The URL can be used to link to this page

12/10/2013 - City Council SpecialSPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY DECEMBER 10, 2013 5:30 P.M. EAGAN ROOM — EAGAN MUNICIPAL CENTER AGENDA I. ROLL CALL AND ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA II. VISITORS TO BE HEARD a III. JOINT MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION (ARC) / PROPOSED 2013 -2014 ARC WORK PLAN 5 IV. NOISE WALL UPDATE -13 -v. WATER CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION 35 VI. REVIEW 2014 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES 3S VII. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GUN CLUB LAKE WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION VIII. OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT Agenda Information Memo December 10, 2013 Special City Council Meeting III. JOINT MEETING WITH THE AIRPORT RELATIONS COMMISSION (ARC) / PROPOSED 2013 -2014 ARC WORK PROGRAM ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: There is no formal action to be considered. The joint meeting is an opportunity for the ARC and City Council to discuss the proposed 2013 -2014 ARC work plan. FACTS: • It is the City Council's practice to meet with each of their advisory commissions at least one time each year. • The Airport Relations Commission (ARC) is prepared to dialogue with the Council about their proposed 2013 -2014 ARC Work Program. • Chuck Thorkildson, Chair of the ARC, is prepared to present an overview of the proposed work plan. • This is also an opportunity for the Council to dialogue with the ARC about any other airport issues facing the community, including the latest update on the new Performance Based Navigation (PBN) flight tracks being reviewed by the FAA for possible use at MSP Airport. • If so directed by the Council, formal action can be included on the December 17 City Council consent agenda to approve the 2013 -2014 ARC work program. ATTACHMENTS: • Enclosed on pages 5 through 4 is the proposed 2013 -2014 ARC Work Program. Cx DRAFT 'OO'City of Baran 2013 -2014 Eagan Airport Relations Commission (ARC) Work Plan Work Plan Topic Presenters/Invited Schedule (tentative) Guests Goals and Streets Alive Finalization Tuesday, September 10, • Make plans for Streets Alive booth 2013 ARC mtg • Receive update on RNAV • Finalize proposed ARC Goals and Work Plan for December 2013 joint meeting with the City Council Streets Alive (formerly Showcase Eagan) Sunday, September 15, • ARC to have booth at Streets Alive, including maps of 2013; 1 -4 p.m. RNAV tracks (if available), noise mitigation, etc. Main Topic: The Economic Impact of MSP and an Vicki Stute, DCR Tuesday, November 12, Introduction/Summary of efforts by the Noise Oversight Chamber Director 2013 ARC mtg Committee (NOC) • Dana Nelson to provide an update on the 2013 NOC work Brent Cory, ECVB plan/accomplishments Director • Ask the CVB and DCR Chamber to highlight the local economic impact of MSP airport, including the impact on Dana Nelson, MAC the business community and hospitality industry. Noise Office Joint meeting with the Eagan City Council December 10, 2013 • Review proposed 2013 -2014 work plan Council Wksp • Discussion/Update on current airport issues Tour of FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center in Farmington Tuesday, January 14, • Finalize plans for March open house 2014 ARC Mtg Town Hall Meeting re: Performance Based Navigation (PBN) Elaine Buckner, MSP Tuesday, March 11, Flight Tracks (FAA lead; City as host) FAA Air Traffic 2014 • Communicate impacts of PBN (if partial Control Tower implementation is approved in 2013) Manager • Focus the meeting on the impacts to Eagan residents • FAA rep to explain purpose and need for PBN • Open house to be community -wide if PBN focus; if PBN is not approved, then open house could be neighborhood- specific as in years past State of the Airport Address Jeff Hamiel, MAC Tuesday, May 13, 2014 • Review fleet mix, operation counts /trends, and get Executive Director ARC mtg update on 2020 Plan capital improvements • Review 2013 Actual Noise Contour Report Tammy Mencel, MAC Commissioner 3 2013 -2014 Airport Relations Commission Work Plan (DRAFT) Page 2 Regular ARC meeting and 2013 -2014 Goals /Work Plan Workshop Tuesday, July 8, 2014 ARC mtg Ongoing ARC Efforts Review at monthly ARC • Monthly review of MAC technical reports, including meetings in 2013 -2014 Corridor compliance, fleet mix, and runway usage • Receive feedback from the public on airport issues • Review and provide feedback on NOC initiatives and studies • Ongoing communication efforts about airport issues via Experience Eagan, City website, Facebook and cable TV • Participation in MAC aviation disaster drills 1 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 IV. MNDOT NOISE WALLS — INTERSTATE 35 -E DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Upon receiving updates on two noise wall proposals by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) along Interstate 35 -E, one on the east side, north of Deerwood Drive, and one on the west side, south of Kettle Park, provide formal feedback so that MnDOT knows whether to continue their pre - design efforts for the improvements or to remove them from the list. BACKGROUND: • In 1995, the Minnesota Legislature passed Statute 161.125 - Sound Abatement Along Highways. The legislation required a noise abatement study and noise abatement measures within or along the perimeter of freeways and expressways in incorporated areas contingent on the availability of funding. The study was required to include a survey of all applicable noise standards and feasible noise abatement measures, and an evaluation of their ability to protect citizens. • In response, MnDOT completed a Metro Noise Study which identified the highest impacted areas that offer, potentially, the most cost effective opportunities for future noise mitigation. The areas were accordingly ranked and prioritized. About $1.5 million have been allocated annually for the past 15 years to construct noise walls to provide noise mitigation for the designated areas. MnDOT updated the study within the past 12 months. • The MnDOT noise mitigation program requires the local agency to finance 10% of the construction cost for a standard noise wall design. MnDOT is open to considering design enhancements. However, 100% of the additional cost would be the responsibility of the City. MnDOT is also open to considering extending the construction limits of any noise wall project beyond the identified segment, but such extensions have to be contiguous, at the City's request and also at the full (100 %) financial responsibility of the City. • If a local community prefers that noise walls not be placed in a particular area, MnDOT will respect that request. However, that location will be permanently removed from any future consideration. Therefore, MnDOT will be looking for a level of commitment from Eagan before they proceed with any pre - design efforts. • On November 1, 2011, the City Council approved Cooperative Construction Agreement No. 99780 with MnDOT to construct a noise wall along the west side of 35 -E north of Diffley Road (City Project 1019). This 1447 feet long noise wall was constructed in the spring of 2012. This was the first location in Eagan identified in MnDOT's noise study. • On June 4, 2013, the Council expressed interest in the second and third noise mitigation proposals identified in the MnDOT noise study and incorporated these improvements into the City's current 5 -year Capital Improvement Program (2014- 2018). The Council directed that public presentations be made at open houses for each location. • MnDOT staff will provide a presentation to the Council representing the new proposed noise wall locations and alternative wall material details. While the Council has previously provided direction on the standard design details for all future noise walls constructed in Eagan, formal feedback is also being sought on an alternative design, and possible bid, for concrete wall material, in lieu of wood, that was not presented earlier for Council consideration. • As was done with the presentation of the first noise wall proposal north of Diffley Road, the invitations to the public for the open houses addressing future wall proposals solicited a vote from each of the impacted residents /property owners. A `yes' vote indicates support for the noise wall proposal. a Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 UPDATE: I" Noise Wall (35 -E, east side, north of Deerwood Drive) • On March 8, 2011, the City Council received a presentation of a MnDOT proposal to implement noise abatement through the construction of a noise wall programmed for 2016. This noise wall proposal along a segment of 35 -E, north of Deerwood Drive, would be constructed along the east side of the freeway, adjacent to the Deerwood Townhomes Addition. • On September 19, 2013, a public presentation of the noise wall proposal was provided at an Open House. Information regarding the design and location of the proposed noise wall and materials to be used were presented. Clarification of impacts to trees was requested and provided. Requests regarding the revision of the noise wall design were received. 24 persons attended representing 19 properties. • The construction schedule for this wall has been moved up one year to the spring of 2015 due to the elimination of other higher prioritized noise walls within the metro area. This noise wall proposal is currently first on the metro priority ranking. Final design of Eagan's noise wall will be completed in 2014. The current CIP reflects this accelerated schedule. • The cost estimate for the City's share is $73,250 (based on the standard 90/10 split of the total $732,500 cost) and is based upon the standard MnDOT noise wall design. • A second neighborhood meeting was held on November 7, 2013, to provide an update on a revised wall design which shortened the length of the wall, yet maintained noise reduction at comparable levels. The revised wall length would be 1202 feet with an estimated total construction cost of $480,800. • Significant communication has occurred between a small number of residents and city/ MnDOT staff expressing concerns with the noise wall proposal. MnDOT has addressed inquiries and requests as received. Additional information in response to more recent inquiries will be presented at the workshop. 