MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF

THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT

BOARD OF MANAGERS

August 6, 2009

CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was called to order by President James Calkins at 7:00 p.m. at the District offices, 18202 Minnetonka Boulevard, Deephaven, Minnesota. 

MANAGERS PRESENT

James Calkins, Pamela Blixt, Richard Miller, Lee Keeley, Jeffrey Casale, Brian Shekleton.

MANAGERS ABSENT

Mike Klingelhutz.

OTHERS PRESENT

Eric Evenson, District Administrator; Renae Clark, District Projects Manager; Nat Kale, District Planner; Steve Christopher, Regulatory Program Manager;  Todd Shoemaker, District Consulting Engineer; Chuck Holtman, District Counsel.

MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR

None.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

It was moved by Manager Keeley, seconded by Manager Shekleton to approve the agenda, with the addition of a Personnel Committee update and introduction of staff.  Upon vote, the motion carried 5-0. 

CONSENT AGENDA

It was moved by Manager Keeley, seconded by Manager Blixt to approve the consent agenda consisting of the minutes of July 16, 2009, with the correction on the last page of a special meeting date from July 24 to July 23.  Upon vote, the motion carried 5-0.

REGULAR AGENDA

Committee Meeting Reports

 

Manager Shekleton indicated that the Information Technology Committee has met twice since the last Board update to discuss document management.  At the last meeting it agreed to recommend investing $7,500 for a test run using the Share Points software package for board packet distribution.  The committee also is creating a proposed budget. 

Manager Casale arrived at this time.

Manager Casale stated that there was a good turnout for the July Citizens’ Advisory Committee meeting.  Mr. Evenson explained the District’s budget process and reviewed financial information.  Mr. Evenson added that there also was discussion about the pros and cons of District involvement in groundwater protection.  The CAC plans to present recommendations to the Board on this.  Manager Calkins added that the CAC also discussed District authority over drinking water and groundwater issues.  Manager Keeley will attend the August 27 CAC meeting in place of Manager Blixt.

Manager Casale requested that a Building Committee meeting be scheduled.  Mr. Evenson replied that he will explore dates with the building consultant and arrange a meeting within the next couple of weeks.

Manager Calkins noted that the Awards Committee will meet on August 20 at 5:30 p.m.

Manager Blixt advised that the Personnel Committee met this evening to discuss Mr. Evenson’s proposed personnel budget.  The Committee agrees with Mr. Evenson’s recommendations including increased intern pay and tuition benefits and changing the communication/education intern to a full time position.  The budget will come to the Board next week.

Staff  Introduction

Mr. Evenson introduced Jake Huwe, a new intern.  Mr. Huwe is a civil engineering major at the North Dakota State University.  The Board welcomed Mr. Huwe.

PERMITS REQUIRING BOARD DISCUSSION

Permit 09-164, Three Rivers Park District

Mr. Christopher presented the staff report concerning a proposal by the Three Rivers Park District to install a section of storm sewer in order to stabilize an eroded ravine within the Lake Minnetonka Regional Park in the City of Minnetrista.  The storm sewer would carry runoff to the West Upper Lake of Lake Minnetonka.  The ravine has been eroded in recent years and presents both a sedimentation and a safety issue in the Park District’s perception.  Mr. Christopher added to the proposed recommendation an additional condition that the conveyance structure must be maintained in accordance with the terms of the October 11, 2007 programmatic maintenance agreement between the parties.

Manager Casale asked if the runoff was coming from the road without treatment.  Mr. Christopher clarified that the runoff is not from the road but from about three acres of land that is pervious except for a recreational trail.  Manager Blixt asked why the erosion is increasing.  Mr. Christopher replied that the runoff was channeling in that area before it became parkland, and has been increasing.  Mr. Shoemaker commented that there is little to no vegetation below the tree canopy so the soil is not well held in place.  Responding to Manager Miller, Mr. Shoemaker opined that treatment options are limited.  A small hump or rain garden could be installed upstream of the channel, but “end of pipe” treatment would be more difficult.

Erik Nelson, Three Rivers Park District, addressed the Board.  He stated that the Park District intends to plant shade tolerant grasses immediately after construction and then to plant more trees as part of a reforestation effort.  He reiterated that the boat ramp road and trail don’t drain to the ravine and that the drain area is natural and pervious.  He emphasized that the project purposes are to address safety and prevent sedimentation to the lakes.  Responding to Manager Blixt, he said that the pipe would be placed in the ravine and buried, with three inlets obscured from view.  Manager Blixt asked about use of perforated pipe.  Mr. Shoemaker replied that the slope is too steep for infiltration to function. 

Manager Calkins expressed his view that the ravine appears to be fairly well vegetated, and probably has existed for several hundred years.  He asked if there is a recent contribution of flow.  Mr. Nelson replied that the erosion has been a problem for some time and he does not know of any Park District work that might have aggravated it.    Manager Calkins replied that if the issue is the result of land changes, the problem should be fixed upstream.  He concurs that a repair is needed.  Mr. Nelson replied that the Park District has studied the matter extensively and reviewed all alternatives. 

