2006-11-27 EC Agenda PacketAGENDA
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley Road
Council Conference Room
Monday, November 27, 2006
7:00 PM
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes — October 23, 2006 Environmental Commission
3. 1/1 Update
A. Municipal Utility Code
B. Inspection Program Update
4. Comprehensive Plan Update
A. Section on Water — Scott Harder of Environmental Financial Group
5. Program/Project Updates
A. Three Rivers Park District Trail (Regional Bicycle Plan)
B. Ad Hoc Deer Task Force
C. Lighting Plan/Ordinance
D. Proposed Developments
1. Miner/Olympic. Printing Site
2. Colonnade II
3. LOGIS Addition
E. Update Buckthorn Removal Project
F. Open Space & Recreation Commission Minutes — October 23, 2006
(not available at this time)
6. Commission Member Council Reports
7. Other Business
8. Adjourn
G:\Environmental Commission\Agendas\2006\112706.doc
GOLDEN VALLEY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Regular Meeting
Minutes
October 23, 2006
Present: Commissioners Baker; Hill; Pawluk; St. Clair. Also present were Al Lundstrom,
Environmental Coordinator;
Absent: Commissioners Anderson; Kaisershot; Silpala. Also absent were Jeannine Clancy,
Director of Public Works; Jeff Oliver, City Engineer; Deb Somers, Administrative
Assistant
1. Call to Order
Pawluk called the meeting to order at 7:06 pm
2. Approval of Minutes — September 25, 2006
Revision to Agenda Item 1, Call to Order. Change St. Clair to Pawluk
MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Hill, and the motion carried unanimously to approve the minutes of
the September 25, 2006 meeting as corrected above.
3. Ill Update
Lundstrom advised that Scott Harder, the City's consultant from Environmental Process, Inc., will be
at the November Environmental Commission meeting to discuss the City's Water Supply Plan in
relation to the Comprehensive Plan. Harder will be asking for the Environmental Commission's input
regarding the Water Supply Plan.
A. Municipal and Public Utilities Code Final Version
The City Council approved the first consideration of the Municipal and Public Utilities Code. The
second consideration will take place at the November 21, 2006 Council meeting. There is a minor
change to the Code concerning the certificate of compliance. Currently the Code states the certificate
of compliance is good for one year. The Council wants to change this portion of the Code to state the
certificate is good indefinitely, or until sale of the property, or until the resident applies for a permit to
do remodeling to their home.
Hill asked if the indefinite compliance would not defeat the purpose to go back and undo what they did
to comply. Lundstrom explained that the work the resident did to get into compliance is not going to be
easy to change back.
B. Inspection Program Implementation
Pawluk asked if there was a charge for the initial inspection by the City. Lundstrom responded that
residents/businesses in the 2007 Pavement Management Program (PMP) are not being charged for
the 1/1 inspection; however, those outside of the PMP area will be charged beginning January 1, 2007
when they apply for a building permit. There are approximately 350 houses in the 2007 PMP area that
are currently being inspected. Of these 350, 150 houses have been completed.
St. Clair asked what kind of results the inspector is finding. Lundstrom stated the inspector has not
found any foundation drain connections when video-taping from the drain out to the street, at this
time. He is finding some cross connections in the house, but not any significant issues related to
sump pumps and foundations.
Environmental Commission Minutes
October 23, 2006
Page 2 of 4
Hill asked what an indoor clean out looked like. Lundstrom replied that most homes have a lower -floor
basement clean out trap that unscrews. This clean out is the point where the sewage in a house
collects and goes out into the street. It is different than a floor drain. St. Clair explained that the clean
out in a house without basement plumbing might be in the stand pipe.
Pawluk asked how large the equipment is for doing the inspections. Lundstrom advised that staff is
working on a video that shows what residents can expect once the inspector arrives at a house. Cable
12 also created a tape regarding inspections. This video will be shown to the Commission tonight.
Feedback on the video has been positive. The most difficult inspection issues have been that
residents usually do not know where their sanitary sewer clean out is located and the cover is usually
difficult to get off. Lundstrom played the video.