2nd Noise Wall (35 -E, west side, south of Kettle Park) • MnDOT is proposing to construct another noise wall along the west side of a segment of 35- E, east of Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue Freeway), in 2016 as it has also advanced on the metro priority ranking. This wall is proposed to be constructed south/east of Kings Road, adjacent to the Vienna Woods neighborhood and Kettle Park. • On October 17, 2013, a public presentation of the noise wall proposal was provided at an Open House. Information regarding the design and location of the proposed noise wall and materials to be used were presented. Strong support for the proposal was expressed. 12 persons attended representing 7 properties. • The construction schedule for this wall has also been moved up due to the elimination of other higher prioritized noise walls within the metro area. Final design of this noise wall will be completed in 2015. The current CIP reflects this accelerated schedule. • The cost estimate for the City's share is $89,100 (based on the standard 90/10 split of the total $891,000 cost) and is based upon the standard MnDOT noise wall design. ISSUES: • As indicated above, significant communication has occurred between representatives of the Deerwood Townhomes properties and city /MnDOT staff regarding the preliminary design details and preferences regarding a noise wall. While all questions were acceptably addressed, there are still some strong opinions for and against the Deerwood Drive wall proposal held by some property owners. It is anticipated that adjacent property owners may be in attendance at the workshop. W01 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 ATTACBAMNTS: • Deerwood Noise Wall Project Exhibit (Original), page • Deerwood Noise Wall Project Exhibit (Revised), page • Kettle Park Noise Wall Project Exhibit, page 10 . • Deerwood Property `Votes' Map, page • Kettle Park Property `Votes' Map, page I a . I O � , Y•. �J O � _ n i bog as ti t Mil, W M I. \ 2 oo i l 'ti d 9 w LO \N - 4v O jp OL OW - -� � � ?► ati aa��1� +.� "Rye( '.. � `~ � � . '.�ai��, '�(j 1200 �►;��'. m - x.:'ti.., �ti =i 4 � � tQ y9r ! ~ - I v _' � •max y � Aye �� ' � "Ka {� ,-.� -c y�- X' ° 1i."i "+� 1 titi � r '�ew <£9ZigSb O '� � Z'' � 3 • r• K,I�pt�rr,• �wir• .y,. .Y: c:it � ,� ~ � ' a a.,, ° - '• S .� AAS� ��4 \G\ � �• 1 vii, •-�-r 1 � ,,,,,c 'K�-q� �� r"}�, � <:,�,,�r, ALA IL �e`arl�` u ilk ;sejba6pla ti NN -�=da ". 3�au4y�Ne9i ;i +'�'t T _,�.'- - •.9 5.. .fast <�7'. ',� _ _.,,i. i ail "�` �.' � a �► S i U� k -t ) .,�., �� '` �; .. �j .'N. �',`•. ,{ s r �. . ', 1. H�IJlu4eb ` ` ""` i �•.� . ' it Ilk MID IL lk IS ` E �' • -' �^ .'i- � �., q ad JAS, ��[ �. , 1, .�• V • r'`'te+ +v �. - "• -• r j',�� ,�, - y `� . o I'M Y. 2331 IOU Lo "o 0 LLI MHtH��NjH11 0 C6 h , -� • e : `: . CIO auo}spooM rn ,0 °o � � 4 cy c `o i ca- i �Cn j_ s � O 14q `� 't. 6 ^q' , � ° LO dVW XHUNI z�a � o m c am c m = U O W ca Z L O O d D U) >- z b ab w 4—� 0 � L Ya N (o CC T- T.- T. I I N O N O N N N N lci I` O 04 N C) C) N O O O O N N N N N ~ O N d' O � O r- O O (D O O O N N 00 O N N N s4 O ti O C\l N N C O O N O N —u r N O r N MAC dvw xacim � � o Y CO) O i O IL z _(1) E .�..I v L 0 w 1 � o L .T) 0 z b M-A ew- 0 iE5 Cheryl Stevenson From: CMS [cros700 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:04 AM To: City Council Subject: Deerwood proposed noise wall Attachments: image.jpeg; ATT00001.txt Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Eagan City Council, I am not certain that I can make the meeting tonight, but just wanted to reiterate.... please vote against the noise wall or come up with a solution so we don't lose our view. A number of us purchased our homes just for the view. We all made a choice to purchase a home by the freeway! If I wanted quiet I would have not bought a home here. If a wall is constructed the only view I will have from my main windows would be a virtual prison wall and it will feel suffocating. If we are in our homes with a radio on we don't even hear the freeway noise! Please see photo below. I wish I had one of the daytime to see the rolling green. This view is even better (to me) than the highest point in Eagan at Caponi Park! Please vote against the wall! Thanks for you consideration! Collene Stevens 1563 Antler Point 1 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 V. DRINKING WATER PROGRAM WATER CONSERVATION DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Based upon Energy & Environment Advisory Commission recommendations, the City Council is asked to provide feedback and direction on the following policy questions: 1.) To what extent does the City Council wish to create goals for reduction in the use of drinking water? 2.) In the event the reduction in drinking water is established as a goal for the City of Eagan, additional policy questions may include: a. Should drinking water reduction goals be established for all types of land use in the City, or limited to residential but not commercial, as an example? b. Should drinking water reduction goals be established for specific types of uses, such as irrigation, but not production/industry? Should the City provide incentives to encourage a reduction in drinking water usage, and if so, to what extent shall the City provide financing for such incentives, e.g. rebate program? IXT4 I K3 On October 8, 2013, the Eagan Energy & Environment Advisory Commission (EEAC) recommended the following items to the City Council for consideration: • Adopt a city -wide goal of reducing per capita daily water use 10% by 2020 and 15% by 2025 below a baseline of the average per capita daily water use from 2005 - 2010. • Register the City in the free and voluntary WaterSense partnership program and appoint the water utility to administer program implementation. • Direct the Eagan water utility, with input from the EEAC, to develop and implement a water conservation plan to achieve or exceed the city's water reduction goal. After further discussion with Commission Members the first item was amended as follows: ■ Adopt a city -wide goal of reducing per capita daily water use 10% by 2019 and 25% by 2024 below a baseline of the average per capita daily water use from 2005 - 2010. BACKGROUND: • At the EEAC Process and Communication meeting on July 16, 2013, the following were suggested. o The EEAC and/or Staff Liaison are encouraged to check in more frequently with the Council as policy questions emerge from EEAC research and discussion. Administrator Osberg will allocate time, as available, to this purpose in listening sessions and workshops. o The focus will be to ask for feedback on policy level issues before a great deal of research is completed by both the EEAC and staff. Items will be sent to City Attorney after direction by Council to create or amend an ordinance or policy. o Staff memos to the Council should clearly point out any areas of disagreement and /or policy change as each recommendation is made by the EEAC. Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 BACKGROUND: (Continued) • At the June 11, 2013, Special Council Workshop, the EEAC presented their Water Efficiency Subcommittee's water conservation recommendations as part of their current work plan and recommended the following actions for Council consideration: o Adopt a city -wide goal of reducing per capita daily water use 10% by 2020 and 15% by 2025 below a baseline of the average per capita daily water use from 2005 to 2010. o Register the City in the free and voluntary WaterSense partnership program and appoint the Utilities Division to administer program implementation. o Authorize water utility budget funds for water conservation education, training, efficiency and conservation upgrades to city facilities, and for rebates, or financing, for rain sensors, rainwater capture and use, and WaterSense certified appliances and devices installed on private property. o Direct the Eagan Utilities Division, with input from the EEAC, to develop and implement a water conservation plan to achieve or exceed the City's water reduction goal. • The following are staff assembled facts related to the EEAC's October 8, 2013, recommendations: o Eagan's average daily per capita water use is 137 gallons (based on calendar years 2005- 2010). Over 40% of the water use is for commercial purposes. The City is the highest water consumer. According to the Department of Natural Resources and Met Council, this use is within the normal consumptive range and similar to surrounding cities and cities of like size (see below table). These values include use from all residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional properties. City 2011 GPCD Apple Valley ................ 124 (gallons per capita per day) Burnsville ..................... 147 Inver Grove Heights..... 136 Rosemount .................... 109 Brooklyn Park .............. 119 Eden Prairie .................. 131 Maple Grove ................. 145 o The average per capita daily residential water use from 2005 to 2010 is 86.3 gallons. This value has been slowly dropping (3 -year average =83 gallons). The United States Geological Survey states the average residential water per capita use is between 80 and 100 gallons per person per day. The proposed 10% reduction would be 77.7 gallons per capita per day. A 15% reduction would be 73.4 gallons. A 25% reduction would be 64.7 gallons. Water usage is heavily affected by irrigation in the summer. o Eagan's water use over the past decade has remained relatively constant and trended slightly downward since peaking in 2006 (counter to the Water Supply Master Plan and Met Council predictions). Nearly 70% of Eagan's housing units were constructed before 1990. In 1992, new federal water efficiency standards were enacted, which reduce per capita water usage for new construction and can improve the water efficiency through retrofits and remodels to existing buildings. It is assumed the flat to lower trending consumption is due to the regulatory change. o Data from American Water Works Association (AWWA) indicates that nationally water use could be reduced as much as 30% by using water - efficient toilets, showerheads, and faucets that meet current federal manufacturing standards. The recent installation of water - efficient toilets, showerheads, and faucets in City facilities have been shown to save approximately 1.7 million gallons per year, about 31% of the previous consumption for these uses. o The use of water utility funds for water conservation education to reduce the volume of water produced by the City, as well as energy savings, would be an appropriate business investment. o The Environmental Protection Agency's WaterSense Program aims to use water resources more efficiently to preserve them for future generations and to reduce water and wastewater infrastructure costs by reducing unnecessary water consumption. The City of Eagan shares these goals and supports the idea of a certification of water efficient fixtures and appliances. Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 BACKGROUND: (Continued) o Minnesota Statutes 103G.291 requires public water suppliers to adopt and enforce water use restrictions when the governor declares a critical water deficiency. The restrictions must limit sprinkling lawns, washing vehicles, irrigating golf courses and parks, and other nonessential uses and have appropriate penalties for failure to comply with restrictions. Currently, Eagan does not have any mechanism to address the statute. The EEAC recommendations raise the following basic issues: o As proposed, the recommendations would impact commercial/industrial water usage, as well as residential usage. While a reduction in residential usage would be challenging, albeit desirable and conceivable, a reduction in commercial/industrial water usage may discourage business success or expansion. Opportunities exist for water conservation efforts at commercial/industrial sites in applications that are similar to those utilized at residential properties, but goals defined by per capita usage impact water usage for operational purposes as well as system inefficiencies. o Customer incentives of some sort would appear to be needed in order to attain the recommended water usage reduction goals. The recommended incentives or referenced penalties (rate tiers) would entail greater revenue, thereby increasing water rates. o The utilization of public funds and resources for the benefit of individual private property owners has not been a past Council approved practice. The cost/benefit ratio for an individual property for the City is questionable. However, the investment on the part of the property owner will realize a benefit in reduced costs on their individual utility bill. o Consumer products are available on the open market that have a WaterSense "stamp of approval." By becoming a WaterSense promotional partner, the City of Eagan could be recognized as an endorser of specific consumer products. o Many of the benefits provided to a WaterSense partner are already available to the City through free educational materials and resources from affiliated organizations like the American Water Works Association, Water Research Foundation, and the Rural Water Association in addition to those available on the EPA website. o The Public Works Department does not currently have staff available to administer the WaterSense program or perform non - regulatory operations. Higher priority tasks such as industry operations and maintenance standards recommended by AWWA that are not currently completed would be performed first. o The use of utility funds for additional water efficiency and conservation upgrades to city facilities, or rebates or financing for private equipment (such as rain sensors, shower heads, toilets, appliances and other devices installed on private property) only benefit the consumer and do nothing to reduce operations or maintenance of the utility system. o A water conservation plan already exists per Met Council Environmental Services and Department of Natural Resources mandates. Adding another conservation plan would require additional staff time. o The two water treatment plants were designed to produce a specified quantity of drinking water. The designs incorporated a level of efficiency to maintain adequate production based upon the City's Water Supply and Distribution Plan. A reduction in the amount of drinking water produced can reach a point where the cost is greater to produce less water. Based upon the current policy, water rates would need to increase to offset any additional costs. Users could actually see consistent or higher utility bills even though less water is being received. o The budget for the Water Utility Enterprise Fund (Dept 61) is based upon the cost to produce and distribute drinking water throughout the established water system and provide adequate fire suppression/protection, including the operation and maintenance of the water system. The source of revenue for said expenditures is the utility bills. Any additional costs attributed to this fund would need to be supported by additional revenue, most likely through increased water rates. V5 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 BACKGROUND: (Continued) o Reduced water use equates to reduced sewage discharge and flow. Too low of flow in the sanitary collection system can lead to higher maintenance costs and the increased potential of blockage due to less overall or excess flow to keep solids moving. Based upon the current policy, sewer rates would need to increase to offset any additional costs. o Opportunities exist within the City's public property water use and irrigation policies, where staff may search for efficiencies and consider creative alternatives, such as non - potable water districts that utilize storm water sources. The potential exists that considerable water volume and cost savings could be realized. • If the City Council directs staff to further pursue opportunities to establish goals for reduction in the use of drinking water, Public Works staff proposes to review options and the associated revenue implications with the Finance staff. Once this is completed, City staff would provide an overview of the proposed scope and timeline for the implementation of one or more water conservation plans. Council action would be requested at a future Council meeting to formally approve the implementation of any water conservation plans. ATTACHMENTS: `I • EEAC Proposed Recommendations and Support Information, pages through 1 �(_0 EAGAN ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT ADVISORY COMMISSION WATER EFFICIENCY SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS October 2013 Actions for Consideration: The Eagan Energy & Environment Advisory Commission recommends the following items to City Council for consideration: • Adopt a city -wide goal of reducing per capita daily water use 10% by 2019 and 25% by 2024 below a baseline of the average per capita daily water use from 2005 - 2010. • Register the City in the free and voluntary WaterSense partnership program and appoint the water utility to administer program implementation. • Direct the Eagan water utility, with input from the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission, to develop and implement a water conservation plan to achieve or exceed the city's water reduction goal. Background information The City of Eagan uses an average of 3 - 3.5 billion gallons of water each year and sends an average 2 - 2.5 billion gallons of water each year to the Seneca Wastewater Treatment plant. On a typical year, about 30% of the water used in the city of Eagan does not go down a drain, some of which is composed of water uses classified under Minnesota Statutes as "sixth priority non - essential uses." While this water goes through an expensive treatment process, some non- essential water uses such as lawn irrigation could be met in part through alternatives such as rainwater, or reduced via rain sensors, water - efficient landscaping, and other mechanisms. In the Summer of 2010, the City of Eagan implemented a water conservation rate structure. Average summer water use has trended slightly lower in the first two years, although the impact of the rate structure on annual city -wide water usage has not yet been determined. Eagan's water use over the past decade has remained relatively constant and trended slightly downward since peaking in 2006. Nearly 70% of Eagan's housing units were constructed before 1990. In 1992, new federal water efficiency standards were enacted, which reduce per capita water usage for new construction and can improve the water efficiency through retrofits and remodels to existing buildings. As an example, toilets installed before 1990 used anywhere from 3 - 7 gallons per flush. Toilet models today can use 1.6 gallons per flush, and high- efficiency WaterSense - certified toilets use even less. Water efficiencies for dishwashers, washing machines, faucets, showerheads, and other water -using devices have also improved. The City of Eagan's Water Supply and Distribution Plan projects a roughly 20% increase in average per capita daily water use in Eagan and a 33% increase in per capita maximum day 1q water use, compared to a projected increase in population of around 14% (see reference material).' To meet this growing need, the plan identifies investments in new supply and storage of over $7 million. City staff note that of the $7 million figure in the plan, around $3 million is intended for storage and not based on demand. Communities across the country are achieving significant water savings by implementing water efficiency programs. These programs may include a variety of approaches such as rainwater harvesting, water efficient landscaping, and incentives to encourage private investment in the existing building stock to improve water efficiencies partially in lieu of public investments in new supply. Such an approach in Eagan may potentially offer a cost - effective use of resources with co- benefits and complement, or partially offset, the 2008 Water Supply & Distribution Plan's projected investments of over $7 million in new supply and storage. Water Conservation Goal Action Item: Adopt a city -wide goal of reducing per capita daily water use 10% by 2020 and 15% by 2025 below a baseline of the average per capita daily water use from 2005 - 2010. Background According to the Metropolitan Council2: • Water pumped from aquifers has risen from approximately 20% of the Twin Cities 7- county metropolitan region's supply in 1950 to 70% today. • Aquifer levels are declining, in some locations as much as one foot per year. • By 2040 the region may add over 800,000 residents. • Conservation strategies have had an effect. Some communities have documented 20% less water use per person over the past decade. According to the Urban Land Institute's Regional Indicators Initiative 3: Eagan ranked 3`d highest among the 20 Minnesota cities for total per capita daily water use, and roughly 26% above the 20 -city average. Eagan ranked 4th highest among the 20 Minnesota cities for per capita residential sector water use, and roughly 35% above the 20 -city average. WaterSense Action Item: Recommend to City Council Approval of the WaterSense Partnership Agreement and Designation of Eagan Water Utility as the Implementing Entity Background ' Potential reasons for growth include a new large industrial customer, redundancy in supply and conservative engineering estimates. 