Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/28/2003 Environmental Board MinutesENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 1APPROVED MINUTES CITY OF LINO LAKES APPROVED MINUTES DATE: May 28, 2003 TIME STARTED: 6:38 P.M. TIME ENDED: 9:30 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Amy Donlin, Constance Grundhofer, Patrice Toler Halen, Rod Kukonen, Teresa O’Connell, and Mary Jo O’Dea MEMBERS ABSENT: Nikki Schneider STAFF PRESENT: Environmental Coordinator Marty Asleson and Community Development Director Michael Grochala 1.CALL TO ORDER Chair Kukonen called the meeting to order at 6:38 p.m. 2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 30, 2003 O’Dea moved to approve the April 30, 2003 meeting minutes. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA • Move Solid Waste Recycling/Recycling Direction to be included in 7B. • Discuss Target Stormwater Update in 7C. • Discuss area North of Lino Lakes Elementary in 7C. • Discuss Interstate 35 Corridor Update 7C. 4.OPEN MIKE No citizen comments were made. 5.ACTION ITEMS None. 6.DISCUSSION ITEMS A.Surface Water Management Plan/Jim Jacques Asleson introduced Jim Jacques and noted that he was present to answer questions from the Board. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 2APPROVED MINUTES Mr. Jacques stated there was a lot of State support for the Plan because of the power of the Watershed Districts, that act like an umbrella that spans across cities that share common watersheds. Asleson added that the document was being updated to current laws, with Mr. Jacques of TKDA as the lead person for the City to give direction for the future. Mr. Jacques indicated the original Plan was a good resource in two volumes, but it lacked in follow through. The updated document deferred to other government bodies. The Executive Summary discussed policies for the City. The main factor was funding, so there was a renewed attempt to identify the fund allocations. He passed around to the Board members a chart that the City was in the process of completing. He noted that the City had spent a considerable amount in several areas, but it needed to be pulled together. Donlin stated the developers should be responsible to contribute. Mr. Jacques responded there was a development fee and stormwater utilities, which are payments relating to the amount of impervious that is already established to obtain funds from businesses. Donlin questioned if the City billed the business. Mr. Jacques answered the Plan divided the responsibility. The amounts depended on the contribution of water as a function of the impervious, that also could be borrowed against. Asleson indicated the City was responsible to make sure the systems worked, but the business was responsible for the maintenance of the system. He stated that specific goals and targets were defined. Chair Kukonen inquired about the required timeline. Mr. Jacques answered that the City was about two years behind. He explained the Metropolitan Council looked at the required plans whenever a City wanted to address them. The Plan would then be reviewed by all parties. Donlin inquired about staffs’ knowledge of the required update. Mr. Jacques responded staff was aware of the revision. He indicated there was an option for the City to take over Rice Creek Watershed District’s jurisdiction. It would be a delegated authority. Hugo had been the only city to choose the option. Rice Creek Watershed District has indicated if a city chose the option, the city would be responsible for both the stormwater and wetland management programs. Grundhofer asked if the Plan would have to be accepted by the City. Mr. Jacques answered the Plan had to be accepted by Council, then it would go into review. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 3APPROVED MINUTES Donlin inquired if the Stormwater Plan included shoreland management practices. Mr. Jacques answered the City had a Shoreland Ordinance that covered those issues. Asleson noted the City’s Shoreland Ordinance was more restrictive than the State requirements. Mr. Jacques stated the document put all the water resource issues in one place. An annual report was required to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Donlin expressed concern that the City would be responsible for administering the Plan, and suggested an outside entity should review the document. Mr. Jacques indicated that Mr. Grochala had been signing off on the items, and Metropolitan Council would make the City responsible. He noted many plans sit on the shelf. Asleson added that Mr. Jacques expertise would remain throughout the Plan. He stated the Board had made changes, in addition, there were some bureaucratic factors that were impossible to implement in the Plan. Mr. Jacques and staff discussed an example of Marshan Lake being classified as a TMDL where there were three factors based on swimability. Furthermore, George Watch Lake had low clarity, Centerville Lake had lake quality that would not change drastically because the water came from rain directly into the lake. Another issue was that the lake was connected to the groundwater. O’Dea inquired if the City could be fined each year. Mr. Jacques stated there was that potential. O’Connell asked for clarification of the reason for Centerville Lake to support swimming. Mr. Jacques answered there could be support for the usability, even though the quality would not change. He asked for feedback. Mr. Jacques referred to the example of Lake Vadnais. The Saint Paul Water Quality had attempted to inhibit turnover, by precipitating out phosphorus in the tributaries and improved the lake. Donlin inquired about the danger of alum. Mr. Jacques responded he was unsure if it was harmful, but it tended to lose effectiveness. The capital improvement was the first thing to be implemented. He asked for the Board’s comments on the stated goals and policies. He noted there was flexibility in the Plan because the policies were a road map, and its implementation would be reviewed every five years. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 4APPROVED MINUTES Donlin expressed concern about road salt in a big development and its effect on invertebrates in wetlands. Mr. Jacques answered that MNDOT was looking at the effects of road salt. There was salt naturally occurring in peat, so background levels were necessary as well. Salt is abundant, cheap and effective, while the other options were more expensive and had other negative impacts. Chair Kukonen noted that there were three lakes the City was requesting to be removed from the TMDL program. Mr. Jacques responded that the lakes would still be covered by the Plan. Asleson added the swimability requirements for the Plan on the lakes could not be measured. Donlin stated the criteria should be changed. Mr. Jacques indicated there were two phases in the program, The diagnostic phase and the control phase. The EPA hired contractors for this purpose. The data gathered would qualify the lake for the program, followed by the implementation plan. He noted the EPA began in sewage treatment, then grew into handling superfund sites, and along the way standards had been developed for chemicals in lakes and streams. O’Dea stated that on page 94 in the document it should read monitoring should be Anoka County instead of Hennepin County. Mr. Jacques indicated that all comments were considered valuable. O’Dea inquired about 20 years being a requirement upfront. Mr. Jacques referred to section 5.218, Maintenance and Inspection, and asked who was responsible. O’Dea gave the example of needing access for maintenance. Grochala responded the ponds with many users were public responsibility, while for ponds with one user, the owner had the responsibility. The City could do the maintenance and charge it to the owner. Halen inquired about how a resident could respond. Grochala stated they could call the City, and gave an example of drainage issues. Mr. Jacques indicated the Plan gave the map, but not the details of implementation. Grochala added the City was addressing fixed agreements and reviews or inspections. Much was being done toward this goal, but they were not tracked or documented in the past. Asleson stated that Public Education was a big part. Some created ponds were merely collectors for runoff. Mr. Jacques indicated there needed for feedback in the process. The process was now more formalized, so the ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 5APPROVED MINUTES City would receive credit for the things it was already doing. He gave the example of cutting maintenance funds. Chair Kukonen noted maintenance funds was the biggest concern in terms of capital. Grochala responded most were being done. In 1993-1994 the Surface Water Management Fee was established to pay for maintenance. Public Works was now tracking street sweeping as stormwater maintenance instead of general fund. There was the question if the City was doing it equitably with the eventual slowdown of growth. There arose a need for the sewer system to be mapped on GIS, which had been completed. O’Dea inquired about the possibility of pooling resources or assets with other cities. Mr. Jacques answered the goals were attainable, because the Watershed Districts were the umbrella organization to link the cities. Donlin questioned if Hugo managing their own stormwater and wetland programs would pose problems. Mr. Jacques responded that Hugo would have to conform to Rice Creek Watershed District and legislative acts. Grochala stated at times there were conflicts with the Watershed District. In many areas, there were more restrictive requirements at the City level. Chair Kukonen inquired about enforcing buffers. Grochala answered the Shoreland Ordinance had buffers and setbacks. It was possible there was now a need for a stormwater ordinance. Mr. Jacques stated there was a copy of the action items for erosion control. Grochala added the rest was a resource document. Chair Kukonen clarified that comments were wanted and should be put on the agenda for the next meeting, in addition to implementation to Phase II permitting authority. Mr. Jacques admitted there was some overlap, but he tried to pull it all together in one document. Chair Kukonen inquired about the lakes on the list in the program, but not implemented. Mr. Jacques stated it was an expanded list, but would be used to enforce the worst of the worst. It would be used as a diagnostic and repair item. Chair Kukonen questioned the reason for not more lakes delisted. Mr. Jacques answered there had to be a reason. Clearwater Creek and Hardwood Creek were not challenged, but the City had little influence on them because Lino Lakes was at the bottom of the stream. The City had only a small influence on Bald Eagle Lake. Peltier was the only lake left unchallenged on the list. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 6APPROVED MINUTES B.Solid Waste Recycling/Recycling Direction This item was discussed in 7B. C.Review of 2003 Goals/ Rod Kukonen Chair Kukonen stated the Board had four ongoing goals and four specific goals, two of which had not been addressed. He identified that attention should be given to research ways to obtain dedication fees. Asleson stated under the section Open Space and Natural Resources, the 1992 open space and trails was evaluated. Donlin responded that it would be out of reach soon financially speaking. Chair Kukonen inquired about the possibility of providing a rack of resource information for people. It would serve as a good starting point for the public education goal. Asleson stated a public speaker or a resident from the City could give a presentation on how to establish a wetland. Chair Kukonen answered he spoke with someone at the Living Green Expo about the native look, but he would want a service fee. Grundhofer suggested a good location for a rack for resources or even a three ring binder could be between the fire extinguisher and the front reception desk. 7.OTHER DEPARTMENT REPORTS A.Forestry Asleson stated the plantings were in. Donlin inquired the meaning of the trees with the yellow ribbons near the Target site. Asleson responded those trees were being saved. Grundhofer inquired about the removal of the dead trees on the Target site. Asleson answered they were going to be replaced. The vegetation fought erosion from rain. Money was being withheld by the City and the Watershed District due to the excess of the emergency overflow. O’Connell suggested that one company should take care of Target and Kohl’s maintenance. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 7APPROVED MINUTES Donlin stated the vegetation pictures in the original plan looked so different. Grundhofer mentioned that the company should be fined. Either a business maintained its site, or the City should, and charge the business. Asleson stated the project was not finished, and money was escrowed. If they did not follow through with the agreement, they would not receive their money. Donlin mentioned it defaulted in the agreement in less than five years. B.Solid Waste Recycling/Recycling Day Asleson expected a 100% cut in SCORE dollars, but there was only a 10% cut. He indicated it was difficult to make the volume goals with only one recycling day, but with the lower cost for help it could be worthwhile. Oil recycling cost the City $300-500 per week, in addition the oil filters needed to be recycled. O’Connell suggested having a combined Recycling Day with Centerville. Asleson indicated it would be difficult to separate the tonnages. Grundhofer inquired if there would be a Recycling Day in the fall. Chair Kukonen suggested keeping the one in the fall this year, but only have a Recycling Day in the spring next year. Asleson stated the fall Recycling Day went well this last year, and the City probably cleared more money because of a change in vendors. The Board had a brief discussion of tire recycling. Donlin made a motion to keep the Fall Recycling Day this year, but for the next calendar year, to hold only one in the Spring. Grundhofer seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. O’Connell suggested the honor system for collecting a nominal amount to defray recycling costs of oil and oil filters. Grundhofer mentioned there could be a slot for the money going into the building. C.Environmental/Heron Issues Asleson stated that there were 300 heron and 8 egrets nesting, but a tree climber was going to verify there were eggs in the nests. Grundhofer sent an E-Mail to Joan Galli that there were 20-30 Great Egrets on the south end of Goose Lake. ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 8APPROVED MINUTES Donlin suggested they might be exhibiting strange behavior, eating instead of nesting. Asleson stated they should set up another task force meeting. Asleson addressed the area north of Lino Lakes Elementary, where the fen had been identified; the culvert was removed and the water levels had risen. He needed to make controls to drop the water level to the fen’s optimum level. Chair Kukonen inquired about the destination of the water. Asleson answered Behm’s and Bluebill Ponds via the stream. Chair Kukonen requested to see the map of the sewer system in the City on GIS. Grundhofer expressed concern that Peltier was classified by the DNR as a natural environment lake, not a recreational lake. She also indicated there was no description of a Natural Resource Lake. The setbacks and buffers were larger in the Natural Resource Lake. Asleson stated he believed Peltier was classified as a game fish lake by the DNR. Donlin explained there was a meeting with the Quad Cities concerning the Interstate 35 Corridor. The area from County Road J to the Interstate 35W Intersection had been experiencing considerable growth recently, and road updates were discussed. She had asked why residents were not informed and asked to participate in the discussions. She noted that the City had contributed $7,000 for a feasibility study in relation to the Sports Complex area. Asleson mentioned the purpose of the meeting was to identify the issues. Donlin indicated there were four citizens present, all from Lino Lakes. She believed it was important for residents to be a part early on in the process, at the brainstorming level. O’Connell noted an article addressed the issue in the most recent Quad newspaper, along with the Eaglebrook Church issue. Donlin stated that there is talk that the Vikings Team might move. Councilmember Carlson indicated a schedule was set for the next meeting. The next action would be a joint powers’ agreement. She identified ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD MEETINGMAY 28, 2003 9APPROVED MINUTES concerns the Board had expressed in the meeting such as concerns for following the Comprehensive Plan, Growth Policy, Rural Character, and Environmental Protection. Donlin questioned if the other Boards were represented, why was the Environmental Board left out of the process. Councilmember Carlson directed her to the Planning Department. Asleson stated he would ask the Planning Department the reason for the omission. Councilmember Carlson indicated she voted for the study that would look at the four different sites. O’Dea mentioned there was a Whooping Crane seen at Carlos Avery. Asleson explained it was from Wisconsin. 8.ADJOURN It was noted that the next meeting of the Environmental Board will be on June 25, 2003. There being no further business, O’Dea moved to adjourn at 9:30 p.m. O’Connell seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. Transcribed by: Brigette Blesi TimeSavers Off Site Secretarial, Inc.