Pawluk stated he would have added more to focus on the financial impact of the problem. Lundstrom
said staff did a better job of explaining that in a recent CityNews article, and there are plans to write
more CityNews articles.
Hill asked why the City does not have a program to help people pay for the cost of becoming
compliant. Lundstrom said the reason is the overwhelming concern about cost. As staff drafted the
Code, there was quite a bit of discussion about who should bear these costs. A dye test will be done
only if the inspector suspects problems that are not obvious.
4. Proaram/Project Ur)dates
A. Three Rivers Park District Trail (Regional Bicycle Plan) — Construction of the trail is
underway by segments. It starts at Boone Avenue North, and follows the railroad right-of-way that
comes over near City Hall to the portion along Pennsylvania Avenue North. The portions of the trail
adjacent to private property will be constructed in spring.
B. Ad Hoc Deer Task Force — The Task Force has developed a Deer Management Plan.
Rick Jacobson will take their recommendation to an upcoming Council/Manager meeting. If the
Council approves the plan, staff will arrange to implement it this year.
C. Lighting Plan/Ordinance — The City's consultant is in the process of editing all the
comments from the Council, Planning Commission and Environmental Commission regarding the
Lighting Plan/Ordinance. Once this is complete, the ordinance will go to the Planning Commission for
a public hearing. Lundstrom was not sure of the date of the public hearing.
D. Proposed Developments
1. Miner/Olympic Printing Site — This site is on the north side of Allianz. The
proposal is for office/retail in one tower; and condominiums in another tower. Council has approved
the plan on a preliminary basis. The City is waiting for the developer to mail in the final plans for
approval.
2. The Colonnade — The Colonnade building is east of Allianz. The developer is
going through the first preliminary process. The biggest step in the process for the Colonnade and the
Miner/Olympic Printing Site is making the traffic issues work.
3. Maywood — This site has been approved for the construction of four new
homes. It was originally submitted as eight homes. The developer's plans are to construct a model
home near the road and sell the other three lots based on this model.
Environmental Commission Minutes
October 23, 2006
Page 3 of 4
Originally the developer wanted to have a driveway to the first home and then one
driveway for the remaining three homes. An engineer wanted to limit the amount of access to one
driveway because of the dynamics of the road, less access is better. It will be one long private
driveway for all four homes.
4. Honeywell — Pawluk asked if the City has heard anything more on Honeywell's
plans. At the last Environmental Commission meeting the City had not received any plans yet.
Lundstrom replied that no official submittal has been received from Honeywell.
E. South Rice Lake Buckthorn Removal Project — Lundstrom advised that the residents in
the South Rice Lake area have had another successful removal year; well over ninety percent of the
buckthorn in this area is gone. No additional buckthorn came up after last year's removal. Lundstrom
suspects the buckthorn stumps have a build up of seed that will likely come up resembling a carpet in
certain areas over the next three years. The residents will then begin a wicking type procedure when
the foliage is on and growing well. This procedure uses a chemical called Garlon 4 that is applied to a
sponge at the end of a wand and used to touch the buckthorn plant. St. Clair found it difficult to use
this type of procedure without touching the plants next to the buckthorn.
Pawluk asked if any other groups have come forward to volunteer to remove buckthorn in their
areas. Lundstrom advised that former council member, Blair Tremere, is heading other groups and
trying to get people interested in buckthorn removal. Lundstrom has certain areas that are more
manageable for a volunteer group to work on. He is waiting for residents to step forward and
volunteer. The weed wrenches on loan from the City are being used frequently.
F. Open Space & Recreation Commission Minutes — The September 25, 2006 minutes
were distributed at the meeting.
5. Commission Member Council Reports
Nothing to report.
6. Other Business
Baker asked about the Wirth Lake Detention Pond and the City Council's decision not to fund it this
project. He was surprised the Environmental Commission never heard about this pond because he
believes it is something the Commission would have encouraged. Lundstrom stated that this pond is
part of the Bassett Creek Water Management Commission's Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
which the Commission has reviewed.