2 "Water Supply and a Thriving Region," Metropolitan Council htt_p: / /metrocounci1.o[g /Planning /Proiects/Thrive- 2040/Thrive -MSP- Roundtable- Handout -April -2013. asnx 3 Regional Indicators Initiative, regionalindicatorsmn.uli.org E o WaterSense is a free and voluntary national partnership program among federal, state and local government agencies, builders, manufacturers, water utilities, retailers and other entities. The goal of the program is to encourage water conservation. WaterSense offers free educational materials, technical assistance and a national certification for appliances and devices that are 20% more water efficient than conventional models as determined by independent, third -party testing. Since the program's inception in 2006, WaterSense reports helping consumers save a cumulative 287 billion gallons of water and over $4.7 billion in water and energy bills. As of January 2013, over 3601 organizations across the country were WaterSense partners. Public sector partners in Minnesota include the cities of Farmington, Oakdale, Roseville, Luverne, Marshall Municipal Utilities, Rochester Municipal Utilities, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, and the Minnesota Technical Assistance Program. GreenStep Cities provides credit for cities that implement educational programs and incentives for use of WaterSense- labeled appliances. Joining the WaterSense program will provide the city of Eagan with access to materials and assistance that will help the city complete GreenStep best practice action 20.7 and enhance the city's implementation of GreenStep action 2.5. By joining, the city agrees to promote the value of water efficiency and the meaning of the WaterSense label, provide annual data about city activities to promote water efficiency, feature the WaterSense label on the website and promotional materials, and allow the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to recognize the city's participation in the program. In return, partners receive access to a partners -only website with free resources (such as tutorials, public education materials, and access to a peer network of examples from other locales) that the city may use to implement its water savings program. Attachments • WaterSense Partnership FAQs http: / /www.eDa.gov /watersense /fag partners.html • WaterSense Partnership Agreement: http: / /www.epa.ciov /watersense /docs /partnership promopartners508 0 Water Conservation Plan Action Item: Direct the Eagan water utility, with input from the Energy & Environment Advisory Commission, to develop and implement a water conservation plan to achieve or exceed the city's water reduction goal. Background A water conservation plan would identify a portfolio of strategies best suited for achieving the proposed water conservation goal based on the opportunities and needs in Eagan. Potential strategies that could be explored for consideration and potential incorporation into a water conservation plan include: 3 A • Install rain barrels, cisterns or surface water reuse on city facilities, where appropriate, and utilize rainwater for grounds irrigation. Provide public education signage at high visibility demonstration sites • Install and expand low -water landscaping on city facilities, where appropriate, and provide educational signage and tours at high visibility demonstration sites • Provide regular water saving tips on city facebook page, newsletter, Eagan TV, city utility bills • Partner with energy utilities serving Eagan on the promotion and distribution of their free water - saving kits for Eagan Households • Provide educational seminars or tours for the public on water conservation, reuse, and rainwater capture and use • Offer water assessments for private properties to help identify opportunities for water efficiency, conservation, and reuse • Develop a financial incentive program to encourage water efficiency and conservation upgrades on private property along with possibilities for reuse, and rainwater use practices by prioritizing water utility funds for these activities over investments in new storage and supply • Explore, with Eagan CFO Pepper., revisions to the water utility conservation rate structure to encourage conservation and equitable cost - allocation • Explore enforcement mechanisms and penalties to discourage repeat violations of existing water conservation ordinances REFERENCE MATERIAL Water Saving Examples from Other Cities Adapted from Report, "Cases in Water Conservation ,4 (except the Edina, Eden Prairie and Colorado Spring examples) City Approach Results Residential irrigation equipment rebates, 2000 - 2006 System Wide Water Commercial pre -rinse spray valve retrofits, Use decreased 13.3% toilet and urinal rebates, incentives for 2000 - 2006 System Wide Per Colorado water- efficient landscaping, conservation rate structure, clothes washer rebate, Capita Water Use decreased 20% Springs, CO5 dishwasher rebate, xeriscaping education The 2008 - 2012 Conservation and workshops, xeriscaping demonstrations, water use audits, plan is expected to save 3 billion showerheads & faucet aerators, among gallons of water per year by 2017, others equivalent to 7.58% of projected annual production. 4 http: / /www.epa.QOV /watersense /docs /utilitvconservation 508 pdf 5 http: / /www.csu.o[g/ residential /water /Documents /iteml4309.pdf 4 Cary's water conservation program will reduce retail water Public education, landscape and irrigation production by an estimated 4.6 Cary, North codes , toilet flapper rebates, residential mgd by the end of 2028, a savings of approximately 16% Carolina audits, conservation rate structure, new in retail water production. homes points program, landscape water These savings reduced operating budget, and a water reclamation facility. costs and have already allowed Cary to delay two water plant expansions. Barrie was able to save an average of 14.5 gallons per person per day. The reduction in Rebates to replace inefficient wastewater flows enabled Barrie Barrie, showerheads and toilets and distribution to defer a capital expansion Ontario of information kits project. Water conservation efforts saved an estimated $17.1 million (Canadian dollars) in net deferred capital expenditures. From 1989 to 2001, population High efficiency toilet retrofits, conservation served increased 20% & water kits (containing toilet tank dams, efficient use decreased 26% per capita. Tampa, showerheads, leak detection kits, and Florida information), encouraged low -water Toilet rebate program reduced landscaping, irrigation evaluations and household water use by 15 %. free rain sensors, irrigation restrictions, and increasing block rate structure. Landscaping evaluations reduced water use by 25 %. Rate structure implemented with higher rate for high use tiers. $50,000 from high tier revenue set aside for education & rebates for irrigation controllers, Over 2,100 rebates distributed Eden WaterSense toilets, showerheads and from 2000 - 2012. Prairie, faucets, and Energy Star washing Minnesota machines since 1998 Over 75% of all residential customers use under 36,000 Eden Prairie's residential rates currently gallons of water per quarter. have 5 Tiers ranging from $1.90 /1000gal for up to 36k gallons to $4.40 /1000gal for use over 78,001 gallons per quarter. Two conservation rate tiers; Edina, Base $1.66/1000gal Minnesota Tier1 $2.19/1000gal ( +32 %) Alternate rate tier Tier2 $3.45/1000gal ( +108 %) Base; use under 8700gal /mo Tier 1 between base and 16200 gal /mo Tier 2 over 16200 gal /mo Water Supply and Distribution Plan - City of Eagan http: / /www.cityofeagan.com/ upload /images /PublicWorks /Eng /RSCP %20CompWaterSupply. i)df Year Population Served Maximum Daily Demand (Million Gallons) Average Day (Gallon / Capita) Max Day (Gallons / Capita) 2005 69,226 25.8 140 373 2010 70,500 26.86 144 380 2020 73,000 29.0 150 397 2030 75,500 31.2 156 413 Ultimate 79,000 34.5 169 437 % Change 2005 - Ultimate 14.12% 33.72% 20.71% 17.16% Capital Improvement Cost Estimates Included in Supply and Distribution Plan New Proposed Investments in new Supply and Storage exceed $7 million. • Distribution $3,087,400 • Cliff Rd. Booster Station Improvements $372,400 • Supply $3,860,000 • Storage $3,497,800 • Safari Reservoir Altitude Valve & Booster Pump $137,700 • Treatment $1,406,100 • Total $12,361,400 Metropolitan Council Water Conservation Toolbox: Tips and Resources http:// www. metrocouncil .org /environment/WaterSuPply /conservationtoolbox residential.htm Toilets, Sink Faucets and Showerheads 6 According to the City of Eagan Public Works Annual report, actual maximum daily demand in 2010 equaled 18.7 million gallon /day, http: / /www.cityofeagan.com /upload/ images /PublicWorks /Eng /ARUA.pdf I. Me- The 1992 Federal Energy Policy Act required all toilets, sink faucets and showerheads manufactured in the United States after January 1, 1994 be low- volume fixtures. Toilets must use no more than 1.6 gallons per flush (gpf); sink faucets no more than 2.5 gallons per minute (gpm); and showerheads no more than 2.5 gpm, respectively. Fixtures installed before 1994 were not required to be retrofitted; therefore, 5 to 7 gpf toilets and 3 to 4 gpm sink faucets and showerheads are still in extensive use throughout the United States. Clothes Washers and Dishwashers The efficiency of clothes washers and dishwashers installed between 1980 and the early 2000s are estimated to range from 27 gallons per load (gpl) to 51 gpl and 7 gpl to 14gpl, respectively. Although recent models (since year 2000) are twice as water - efficient as those of 20 years ago (1980), water conservation measures are still important because as population increases so does total water use. Implementation Status of Relevant GreenStep Cities Actions Best Practice 20.7 Create a demand -side management program to reduce demands on water and wastewater systems. http:// cireenstep. pca. state,mn.us /bestPracticesDetaiI actions.cfm ?bgid =20 &aid =883 Status: Eagan has not yet reported completion of this action Implementation Guidance (from GreenStep website) o 1 Star: Offer incentives to homes and businesses to reduce use of water and to limit wastewater, such as using WaterSense rated appliances, smart lawn- watering techniques, replacing old toilets, harvesting rainwater for landscaping, and water re -use where appropriate and allowed under Minnesota code. Report building or development code water efficiency, as part of Green Building efforts, under best practice 2, action 5. 