It was moved by Manager Casale, seconded by Manager Shekleton to approve the permit in accordance with staff recommendations.  The motion failed, 2-3 (Managers Calkins, Miller and Keeley opposed; Manager Blixt abstaining).

Mr. Holtman advised that the Board should by motion state its findings supporting denial of the permit application.  Responding to Mr. Christopher’s questions, he indicated that the application was before the Board pursuant to the Board’s policy concerning piping surface flows, and that if a revised application used a different design, it would not need to come to the Board.  Manager Blixt directed staff to bring any revised permit application to the Board as provided for by the Board’s permit delegation policy. 

It was moved by Manager Keeley, seconded by Manager Calkins to reconsider the prior action.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

Manager Shekleton commented that rate control and treatment are issues to him, and that it appears that there would be a means at the end of pipe to address these.  Mr. Evenson noted that he has spoken with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources about in-lake treatment, and that it is difficult to get a permit at this time for that approach.  Manager Miller emphasized that the Park District generally does an outstanding job, and that there should be a better solution that the parties can identify.  Manager Calkins agreed that there is a problem and that the sedimentation and safety rationales both are important.  His focus is to determine why the problem is getting worse and fix the cause.  He is not opposed to a pipe if that is the best solution.

Mr. Nelson commented that the Park District also is extending an existing subdrain to a flatter level.  He noted that this drain contributes a steady baseline flow to the ravine and could be a reason for the erosion.  He emphasized that an existing conditions model will predict the same flows since the entire area is previous.  Mr. Evenson indicated that staff will review the 1995 permit to try to determine if anything has changed.

It was moved by Manager Keeley, seconded by Manager Miller to take no action on the permit application at this time.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

Public Hearing and Project Ordering, Gleason Lake GL-6 Stream Stabilization/Wetland Construction Project

Mr. Kale distributed revised Resolution 09-076.  The resolution would condition the District’s further design and engineering work on the parties’ execution of the local plan approval memorandum of understanding.  Mr. Kale noted that he has spoken with Plymouth staff and they understand this condition.

Christ Otterness, Houston Engineering, presented the feasibility study for the project that examines water quality ponding, infiltration Best Management Practices and eroded streams restoration. 

Manager Calkins opened the public hearing.  No members of the public wished to speak.  The public hearing was closed.

Manager Miller asked how reliable the modeling is.  Mr. Kale replied that all of the work adds further detail to the District’s own hydrologic & hydraulic and P8 models.  Mr. Evenson noted that the District engineer would review the modeling as a part of the design work. 

Responding to Manager Casale, Mr. Kale noted that the District’s capital improvement program identifies a 116-pound phosphorus load reduction from this project.  The consultant has returned and indicated that the District can get about 64 pounds of reduction.  Manager Blixt recalled that the Board had removed this project from the CIP.  She questioned cost effectiveness.  Mr. Kale replied that the project originally was moved back to 2011, but then returned to 2010 under subsequent review.  Manager Blixt also questioned what might be a disproportionate expenditure of District resources on Gleason Lake project.  She noted that there is a need for work throughout the watershed and that the District must apply resources carefully at a time of spending cutbacks. 

Manager Casale wished to confirm that the stream armoring is through the Chelsea Woods subdivision.  Mr. Kale replied that it is, and that staff is recommending a combination of hard armoring and vegetation. 

Mr. Evenson spoke with city representatives, and the city is willing to assume 100 percent of pond and channel maintenance responsibilities.  Manager Shekleton seconded the concern about cost effectiveness.  Manager Casale reminded the Board that the city came to the District with the intent to install a culvert and that the District indicated it would review other options as part of its feasibility work; however, the District did not say that it would pay for the work.  Mr. Evenson replied that staff has looked more broadly at the subwatershed context and placed the expenditure in that framework, but agreed that the District has made no commitment suggesting an obligation to pay for it. 

Mr. Kale further clarified that the project estimate includes the wetlands and streambank work as well as the habitat restoration work in Subwatershed GL-4.  Manager Miller is opposed to the implication that the District would pay for the stream work.  Manager Casale questioned the city’s maintenance offer in light of the Board’s recent decision that the District is in a better position to insure maintenance.  Mr. Evenson commented that the city has the ability to fund the maintenance through a stormwater utility; therefore, staff thinks that in this case, this could be a reliable commitment. 

Manager Miller expressed his view that good projects should be funded wherever they are and therefore disagrees with Manager Blixt’s implication that funding should be based on a notion of geographic equality.  Manager Calkins reminded other Board members that these policy considerations were applied at the time the District adopted its CIP.  Manager Blixt suggested that the policy may not have been adequately considered when the Board more recently reviewed the decreased spending scenario. 

Manager Calkins noted that the District engineer previously studied project cost effectiveness in terms of dollars per pound of phosphorus removed, and that projects should be reviewed under that criterion.  Mr. Evenson recalled the engineer’s conclusion establishing an average price of about $300 per pound of phosphorous removed per year over a twenty-year period.