Lundstrom stated this project did not get funded properly because there are three entities involved.
The majority of the watershed comes off of MnDOT property, so staff involved MnDOT. This area is
on MPRB's property and they contribute to the pond, as well as Golden Valley. A meeting was held to
determine which entity would be responsible for care of the pond. Through a grant process, all three
entities would pass resolutions to apply for this grant. In the process of the application, it was
determined that the MPRB is to maintain the buffer and any garbage and debris to keep it looking
good so the water continues to flow. The major maintenance involved is the dredging of the pond that
occurs every twenty plus years. This dredging is the City's portion.
Hill asked Lundstrom to elaborate on the article in the SunPost that discusses the surcharge from
Xcel Energy that is being imposed on all residents for the TH 55 turn signals. Lundstrom will forward
the City's written explanation to Hill.
Environmental Commission Minutes
October 23, 2006
Page 4 of 4
7. Adjourn
MOVED by St. Clair, seconded by Baker, and the motion carried to adjourn.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 pm. The next scheduled meeting will be on November 27, 2006 at
7:00 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra K. Somers
Administrative Assistant
Department of Public Works
September 2006
10 -Year Permit Plan Approval Benchmarks - Supplemental
Information for Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee
As discussed at the August 24th, Metro Area Water Supply Advisory Committee Meeting, the
DNR is now allowing water suppliers to use an approved Water Emergency and Conservation
Plan (E & C Plan) to request approval for increased water volumes and/or new wells that are
planned over the ten year life of the plan. Requesting permit approvals as part of the E & C Plan
is optional and would most likely benefit growing communities that anticipate large increases in
water use or a number of new wells over the next ten years. To qualify for the ten year permit
approval certain benchmarks or conservation measures are required along with adequate
documentation on the need for increased water volumes and new wells. This memo is intended
to provide additional information regarding the establishment of the benchmarks as requested
during the meeting on the 20.
BACKGROUND
Communities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area with public water supply systems are required
to submit a Water Emergency and Conservation/Water Supply Plan every ten years. In
conjunction with the submittal of this plan, public water suppliers may seek approval for a 10 -
year water appropriation permit, allowing increased water volumes and new well installations
that are planned over the life of the plan. Permit approvals are based on conservation plans
designed to meet the on the following:
■ Unaccounted water less than 10%
■ Residential per capita water use less than 75 gallons per day
■ Peak demands — maximum day to average day ratio less than 2.6
■ Conservation or conservation neutral rate structure
■ Approved well monitoring plan
■ Sustainability — adequacy of the resource to sustain current and projected demands while
addressing all impacts and limits on natural resources and other water users
BENCHMARKS
During the winter of 2004-2005, the DNR and Metropolitan Council convened an ad hoc
advisory group with representatives from the American Water Works Association — Minnesota
Section, Water Utility Council to solicit comments on the 10- year permit concept. Participants
were primarily from suburban utilities with one engineering consultant.
It was made clear from the discussions with the advisory group that the proposed benchmarks
would be challenging for some growing communities to attain. Therefore, the process developed
requires that communities either be at or below each benchmark or commit to conservation
programs that address the water use related to a given benchmark in order to qualify for the 10 -
year permit.
The following is a brief description of each benchmark, including a discussion of how each
benchmark was established.
September 2006
Unaccounted Water (water withdrawals minus sales) - Less than 10%
Unmetered customers, unmetered municipal facilities and activities, leaks, main breaks and
inaccurate meters all contribute to the amount of unaccounted for water in public water systems.
Depending on the system and how well water use is metered, the amount of unaccounted for
water can vary. The American Water Works Association recommends that no more than 10% of
the water appropriated be unaccounted for within the system. The DNR collects information on
the amount of water appropriated and water sold from public water suppliers annually. The
difference between the two is the amount of unaccounted for water within a system. In 2002, the
average percent unaccounted for water for the TCMA was 10%. For more information on the
range of unaccounted for water by community in the TCMA in 2002 see Attachment A.