2 Stars: Achieve 1 Star rating AND study the cost - savings from deferring capacity additions and reducing energy and maintenance operating costs if demand is reduced. Report demand - reduction savings to residents and businesses. o 3 Stars: Achieve 2 Star rating AND modify rate structures to target peak -use times and discourage or defer use, OR create a sustainable water use plan. Best Practice 2.5 Mr, 7 Conserve drinking /groundwater resources by adopting a watering ordinance, conservation rate structure, dynamic user feedback, model landscaping ordinance, or WaterSense purchasing program. http:// greenstep. pca. state.mn.us /bestPracticesDetail actions. cfm ?bpid =2 &aid =725 Status: Eagan has reported implementing a tiered rate structure and odd -even watering. Implementation is complete at a 1 star level. The city's information on the GreenStep website appears below. The City of Eagan has permanent conservation program for outside water usage. If your address ends in an odd number such as 311, outdoor watering is allowed on the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 7th, etc., day of the month. If your address ends in an even number such as 312, outdoor watering is allowed on the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, etc., day of the month. This permanent system is in effect throughout the entire outdoor watering season. The State has enacted legislation requiring cities with a water utility to adopt a rate structure that encourages water conservation. To comply with the law, most cities, including Eagan, have chosen to adopt a tiered rate structure. Eagan has a two -tier system in place. Effective July 1, 2010 residents pay the same rate they are accustomed to paying$1.40 per thousand gallons for the normal indoor usage. The normal usage level will be defined as water used in the winter quarter, a period void of outdoor use such as watering lawns, washing cars, and filling swimming pools. Water used in the non - winter quarters in excess of normal will be billed at $1.75 per thousand gallons." found on the Cities web page at http://www.cityofeagan.com/live/page.asp?menu=21444. Implementation Guidance (from GreenStep website) o 1 Star: Implement a robust water ordinance OR robust conservation rate structure. Report water use changes (which can be reductions of around 10 %) or the rate structure /pricing. o 2 Stars: Modify and adopt a model landscaping ordinance that encourages low water - use landscaping, OR arrange for water users to see their water use history/use compared to similar users. o 3 Stars: Achieve 1 Star rating AND create a rebate or feebate program to promote purchases of WaterSense- and /or Energy Star -rated appliances, consistent with best practice 20, action 5. Report on rebates granted by appliance type and estimated water /energy savings. Eagan Housing Vintage Data from Metropolitan Council Community Profile http://stats.metc.state.mn.us/r)rofile/detai1.asr)x?c=02394586 • Census Number of Housing Units 1990: 18,450 • Estimated Number of Housing Units in 2011: 26,443 • Percent of Housing Units in Eagan built before 1990: 69.77% Water Use Priorities JlA 0 State Statute 103G.291 established an emergency water allocation priority system which must be considered in determining pre- reduction procedures. The table below illustrates the priorities as they apply to Eagan's customer uses. • First Priority Domestic water supply, excluding industrial and commercial uses of municipal water supply. • Second Priority Water uses involving consumption of less than 10,000 gallons per day. • Third Priority Agricultural irrigation and processing of agricultural products (does not apply). • Fourth Priority Power production (does not apply). • Fifth Priority Uses other than agricultural irrigation, processing of agricultural products, and power production. • Sixth Priority Non - essential uses such as lawn sprinkling, vehicle washing, park irrigation, and filling swimming pools. US EPA Water Conservation Plan Guidelines hftp://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/.quide.html 7 10 If Annual History of Water Pumpage Water Demands - Summer Millions of Millions of Gallons of Water Per Day Vs. Inches of Precipitation Gallons /Day 2001 -2011 25.8 25.7 24.3 25.3 25.3 24.3 2001 -2011 25 19.4 21.4 20 17.9 15.8 16.8 18.4 17 18.5 18.7 42.6 15 14.3 13.5 11.8- X7.4 3.6 3.6 12.1 10 5 38.2 3.4 0 34.2 3.4 3.4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2011 Average 17.9 14.3 13.5 15.8 16.8 21.8 1 18.4 17 14.5 12.1 13.2 �-- Maximum 25.8 19.4 25.7 21.4 24.3 25.3 1 25.3 24.3 18.5 18.7 17.4 3 27.4 27.6 Average 10 If Annual History of Water Pumpage Vs. Inches of Precipitation Precipitation Bil. Gal. 2001 -2011 45 - -- _ - -- - - -- 4 42.6 3.6 3.6 40 38.2 3.4 34.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 35 3.2 33.6 32.89 3.2 30 3 27.4 27.6 26.91 25 24.3 22.6 22.3 2.5 20 15 2 10 1.5 5 0 1 2001 2002 2003 1 2004 1 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 MlPrecipitabon 42.6 34.2 38.2 22.6 27.4 33.6 27.6 24.3 22.3 32.89 26.91 -*-Bil. Gallons 3.4 3 3.5 1 3.4 1 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.4 3 3.2 Source: htto: / /www.cityofeagan.com/ upload / images /PublicWorks /Eng /ARUA.pdf 10 If a1 L LU C LLI 2!% O N a C O L W � o O a E o U O J9 L O O L CL L a� C■ CD a) � E L O `�■� V O O N a� s E O L > O V v • s L > O O � � s �•+ c E 0 _ �+ � O LO /7 crO m ■� E ■ O V i .0 O cr N Q L O O L CL L a� C■ CD a) � E L O `�■� V O O N a� s E O L > O V v • s L > O L 3 0 L A c R ca LU Z[OZ L 16 L 0 C. 0 0 a 0 0 Lr; n T- Lf) r � JOAGI aas anoga jaal J anal a ajaM Ma ■L L a L ■ � L s � �s U O L a O M O N N v �U O d U o ca 4- 4. o +1 14-- o Qa� o 0 o Q! V N M N L cr � O d T T O N V L a as L 4) !:;o � 0 FM n a u s 0 U d d s i 0 .. L 4) I I I > I 0 I ea �, o �I N � r, W NI Aep/epdeo/ srrD„ff) 1 r r� �r j �i d� J O E2 O U C C D) c L- 0 U c C O U L /O A w m ap m I ■ EL if • 1 V L m D 1 If I � I � 5 1 � L r I I CD I � N 0 M W (� C r M :J Aep/elideo/ SIX -11VE -�a t G, r Y r� f� �1 4� L 0 U C c 0 c L 0 M U "0 (a N U i 0 U) m 0 L om V i as W W-; Do- N 6 m � Q) c (1) c U N i i L V _ U c O N CO C: O N cm N c O N 0) N N C: O N cm LO O cn C O m O N N CO O M 1 1 1 I I 00 m LO LO � r 1 L IL N :3 C O � c N N c O U C O 0 _ C O m r- O 0) N LO N cm r m cm 1 � 1 1 I 1 M M N M V C CL L Q (D_ O =3 N N t N C O I- U- U) U 23 C C G Ui Q s u 0 Y V O AW cn i 0 s i ca ea LU 0 O 1 .0 C� Apluent) Agenda Information Memo December 10, 2013 Special City Council Meeting VI. REVIEW 2014 LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: No formal action is needed. This is an opportunity for the Council to review and discuss the proposed legislative priorities. FACTS: • The 2014 legislative priorities were prepared with input from each department of the City. • In keeping with past practice, an effort was made not to duplicate all of the legislative positions or policies of lobbying organizations such as the League of Minnesota Cities, Metro Cities, and the Municipal Legislative Commission. • The format has been changed a bit from years past in an effort to condense the priorities, and make them well - defined and more easily understood for the public. • If so directed by the Council, formal action can be included on the December 17 City Council agenda (under Legislative /Intergovernmental Relations Update) to approve the 2014 legislative priorities. • Once approved, the priorities will be sent to Eagan's legislative delegation so they have them in advance of the joint meeting with the City Council on January 14. ATTACHMENTS: Enclosed on pages S(o through 3"'I are the proposed 2014 legislative priorities. 35 DRAFT 2014 Legislative Priorities The following are the City of Eagan's 2014 Legislative priorities. To avoid repetition, this list does not restate all of the initiatives addressed through policy documents set forth by the League of Minnesota Cities (LMC), Metro Cities, or the Municipal Legislative Commission (MLC). The City of Eagan respectfully requests the support of our Legislative delegation on the following initiatives: 1. Support a strong fiscal relationship between the State and local governments. A. Ensure levy limits are not imposed again in the coming year. B. Expand the State sales tax exemption to LOGIS, a joint powers entity comprised almost entirely of tax- exempt municipalities and agencies. 2. Support Policies that Encourage Regional and Local Economic Development. A. Extend the length of the Cedar Grove Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District term by 15 years and extend the five -year rule to permit additional investment in public infrastructure and private projects in the district, particularly for projects within walking distance from the Cedar Grove Transit Station. B. Expand Tax Increment Financing (TIF) criteria under which production of information technology products (e.g. software, online publications, etc.) may be defined as manufacturing for TIF purposes in order that cities can attract such businesses to the State of Minnesota. C. Modify tax code to financially incent the expansion and renovation of existing and smaller -scale data centers in the State (current threshold for tax advantages when renovating an existing data centers is $50 million, which is detrimental to companies such as Unisys and Thomson Reuters). D. Ensure that any building code changes pertaining to new construction are consistent with State broadband goals to support enhanced broadband capability. E. Ensure the Department of Commerce's Office on Telecom & Broadband focus broadband deployment efforts on metro and regional job centers like Eagan so we can compete with world class broadband speeds. With other states and regions moving ahead on gigabit fiber to the home, the state lacks incentives for firms to provide such services in the Twin Cities region. F. Support a study of how to position our region's critical infrastructure, like the 511 Building in Minneapolis (the main pathway to Chicago for most Internet traffic), in the event of cyber terrorism or natural disruptions. 