said all task force
members would be introduced up front along with staff. Mayor Johnson explained that
she would like to see the Council be given an overview of the process. Mayor Johnson
suggested a task force member with a lower profile as a good candidate for this
presentation. Tov agreed that it would be best that the spokesperson not be identified
Proposed Minutes
Surface Water Task Force on May 26s, 2004
Page 11 of 11
with a particular interest group. Larry Marofsky volunteered, and Robert Schafer
nominated Larry. With no other volunteers coming forward, Hurlburt suggested she
could share the presentation with Larry if the group was comfortable with that. Larry
would introduce the task force members and talk about the process as a representative of
the group and then he would turn it over to Hurlburt to go through recommendations and
examples. Hurlburt added that Council might ask questions of the task force.
City Manager Ahrens said each task force member will receive a certificate in
appreciation for their service, and there will be a dinner as previously planned. Mayor
Johnson added that she appreciated everyone's hard work.
Hurlburt proposed that on June 8th the Council could be asked to set July 12th as the date
for the Surface Water Task Force presentation, but added that a firm date would be
determined based on Council's schedule.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:42 p.m.
Sheila Langer, Office Support Representative
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 7
Surface Water Task Force
Draft Recommendations for Discussion
April 22, 2004
General Recommendations
1. Continue water quality planning efforts in cooperation with Plymouth's four watersheds.
Set specific goals and priorities, and monitor their achievement.
2. Continue to educate the public about water quality issues, and about what they as
homeowners and property owners can do in their own yards to help.
3. Consider changing any development and maintenance standards and regulations that
conflict with water quality goals, such as limitations on alternatives to lawns or
requirements that increase impervious surfaces.
4. Ensure that the drainage system and ponds are designed with adequate capacity so as to
prevent flooding and decrease the need for maintenance in the future.
5. The preventive maintenance program must include regular inspection of the drainage
system and ponds, to identify problems and set priorities for both water quality and flood
control.
6. Investigate and apply for any available grants or aid to supplement local funding sources.
7. Investigate ways to make pond cleaning more economical and efficient, such as using
volunteers, new technology, and/or finding economic uses for resulting fill materials.
Budgeting Principles
8. Funding should be adequate to cover the City's operating and maintenance
responsibilities for surface water infrastructure.
9. All funds collected from the surface water fee should be dedicated to that purpose.
Responsibility for Ponds—What is the City's Role?
10. The City should take responsibility for maintaining the water quality and flood
prevention functions of all ponds (man-made) and wetlands (natural), not subject to pond
maintenance agreements, which are part of the City's drainage system.
11. The City should take over responsibility from HOA's/property owners for maintaining
the water quality and flood prevention functions of all ponds subject to maintenance
agreements.
12. The City should take over responsibility from HOA's/property owners for maintaining
the water quality and flood prevention functions of ponds subject to maintenance
agreements, but only under certain condition(s) such as:
a. Ponds are first brought up to City standards or are cleaned for the first time.
b. Payment is made to the City to cover the cost of bringing the pond up to
standards.
13. The City should not take over responsibility for any ponds subject to maintenance
agreements.
a. HOA's/property owners that maintain their own ponds may receive a credit/
financial incentive from the City for doing so.
Fees or Taxes?
14. The surface water fee should be a fee, not a tax, so it applies to all property in the City.
15. Surface water costs should be paid for from general tax revenues, so they are deductible
on state and federal tax returns.
Surface Water Fee
16. Minimize the annual fee increase and increase it gradually over several years to cover
long-term needs.
17. Charge a higher fee for properties that abut all ponds or wetlands.
18. Bond to catch up on unfunded expenses until such time as revenues are adequate to pay
for needs on an annual basis, about $400,000 per year.
19. Don't increase the surface water fee; decrease other City budgets to cover surface water
needs.
Funding Sources other than Surface Water Fees
20. Assign all ponds and wetlands to properties that benefit, and then assess the cost of their
maintenance to those properties.
21. Charge developers a fee to cover future maintenance of new ponds.
22. Charge fees or increase fees for activities that have water quality impacts, such as for
variances to increase impervious surface coverage in shoreland areas.