Residential Per Capita Water Use less than 75 gallonstday
Outdoor residential per capita water use varies throughout the country depending on a number of
variables, such as the length of the growing season, temperatures, precipitation levels, type of
development and type of vegetation. According the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), on average, indoor residential water use per capita is about 65- 69 gallons/day
throughout the country (assumes minimal to no indoor water conservation). Likewise, the EPA
estimates that outdoor water use ranges from about 7% to 44% of total residential water use
depending on the climate of the region.
In a report published by the Council in 2004, Water Use and Planning in the Metropolitan Area,
75 gallons/day was reported as the average residential per capita water use in the metropolitan
area in 2002. While not published in the report, Council staff estimated that in 2002 about 14%
of residential use was attributed to outdoor uses. This is likely on the low end due to 2002 being
a relatively wet year. Since a complete set of data was available for that year, 2002 was used to
develop the residential per capita water use. In comparison, available data between 2000 and
2005 indicate that the 2002 data was on the low end of the typical range, again, likely due to
2002 being a relatively wet year. For specific data for years 2002, 2003 and 2005 see
Attachment B.
Table 1 Average metro residential Der capita water use by 2000 - 2005
Year
Average residential per capita water
use(gallons/day)
Annual precipitation
(inches)
2000
83
30.48
2001
86
34.23
2002
75
38.45
2003
88
22.69
2004
81
27.39
2005
75
33.41
Average
81
Peak Demands — Maximum Day to Average Day Ratio Less than 2.6
According to several studies published throughout the country, maximum day to average day
ratios typically range from 1.5 to 3.0. According the Council's 2004 report, the metropolitan
area average ratio in 2002 was 2.6. Similar to the residential per capita benchmark, 2002 data
September 2006
was used for this benchmark due to the completeness of the dataset and may be low due to the
relatively wet year. For specific data 2002 data see Attachment C.
Rate Structures — A conservation or conservation neutral rate structure is required that does
not include any volume of water in the service or base charge (lifeline exceptions allowed).
Increasingly, public water suppliers throughout the country are using conservation and
conservation neutral rate structures to promote more efficient water use among residential
customers. Conservation rate structures often incorporate the cost -of -service principals as well
as motivating customers to reduce wasteful water use through increasing block or seasonal rates.
Currently all but two communities within metro area currently use conservation or conservation
neutral rate structures.
Monitoring Plan — A monitoring plan approved by DNR that includes monthly water level
readings in production wells and/or observation that may be required. Monitoring data must be
submitted to DNR once each year or upon request.
Records of water levels should be maintained for all production wells and source water
reservoirs/basins so as to monitor the impacts of pumping on a particular resource and nearby
natural resource features. Water levels should be taken monthly for a production well or
observation well that is representative of the wells online in each water source formation.
Most communities in metropolitan area monitor their production wells on a regular basis. Some
communities do have observation wells that they monitor as a condition of their current
appropriation permit. Other communities may need to add observation wells.
Sustainability —All impacts and limits on natural resources and other water users must be
satisfied.
The DNR defines sustainable water use as: the use of water to provide for the needs of society,
now and in the future, without unacceptable social, economic or environmental consequences.
With this definition in mind, certain measures may need to be in place to avoid adverse impacts
from withdrawals. Those measures may include: monitoring well levels for all production wells
and source water reservoirs/basins; establishing resource protection thresholds or the developing
mitigation measures or plans in areas where natural resource features such as calcareous fens,
wetlands, trout streams, rivers or surface water basins are or could be influenced by water
withdraws by public water systems; evaluating the adequacy of the resource to sustain current
and projected demands; and preparing source water protection plans.