2014 City of Eagan Legislative Priorities Page 2 G. Support the repeal of the "warehouse" tax enacted last year as it disproportionately affects (taxes) a greater number of commercial /industrial properties in Eagan. 3. Support local and regional transportation and infrastructure initiatives. A. Support the bonding request for the proposed direct access off of Highway 77 (Cedar Avenue) to the Cedar Grove Station to reduce Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) travel times and enhance rider experiences for origination, destination and transfer riders - -$6 million B. Support funding for the Robert Street Transitway to enhance transit services in eastern Eagan - -$1.4 million C. Require MnDOT to maintain state right -of -way and parcels acquired for state or federal highway transportation purposes located within city limits in a manner consistent with local ordinances. Alternatively, require MnDOT to reimburse Minnesota cities for the labor, supplies, and equipment necessary to maintain state right -of -way and parcels to meet city standards or minimize public safety hazards. This includes highways, traffic signals, trails, retaining walls, storm sewer /drainage systems. D. Authorize cities to create additional public infrastructure utilities, such as a street or sidewalk utility for a Street Improvement District, to address funding for building and maintaining necessary infrastructure outside of the limitations of existing special assessment authority and Municipal State Aid. E. Support enablabling legislation to allow schools to use school district transportation funding off -site (for trail plowing around schools in partnership with communities). 4. Support tools to ensure effective local government service delivery. A. Oppose industry efforts to create "Code Councils" to ensure that the Building Code amendment process remains balanced between the interests of the public and industry. B. Retain the law enacted in 2008 requiring private utility companies to share information regarding gas and electric shut offs with local units of government to aid in efforts to identify vacant or uninhabitable properties. Support the establishment of wellhead protection areas or drinking water supply management areas (DWSMA) to prevent well drillers from placing private wells within the zone of the community water supply. D. Oppose any DNR efforts to significantly increase water appropriation fees as it would increase City utility /water rates. J9 Special Council Workshop Agenda Memo December 10, 2013 VII. PROPOSED NEW WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION POLICY CONSIDERATIONS DIRECTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Based on previous action terminating the Gun Club Lake Watershed Management Organization ( GCLWMO) Joint Powers Agreement as of January 14, 2014, the City Council is asked to provide feedback and direction on the following policy questions: 1.) To what extent does the City Council wish to revise the way in which the proposed Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization operates, as compared to the GCLWMO? 2.) To what extent does the City Council wish to revise the composition of the board of the proposed Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization, as compared to the GCLWMO? FACTS: a The GCLWMO was formed June 1, 1985 through a joint powers agreement (Agreement) between the cities of Eagan, Inver Grove Heights, and Mendota Heights under authority conferred by Minn. Stats. §§ 471.59 and 103B.211. a The Agreement's purpose, consistent with Minn. Stats. § 103B.201, was to provide a watershed management organization (WMO) to regulate the natural water storage and retention of a designated drainage basin, in this case that of Gun Club Lake, to: (1) protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; (2) minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; (3) identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; (4) establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; (5) prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; (6) promote groundwater recharge; (7) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and (8) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and groundwater. • The Gun Club Lake Watershed covers 33.2 square miles of Dakota County. Of this area, Eagan comprised 89.0 percent, Inver Grove Heights 4.4 percent, and Mendota Heights 6.5 percent. • As a special purpose unit of government, a WMO is directed by a board of managers who are appointed by member cities. WMO powers and duties include: (a) preparing and adopting a watershed management plan according to Minn. Stats. § 103B.231; (b) reviewing and approving member cities' local water management plans per Minn. Stat. § 103B.235; and (c) exercising the authority of a watershed district under Minn. Stat. § 103D when certain conditions exist. • On September 3, 2013, the City of Mendota Heights formally requested termination of the GCLWMO pursuant to Section 11, Subdivision 2 of the Agreement. • On October 15, 2013, the City Council approved the termination of the Agreement effective January 14, 2014. With similar action by Inver Grove Heights, all of the cities have elected to dissolve the GCLWMO, having adopted appropriate resolutions by each respective council. • It is necessary to have a replacement joint powers agreement between the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights to establish a new WMO in effect as of January 14, 2014. • The proposed Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed will cover 31.0 square miles of Dakota County. Of this area, Eagan will comprise 95.3 percent and Inver Grove Heights 4.7 percent. • Establishing a new WMO provides a unique opportunity to consider the operation and board management of the organization. Preparing a new watershed management plan for adoption is arguably the most significant responsibility and will be the first major task of the new WMO. ATTACHMENT: • Draft Joint Powers Agreement, pages _-51 through SQ . • Board Options, page '22. 3 A JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF EAGAN AND THE CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS ESTABLISHING THE EAGAN - INVER GROVE HEIGHTS WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION 2014 EAGAN -INVER GROVE HEIGHTS WATERSHED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT INDEX SECTION /SUBDIVISION PAGE 1. Name ................................................................................................. ..............................1 2. Purpose ............................................................................................. ..............................1 3. Definitions ........................................................................................ ..............................1 Subd. 1. Board ......................................................................... ..............................1 Subd. 2. Council ...................................................................... ..............................1 Subd. 3. Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed .................... ..............................1 Subd. 4. Manager .................................................................... Subd. 5. ..............................2 Member Subd. 6. ..................................................................... ..............................2 Watershed Management Organization ( "WMO ") .... ..............................2 4. Membership ..................................................................................... ..............................2 5. Advisory Committees ...................................................................... ..............................2 Subd. 1. Citizen Advisory Committee .................................... ..............................2 Subd. 2. Technical Advisory Committee ................................ ..............................2 6. Board of Managers ......................................................................... Subd. 1. ..............................3 Appointment Subd. 2. ............................................................. ..............................3 Eligibility or Qualification ........................................ ..............................3 Subd. 3. Term .......................................................................... ..............................3 Subd. 4. Compensation ........................................................... ..............................3 Subd. 5. Organization/Structure ............................................. ............................... 3 Subd. 6. Voting ....................................................................... ..............................4 Subd. 7. Quorum ..................................................................... ..............................4 Subd. 8. Business Address ...................................................... ..............................4 7. Powers and Duties of the WMO .................................................... ..............................5 Subd. 1. WMO ........................................................................ ..............................5 Subd. 2. Employees ................................................................. ..............................5 Subd. 3. Location ................................................................... ............................... 5 Subd. 4. Materials ................................................................... Subd. 5. ..............................5 Surveys ...................................................................... ..............................5 Subd. 6. Public /Private Organizations .................................... ..............................5 Subd. 7. Local Improvements ................................................. Subd. 8. ..............................6 Operation/Maintenance ............................................ ............................... 6 Subd. 9. Insurance .................................................................. ............................... 6 Subd. 10. Testing/Measuring Devices ...................................... ..............................6 Subd. 11. Technical Assistance /Local Water Management Plans ..........................6 Subd. 12. Technical Assistance /Legal ...................................... ..............................6 Subd. 13. Reserve Funds .......................................................... 