23. Do not provide additional local funds for surface water issues, but wait for other agencies
or levels of government to do so.
Miscellaneous
24. The City should subcontract pond cleaning rather than using city labor to perform the
work.
25. Surface water fees should be used only for outside costs or contracted work, not for the
City's internal expenses.
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 8
Utility Fee vs. Tax — Points to Consider
The property tax has been, and may continue to be, subject to levy limits.
The only way to raise the property tax and avoid levy limits would be to establish
a series of special taxing districts. This would require public hearings for each
district and extensive segregations of costs.
Utility fees can be set based upon any reasonable criteria. Property taxes are
based purely on tax capacity value.
Property taxes are eligible for itemization on state and federal income tax. Utility
fees are not.
Utility fees can be levied on tax exempt properties.
Shifting from a utility fee to a property tax basis would result in a 46% rate
increase to the average residential property. Commercial properties, which have a
greater percentage of impervious surface, would see a reduction in costs.
Utility fees are more economically efficient since they can be constructed to
reward or punish consumer behavior.
Property taxes are not legally dedicated. Surface water utility funds can only be
used for storm water purposes as defined by state statute.
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 9
Itemized Deductions
Zip Codes Returns Itemized Percentage
55441 9,389 4,181 44.53%
55442 6,308 3,707 58.77%
55446 5,593 3,484 62.29%
55447 11,067 6,122 55.32%
Totals 32,357 17,494 54.07%
Source: 1998 IRS Statistics
Current Annual Fee $39.00
Average Highest Fed Tax Rate (2003) 25.00%
Average Highest State Tax Rate (2004) 7.05%
Average Tax Reduction (per return) $12.50
Total (Maximum) Savings $218,666.25
Loss of Tax Exempt Revenues $123,232.32
Net Gain/Loss) $95,433.93
Note: Savings assume no one is subject to alternative
minimum tax. In addition, not all persons who itemize
necessarily pay the surface water fee. Consequently,
the calculated amount of savings from itemized deductions
is likely somewhat high.
Itemized Deductions.xls
Incidence of Surface Water Revenues
Fee Dollars Percent
Residential (2003) $690,139.61 43.29%
Commercial (2003) $904,164.14 56.71%
Total $1,594,303.75 100.00%
Property Tax Tax Capacity Percent Fees - New Allocation Difference Percent Change
Residential (2004) 59,863,655.00 63.22% 1,007,939.65 $317,800.04 46.05%
Commercial (2004) 34,825,397.00 36.78% 586,364.10 -$317,800.04 -35.15%
Total 94,689,052.00 100.00% 1,594,303.75
Average Home Sale Price $323,900.00
Average Surface Water Tax $54.54
Current Residential Surface Water Fee $39.00
Net Gain/Loss Average Resident (no income tax impact) -$15.54
Note: The average commercial property would not seethe full 35% reduction because tax exempt properties previously paid about $121,000 or
13.4% of commercial fees. The real commercial relief would be about 25% for the average taxable property.
Itemized Deductions.xls
C
y
0
SCD
G
y
r*
CD
y
y
so O
0 C1
CD
CD
O
O
Surface Water Task Force Report
Attachment 11
2004 Residential Storm Water Utility Rates
Higher if greater than 1/3 acre.
2004 Stormwater Rate Survey.xls
Monthlv Annual
Golden Valley 6.33 75.96
Burnsville 5.67 68.04
New Hope 5.57 66.84
Savage 5.23 62.76
Hopkins 4.00 48.00
Apple Valley 3.98 47.76
Brooklyn Center 3.95 47.40
Bloomington 3.82 45.84
Minnetonka 3.50 42.00
Plymouth 3.25 39.00
Richfield 3.11 37.32
Wayzata 2.88 34.56
St. Louis Park 2.40 28.80
Eagan 2.33 27.96
Chanhassen 1.67 20.04
Eden Prairie 1.00 12.00
Average 3.67 44.02
Higher if greater than 1/3 acre.