Attachment A: Unaccounted Water — Less than 10%
(2002)
Percent Unaccounted Water 2002
Percent
Community
Unaccounted
ANDOVER
8.0
ANOKA
13.8
APPLE VALLEY
21.8
ARDEN HILLS
0.0
BAYPORT
1.0
BELLE PLAINE
30.7
BLAINE
4.3
BLOOMINGTON
5.1
BROOKLYN CENTER
5.3
BROOKLYN PARK
4.6
BURNSVILLE
4.7
CARVER
6.7
CENTERVILLE
0.2
CHAMPLIN
-1.8
CHANHASSEN
8.2
CHASKA
13.4
CIRCLE PINES
-2.7
COLOGNE
28.0
COLUMBIA HEIGHTS
-0.5
COON RAPIDS
6.1
COTTAGE GROVE
13.5
DAYTON
0.0
EAGAN
2.1
EDEN PRAIRIE
7.9
EDINA
-26.0
ELKO
32.7
EMPIRE TOWNSHIP
4.7
EXCELSIOR
23.8
FALCON HEIGHTS
8.6
FARMINGTON
3.5
FOREST LAKE
1.5
FRIDLEY
11.7
HAMBURG
30.9
HAMPTON
17.3
HASTINGS
11.0
HILLTOP
9.5
HOPKINS
26.0
HUGO
10.1
INVER GROVE HEIGHTS
3.7
JORDAN
11.2
LAKE ELMO
7.6
LAKELAND
16.2
LAKEVILLE
7.0
LANDFALL
0.0
LAUDERDALE
8.6
LEXINGTON
0.0
LINO LAKES
4.2
LITTLE CANADA
7.7
Percent
Community
Unaccounted
LONG LAKE
-1.9
LORETTO
3.8
MAHTOMEDI
15.4
MAPLE GROVE
3.7
MAPLE PLAIN
15.1
MAPLEWOOD
8.6
MAYER
1.1
MEDINA
14.1
MENDOTA
8.6
MENDOTA HEIGHTS
8.6
MINNEAPOLIS
11.5
MINNETONKA
18.2
MINNETONKA BEACH
-14.2
MINNETRISTA
29.6
MOUND
4.7
MOUNDS VIEW
8.6
NEW BRIGHTON
3.9
NEW GERMANY
28.8
NEW TRIER
-2.4
NEWPORT
8.1
NORTH ST PAUL
6.7
NORWOOD YOUNG AMERICA
18.8
OAK PARK HEIGHTS
16.0
OAKDALE
11.6
ORONO
18.6
OSSEO
51.5
PLYMOUTH
9.7
PRIOR LAKE
-2.9
RAMS EY
22.0
RANDOLPH
-31.6
RICHFIELD
-6.0
ROBBINSDALE
19.5
ROGERS
1.1
ROSEMOUNT
11.6
SAVAGE
15.4
SHAKOPEE
16.6
SHOREVIEW
15.1
SOUTH ST PAUL
15.7
SPRING LAKE PARK
-9.4
SPRING PARK
18.1
ST PAUL PARK
11.5
ST. ANTHONY
7.7
ST. FRANCIS
12.4
ST. LOUIS PARK
17.4
ST. PAUL
8.6
STILLWATER
9.6
TONKA BAY
23.7
VADNAIS HEIGHTS
2.9
Percent Unaccounted Water 2002
Percent
Community Unaccounted
VERMILLION 0.0
VICTORIA 7.4
WACONIA
16.0
WATERTOWN
-12.7
WAYZATA
5.9
WEST ST. PAUL
8.6
WHITE BEAR LAKE
12.0
WHITE BEAR TOWNSHIP
0.0
WILLERNIE
0.0
WOODBURY
6.4
FefGe"I un ICCOU"iea
Percent Unaccounted Water 2002
F 71 Less than 0%
- 0%-5%
- 5.1% - 10%
- 10.1%- 15%
® Greater than 15%
Attachment B: Residential Per Capita Water Use —
75 gallons per day
(2002, 2003 and 2005)
Residential Per Capita Water Use 2002
(Annual precipitation = 38.45 inches)
Community
GPCD
Community
GPCD
Community
GPCD
Andover
111
Long Lake
80
Vermillion
154
Anoka
59
Loretto
70
Victoria
53
Apple Valley
82
Mahtomedi
73
Waconia
59
Arden Hills
67
Maple Grove
83
Watertown
89
Bayport
68
Maple Plain
60
Wayzata
112
Belle Plaine
45
Maplewood
51
West St. Paul
51
Blaine
75
Mayer
68
White Bear Lake
67
Bloomington
82
Medina
78
White Bear Twp.