6 Subd. 14. ............................... Revenue ..................................................................... ..............................7 Subd. 15. Contracts ................................................................... ..............................7 HO PARAGRAPHATEM 8 9. 10 11. 12. Subd. 16. Information Availability ................................ ............................... Subd. 17. Amendments .................................................. ............................... Subd. 18. Additional Powers .......................................... ............................... Subd. 19. Supplemental Studies ..................................... ............................... Subd. 20. Pollution Abatement ...................................... ............................... Subd. 21. Newsletter ...................................................... ............................... Subd. 22. Proposals for Services .................................... ............................... Subd. 23. Planning Activities ......................................... ............................... Subd. 24. Annual Report ................................................ ............................... Finances................................................................................. ............................... Subd. 1. Depositories /Disbursements .......................... ............................... Subd. 2. General Administration .................................. ............................... Subd. 3. Budget ............................................................ ............................... SpecialAssessments .............................................................. ............................... Duration................................................................................. ............................... Subd. 1. Agreement Binding ........................................ ............................... Subd. 2. Termination .................................................... ............................... Subd. 3 Allocation of Assets Upon Termination / Dissolution .................... EffectiveDate ........................................................................ ............................... SignaturePage ....................................................................... ............................... ql PAGE 7 7 ..........7 ..........7 ..........7 ..........7 ..........8 .......... 8 ..........8 ..........8 ..........8 ..........8 ..........9 ..........9 ..........9 ..........9 ..........9 ..........9 ........10 ........11 JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION FOR THE EAGAN -INVER GROVE HEIGHTS WATERSHED THE PARTIES TO THIS AGREEMENT are cities that have land within the Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed. This Agreement is made pursuant to the authority conferred upon the parties by Minn. Stat. §§ 471.59 and 10313.211. 1. Name. The parties hereby create and establish the Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization. 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide an organization to regulate the natural water storage and retention of the Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed, according to Minn. Stat. § 10313.201, to: (1) protect, preserve, and use natural surface and groundwater storage and retention systems; (2) minimize public capital expenditures needed to correct flooding and water quality problems; (3) identify and plan for means to effectively protect and improve surface and groundwater quality; (4) establish more uniform local policies and official controls for surface and groundwater management; (5) prevent erosion of soil into surface water systems; (6) promote groundwater recharge; (7) protect and enhance fish and wildlife habitat and water recreational facilities; and (8) secure the other benefits associated with the proper management of surface and ground water. 3. Definitions. defined. Subdivision 1. Board means the Board of Managers of the WMO as hereinafter Subdivision 2. Council means the governing body of the City of Eagan or the City of Inver Grove Heights. �D Subdivision 3. Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed or watershed means the area within the boundary delineated on the map, as set forth on Appendix A, as may be amended. Subdivision 4. Manager means an individual appointed by a member to comprise and serve on the Board. Heights. Subdivision 5. Member means the City of Eagan or the City of Inver Grove Subdivision 6. Watershed Management Organization (WMO) means the organization established by this Agreement- -the full name of which is "Eagan -Inver Grove Heights Watershed Management Organization," which shall be a public agency of its respective member cities. 4. Membership. The membership of the WMO shall consist of the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. No change in governmental boundaries, structure, organizational status or character shall affect the eligibility of either city to be represented on the Board, so long as such city continues to exist as a separate political subdivision. 5. Advisory Committees. Subdivision 1. Citizen Advisory Committee. The Board may establish a Citizen Advisory Committee from the public at large. The Board may consult the Citizen Advisory Committee on the development, content, and implementation of the watershed management plan. Subdivision 2. Technical Advisory Committee. The Board may establish a Technical Advisory Committee to perform such duties as delegated by the WMO. Dakota County and the Dakota County Soil and Water Conservation District may be requested to appoint a nonvoting advisory person to assist the Board and /or to serve on the Technical Advisory Committee. �1 6. Board of Managers. Subdivision 1. Appointment. The governing body of the WMO shall be its Board, which shall consist of five (5) managers. The City of Eagan shall appoint three (3) managers and the City of Inver Grove Heights shall appoint two (2) managers. Each city may designate alternates if necessitated by the absence of its respective manager(s). Subdivision 2. Eli ig bility or Qualification. Each council shall comply with state laws in determining the eligibility or qualification of its manager(s) and alternate(s) on the Board. Subdivision 3. Term. Managers and alternates shall serve a three (3) year term and until their successors are appointed and qualify. A manager or alternate may not be removed from the Board prior to the expiration of the manager's term, except for just cause by the council that made the appointment. The Board of Water and Soil Resources shall be notified of all appointments to the Board and of all vacancies as required by state law. All vacancies shall be filled within ninety (90) days after they occur. The Board shall comply with state laws regarding published notice of vacancies. Subdivision 4. Compensation. Managers shall serve without compensation from the WMO, but this shall not prevent a member from providing compensation to a manager for serving on the Board. Subdivision 5. Organization/Structure. At the Board's first meeting and annually thereafter, the Board shall elect from its managers a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary, Treasurer, and any other officers it deems necessary to conduct its meetings and affairs. The Chair shall preside at Board meetings, and in the absence of the Chair, the Vice Chair shall perform this duty. In the absence of the Chair or Vice Chair, the Treasurer shall preside. The Chair shall retain all rights L� of a manager to speak, make motions, and vote. The Vice Chair shall assume duties when the Chair is absent and shall automatically be promoted to complete the annual term of the Chair if the then current Chair resigns or is removed from the Board. The Secretary shall certify and record the proceedings and official actions of the Board and shall supervise performance of these duties if the Board delegates them to a non - manager. The Treasurer shall oversee the Board's fiscal affairs. Except for the Chair, any manager may be elected to more than one office. At the organizational meeting or as soon thereafter as it may be reasonably done, the Board shall adopt rules and regulations governing its meetings. Such rules and regulations may be amended from time to time at either a regular or a special meeting of the Board. Meetings must be held at least annually. Unless otherwise provided by public notice, Board meetings shall be held in the council chambers of one of the members. The dates, times, and locations of meetings of the Board shall be posted on the bulletin board of each member at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the meeting. Subdivision 6. Voting. Decisions by the Board shall require a majority vote of all managers present at each meeting, each of whom shall be entitled to one vote. Subdivision 7. Quorum. A majority of the entire Board shall constitute a quorum, but less than a quorum may adjourn a scheduled meeting. In the absence of a quorum, a scheduled meeting shall not be started, and the meeting shall be re- scheduled. Subdivision 8. Business Address. The Board shall maintain a business office at 3830 Pilot Knob Road, Eagan, Minnesota 55122. All notices to the Board shall be delivered or served to such office. q5 7. Powers and Duties of the WMO. Subdivision 1. WMO. Except as otherwise qualified or modified by this Agreement, the WMO, acting by its Board, shall have and may perform all the powers and duties expressly set forth in and reasonably implied from Minn. Stat. §§ 103B.201 to 103B.253, including: (A) Preparing, adopting, and implementing a watershed management plan according to Minn. Stat. § 103B.231. (B) Reviewing and approving member's local water management plans per Minn. Stat. § 103B.235. Subdivision 2. Employees. The WMO may employ such persons as it deems necessary to accomplish its duties and powers. Subdivision 3. Location. The WMO may contract for the necessary space to carry on its activities either with a member or elsewhere. Subdivision 4. Materials. The WMO may acquire necessary personal property, material, and supplies to carry out its activities, powers, and duties. Subdivision 5. Surveys. The WMO may make necessary surveys, or use other reliable surveys and data, and develop projects to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized. The WMO may enter upon lands within or without the watershed to make these surveys and investigations. Subdivision 