2004 Stormwater Rate Survey.xls
Costs and Options of Maintaining Ponds and Water Features
NURP" Ponds - Covered By Maintenance Agreements
vvater reatures in oris category are constructed ponds speatically Other water features are classified as
designed to detain and treat run-off to a specific standard. These 43 exceptional quality wetlands
ponds have been required in response to Federal and State law since131 high quality wetlands
1990. The ponds average about 1/2 acre in size and 4 feet in depth. 501 medium quality wetlands11195lowqualitywetlands
22 storm water ponds
non -classified
Other Water Features
800
Surface Water Task Force Repor
estrictions None 96 wetland basins (those 2.5 acres and larger) are DNR protected waters. A DNR permit is required for all work in these
In the past the DNR has been agreeable to basic maintenance that reduces or eliminates flood potential.
Attachment 1
The Wetland Conservation Act covers all water features that are not man-made or protected by the DNR. The City is the governing
authority for the Wetland Conservation Act. Technically, some water features could be "restored" by the excavation of material
if it can be proved that it is the result of recent siltation.
33 water features not classified or constructed as storm water ponds are not restricted.
ntenance NURP ponds are expected to be cleaned every 15 years on average.The base level of maintenance envisioned for most of these water features would be the removal of obstructions to the flow of water
This would include the removal of obstructions from inlets and outlets, which could have flooding related impacts. This would be accomplished by cleaning inlets and outlets, and maintaining a clear
and returning the pond to its designed depth and volume. The "channel" for the conveyance of storm water. This would result in the removal of some silt, plant material, and debris. This level of
major task would be the removal of large amounts of silt and plant maintenance has been allowed by the DNR and is consistent with the Wetlands Conservation Act. The 33 unprotected features would
material that would be causing obstructions and reducing pond likely be maintained to a level similar to the NURP ponds. This base level of maintenance, which is what is assumed in the taskforce's
depth, volume, and effectiveness. NURP pond cleaning would done current report, is designed to address basic functionality rather than aesthetics.
for water quality and not aesthetic reasons.
Some water features in the City may be eligible for "restoration" or even "enhancement". This would require the evaluation of each
individual water feature and its role in the surface water system. The dredging of a water feature to its pre -siltation condition may
have negative flooding, water quality, and plant and animal diversity and habitat implications. Any such activities need to be
thoroughly evaluated and prioritized so that funds can be spent where they are most effective.
costs will liKery vary between $2,500 and $25,000 depending on the Costs for the base maintenance envisioned in the task force report will likely vary between several hundred and $20,000 per
size, location, and condition of the ponds. An average cost of water feature based upon their size, location, and condition. The average cost of $7,500 is based upon actual costs paid in 2002 and
15,000 per pond is based on the following assumptions: 2003 which averaged $6,000 for excavation. An additional $1,500 has been added to cover the cost of trucking and site restoration.
Ponds are 1/2 acre in size. "Restoration" or "enhancement" costs would vary greatly based upon the scope and purpose of the project. If a few key water features
Ponds are reasonably located with adequate truck and equipment are restored or enhanced for water quality (such as the wetland on the southwest side of Medicine Lake) the cost could be in the
access. $500,000 to $3,000,000 range.
The average pond will require the removal of about 1.5 feet of
material. If it is desired that all water features should be excavated for aesthetic reasons (which would never be allowed by the regulatoryItwillcostabout $10 per yard of material removed. authorities) the cost would be approximately $91,321,120 per foot of material removed. This amounts to $113,725 per non-NURP
There may be some additional costs for restoration, tree removal, etc.water feature or $6,088,075 per year assuming a 15 year cycle. This calculation is based on the following assumptions:
The City will have a disposal site available.
The City has 2,830 acres of wetlands-
One foot of material is removed from all wetlands. (Note: to excavate for aesthetics, water features would have to be at least 4 feet
deep to avoid weed regrowth.)
4,566,056 yards of material would have to be removed which is well beyond the means of the City to store or relocate.
It would cost $10 per yard to have the material removed.
It would cost $10 per yard to have the material trucked out of the City to another disposal site.
Pond - Wetland Maintenance Chart.xls