It was moved by Manager Casale, seconded by Manager Miller to adopt the proposed resolution with identification of Option 2B for the stream work, and further to direct that the District engineer will review the feasibility study modeling as a part of the design process. 

Responding to Manager Casale, Mr. Otterness stated that armoring is the recommended stream restoration approach because of lower cost and easier maintenance.  Mr. Kale emphasized that if the city is to do the maintenance, staff recommends Option 2B.  Also, homeowners wish to minimize tree loss and maintain access to the water, which Option 2B will accomplish. 

Upon vote, the motion carried 4-2 (Managers Blixt, Shekleton opposed).

Manager Calkins questioned whether the District has determined the status of the buried pipe and whether the work was performed without a District permit.  He noted that this pipe continues to affect how the District approaches the subwatershed, which is of concern to him. 

Creek Corridor Memorandum of Understanding

Mr. Evenson explained that the proposed resolution has been distributed among all parties to the partnership, which include the Cities of Edina, Hopkins, Minnetonka and St. Louis Park; the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board; Hennepin County; the Three Rivers Park District, and the District.  The MOU just establishes a principle of working together and is nonbinding.  It was approved by the County Board of Commissioners earlier this week. 

Manager Miller commented that in his understanding, the original concept was to include only the Cities of Minnetonka, Hopkins and St. Louis Park.  He doesn’t like expanding the effort to include the MPRB and implicating Minneapolis politics.  Manager Casale observed that this simply provides a broader umbrella within which more focused efforts can continue.  Responding to Manager Calkins, Mr. Evenson stated that District staff has not been involved in City of Minnetonka corridor plan development. 

Manager Calkins remarked that the MOU will place an onus on the District to be proactive so that when city plans come forward they reflect District involvement.  Manager Shekleton concurs that the District must commit to substantial involvement if the effort is to produce results.  Manager Calkins reminded the Board that Manager Blixt and he have served as liaisons and have not seen substantial engagement in the past year.

It was moved by Manager Casale, seconded by Manager Shekleton to adopt the proposed resolution.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

It was moved by Manager Shekleton, seconded by Manager Blixt to request that parties designate appointed and elected officials and that regular meetings among these official and their staffs be requested so that the effort has positive movement. 

County Review of 2010 CIP

It was moved by Manager Miller, seconded by Manager Blixt to authorize distribution of the proposed 2010 CIP to Hennepin and Carver Counties as provided for in the District water management plan.  Mr. Evenson referenced the project proposed by the City of Richfield, which would treat essentially all of the stormwater within the District originating in Richfield.  The City is looking towards a potential 2011 funding commitment from the District.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

2010 Capital Project Plan

It was moved by Manger Miller, seconded by Manager Shekleton to approve the work plans for 17 capital project funds as presented in the meeting materials.  Mr. Kale explained that the proposed work includes performing feasibility studies for outstanding projects so that they are poised to move forward at such time as the Board orders a project.  Mr. Holtman explained the use of the special projects fund to hold monies for feasibility work and also to hold specific project implementation funds in advance of Board ordering.  Managers Miller and Calkins expressed concern to avoid the special projects fund acting as a “slush fund.”  Mr. Holtman advised that internal measures could be taken to ensure transparency, such as designating special project fund subfunds.  The Board directed staff to consult with legal counsel and the District accountant and return with a resolution to establish subfunds.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

Board Liaisons to Other Organizations

Manager Shekleton suggested that strengthening relationships among policy makers can increase the District’s effectiveness.  He referenced the recent permitting review of the City of St. Louis Park public works facility, where staff conflicts could have benefited from a relationship at the policy-making level.  Manager Blixt expressed concern that guidelines would be needed to establish the role and responsibilities of liaisons.  Manager Calkins concurred and noted the danger of a single manager’s views being assumed to reflect the Board as a whole. 

It was moved by Manager Blixt, seconded by Manager Miller that Managers Shekleton and Blixt will develop guidelines and a list of proposed entities to which liaisons would be assigned.  Manager Calkins noted that once the function is established, the other bodies should receive communications noting the liaisons and the guidelines governing their roles.  Manager Miller suggested that the list of bodies with assigned liaisons should be limited to avoid undue complexity.  Upon vote, the motion carried.

DISSCUSSION ITEMS

Future U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Partnerships

Mr. Evenson reported upcoming potential coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).  First, USACE planning staff has indicated the availability of $250,000 that must be designated for use by September 1, 2009.  The District has been asked of its interest in partnering on a Lake Minnetonka management plan.  Second, the USACE has $750,000 earmarked for project design in the Painter Creek subwatershed. 

The Board determined that it does not wish to partner on a Lake Minnetonka management plan at this time and that Mr. Evenson should advise USACE staff that the Board has so concluded.  The Board expressed concern about further partnership activity in light of ongoing difficulties involving the Minnehaha Glen project. 

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business, the regular meeting of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Board of Managers was adjourned at 10:50 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Lee Keeley, Secretary