6. Public /Private Organizations. The WMO may cooperate or contract with the State of Minnesota or any subdivision thereof or federal agency or private or public organization to accomplish the purposes for which it is organized. �(0 Subdivision 7. Local Improvements. The WMO may order a member to carry out its local water management plan that has been approved by the Board. Subdivision 8. Operation/Maintenance. The WMO may acquire, operate, construct, and maintain those capital improvements as delineated in the watershed management plan adopted by the Board. Subdivision 9. Insurance. The WMO may contract for or purchase such insurance as the Board deems necessary for the protection of the WMO. Subdivision 10. Testin easurinj4 Devices. The WMO may establish and maintain devices for testing, acquiring, and recording hydrological and water quality data within the watershed. Subdivision 11. Technical Assistance /Local Water Management Plans. The WMO may provide any member with technical data or any other information of which the WMO has knowledge that will assist the member in preparing land use classifications or local water management plans within the watershed. Subdivision 12. Technical Assistance/Legal. The WMO may provide legal and technical assistance in connection with litigation or other proceedings between its members and any other political subdivision, commission, board or agency relating to the planning or construction of facilities to drain or pond storm waters or relating to water quality within the watershed. A majority vote of all managers entitled to vote is required before use of WMO funds for litigation. Subdivision 13. Reserve Funds. The WMO may accumulate reserve funds for the purposes herein mentioned and may invest funds of the WMO not currently needed for its operations. �9 Subdivision 14. Revenue. The WMO may collect money, subject to the provisions of this Agreement, from its members, in such amounts approved by the members and from any other source approved by a majority of its Board. Notwithstanding, any tax levy must be approved by each member. Subdivision 15. Contracts. The WMO may make contracts, incur expenses, and make expenditures necessary and incidental to the effectuation of its purposes and powers. Subdivision 16. Information Availability. The WMO's books, reports, and records shall be available for and open to inspection by its members at all reasonable times. Subdivision 17. Amendments. The WMO may recommend changes in this Agreement to its members. Any amendments shall require ratification by both members. Subdivision 18. Additional Powers. The WMO may exercise all other powers necessary and incidental to the implementation of the purposes and powers set forth herein and as outlined and authorized by Minn. Stat. §§ 103B.211 and 103B.253. Subdivision 19. Supplemental Studies. Each member reserves the right to conduct separate or concurrent studies or tests at its own expense on any matter under study by the WMO. Subdivision 20. Pollution Abatement. The Board may investigate on its own initiation or shall investigate upon petition of any member all complaints relating to pollution within the watershed covered by this Agreement. Upon a finding that the watershed is being polluted, the Board may order the member to abate this nuisance and each member agrees that it will take all reasonable action available to it under the law to alleviate the pollution and to assist in protecting and improving the water quality of surface water in the watershed. r� Subdivision 21. Newsletter. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 10313.227, the Board shall publish and distribute at least one newsletter or other appropriate written communication at least annually to residents. The newsletter or other communication must explain the WMO's water management programs and list the officers and telephone numbers. Subdivision 22. Proposals for Services. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 103B.227, the Board shall at least every two (2) years solicit interest proposals for legal, professional, or technical consultant services before retaining the services of an attorney or consultant or extending an annual services agreement. Subdivision 23. Planning Activities. The Board shall coordinate its planning activities with contiguous watershed management organizations and counties conducting water planning and implementation under Minn. Stat. Ch. 103B. Subdivision 24. Annual Report. On or before April 1, the Board shall file with the Board of Water and Soil Resources and the clerk of each member a financial activity report, an activity report, and an audit report for the previous fiscal year meeting the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 103B.231 and Minnesota Rule-Part 8410.0150. 8. Finances. Subdivision 1. Depositories/Disbursements. WMO funds may be expended by the Board according to this Agreement in a manner determined by the Board. The Board shall designate one or more national or state bank or trust companies authorized to receive deposits of public monies to act as depositories for WMO funds. In no event shall there be a disbursement of WMO funds without the signature of at least two (2) managers, one of whom shall be the Treasurer. `o� Subdivision 2. General Administration. Each member agrees to contribute each year to a general fund to be used for general administration purposes including, but not limited to: salaries, rent, supplies, development of an overall plan, insurance, bonds, and to purchase and maintain devices to measure hydrological and water quality data. [The annual contribution by each member shall be based fifty percent (50 %) on the assessed valuation of all properties within the watershed and fifty percent (50 %) on its proportional area within the watershed.] Subdivision 3. Budget. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall adopt a general administrative budget for the ensuing year. The Secretary shall certify the budget on or before July 1 to the clerk of each member, together with a statement of the proportion of the budget to be provided by each member. Each member agrees to provide the funds required by the budget and the determination shall be conclusive. 9. Special Assessments. The WMO shall not have the power to levy special assessments. All such assessments shall be levied by the member(s) wherein the benefited land is located. 10. Duration. Subdivision 1. Agreement Binding. Except as provided below, each member agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement. Subdivision 2. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by either member, upon one year's written notice to the other, or at any time upon the written agreement of both members. Dakota County and the Board of Water and Soil Resources must be given at least ninety (90) days advance written notice of the intent to dissolve the WMO. Subdivision 3. Allocation of Assets Upon Termination/Dissolution. Upon termination of this Agreement or dissolution of the WMO, all property of the WMO shall be sold and the proceeds thereof, together with monies on hand, shall be distributed to the members of the WMO. Such distribution of WMO assets shall be made in proportion to the total contribution to the WMO required by the last annual budget. 11. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be in full force and effect when both cities have executed this Agreement. Both members need not sign the same copy. The signed Agreement shall be filed with the clerk of the City of Eagan, who shall notify the clerk of the City of Inver Grove Heights in writing that it has been adopted. Prior to the effective date of this Agreement, either signatory member may rescind its approval. [Remainder of page left intentionally blank] 51 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned cities, by action of their councils, have caused this Agreement to be executed. Approved by the City Council CITY OF EAGAN 2014. BY: Mike Maguire Its Mayor WOW Christina M. Scipioni Its City Clerk Approved by the City Council CITY OF INVER GROVE HEIGHTS 2014. BY: Its Mayor AND Its City Clerk 5a Outlined below are some concerns and benefits of three possible options for the new WMO board of five (5) managers: Status Quo (per GCLWMO) Board *: Residents appointed by the city councils of Eagan (3 residents) and Inver Grove Heights (2 residents). All Council Board Board *: Councilmembers from the cities of Eagan (3 councilmembers) and Inver Grove Heights (2 councilmembers). Council - Resident Hybrid Board Board *: Some combination of councilmembers and residents from the cities of Eagan and Inver Grove Heights. *The WMO board may establish a citizen advisory committee (CAC) from the public at large and may consult the CAC on the development, content, and implementation of the watershed management plan. It may also establish a technical advisory committee (TAC) (i.e., City staff, consultants) to perform such duties as deleeated by the board. Concerns: • Continuous need to solicit interest and appoint residents to fill board vacancies. • Maintaining quorums at WMO meetings. • Significant staff involvement to educate new and support incumbent board managers regarding policy, role, and responsibilities of the WMO. • Administrative costs associated with WMO activities. Benefits: • Minimizes city councils' participation. • May provide independent views of cities' watershed management. Concerns: • Additional responsibility of city councils for WMO activities. Staff involvement to educate new and support incumbent board managers regarding policy, role, and responsibilities of the WMO. Benefits: • No need to solicit interest and appoint residents to fill board vacancies. • City councils already understand many relevant policies, roles, and responsibilities of local watershed management. • Reduced administrative costs associated with WMO board meetings. WMO board stability Concerns: • Continuous need to solicit interest and appoint residents to fill board vacancies. • Additional responsibility of city councils for WMO activities. • Staff involvement to educate new and support incumbent board managers regarding policy, role, and responsibilities of the WMO. Benefits: • Reduced need to solicit interest and appoint residents to fill board vacancies. City councils already understand many relevant policies, roles, and responsibilities of local watershed management. Reduced administrative costs associated with WMO board meetings. WMO board stability.