72
Brooklyn Center
80
Mendota
51
Willernie
66
Brooklyn Park
82
Mendota Heights
51
Woodbury
80
Burnsville
90
Minneapolis
73
Carver
96
Minnetonka
89
Average
75
Centerville
55
Minnetonka Beach
104
Champlin
93
Minnetrista
66
Chanhassen
79
Mound
62
Chaska
77
Mounds View
70
Circle Pines
71
New Brighton
85
Cologne
62
New Germany
49
Columbia Heights
60
New Hope
67
Coon Rapids
95
New Trier
45
Cottage Grove
70
Newport
59
Crystal
66
North St. Paul
71
Dayton
54
Norwood Young America
57
Eagan
86
Oak Park Heights
64
Eden Prairie
87
Oakdale
68
Edina
88
Orono
64
Elko
101
Osseo
50
Empire Twp.
100
Plymouth
80
Excelsior
69
Prior Lake
91
Falcon Heights
51
Ramsey
99
Farmington
64
Randolph
115
Forest Lake
66
Richfield
78
Fort Snelling (unorg.)
77
Robbinsdale
70
Hamburg
49
Rogers
118
Hampton
54
Rosemount
65
Hastings
79
Savage
69
Hilltop
67
Shakopee
69
Hopkins
83
Shoreview
80
Hugo
85
South St. Paul
86
Inver Grove Heights
74
Spring Lake Park
94
Jordan
66
Spring Park
77
Lake Elmo
55
St. Anthony
72
Lakeland
61
St. Francis
60
Lakeville
84
St. Louis Park
79
Landfall
89
St. Paul
51
Lauderdale
51
St. Paul Park
64
Lexington
50
Stillwater
95
Lino Lakes
70
Tonka Bay
85
Little Canada
70
Vadnais Heights
84
Residential Per Capita Water Use 2002
Residential Per Capita Water Use 2003
(Annual precipitation = 22.69 inches)
Community
GPCD
Community
GPCD
Anoka
69
Minnetrista
127
Apple Valley
110
Mound
79
Bayport
44
Mounds View
78
Belle Plaine
83
New Brighton
122
Blaine
95
New Germany
40
Bloomington
110
North St. Paul
87
Brooklyn Center
91
Norwood Young America
66
Brooklyn Park
111
Oak Park Heights
85
Burnsville
90
Oakdale
116
Carver
152
Osseo
103
Chanhassen
96
Plymouth
98
Chaska
101
Prior Lake
100
Circle Pines
96
Ramsey
36
Cologne
76
Randolph
73
Coon Rapids
106
Richfield
85
Cottage Grove
82
Robbinsdale
79
Eagan
98
Rogers
176
Eden Prairie
102
Rosemount
80
Edina
125
Savage
86
Empire Twp.
109
Shakopee
98
Excelsior
100
Shoreview
103
Falcon Heights
54
Shorewood
132
Farmington
77
South St. Paul
71
Forest Lake
40
Spring Park
72
Fridley
88
St. Anthony
81
Hampton
79
-St. Bonifacius
89
Hastings
95
St. Francis
67
Hopkins
86
St. Paul
54
Hugo
86
St. Paul Park
76
Inver Grove Heights
86
Stillwater
101
Jordan
91
Tonka Bay
102
Lake Elmo
77
Vadnais Heights
87
Lakeland
56
Vermillion
141
Lakeville
107
Victoria
77
Lauderdale
54
Waconia
77
Lexington
62
Watertown
61
Lino Lakes
100
Wayzata
174
Loretto
92
West St. Paul
54
Mahtomedi
86
White Bear Lake
79
Maple Grove
106
White Bear Twp.
93
Maple Plain
49
Woodbury
97
Maplewood
54
Marshan Twp.
78
Average
88
Mayer
92
Mendota
54
Mendota Heights
54
Minneapolis
75
Minnetonka Beach
110
Residential Per Capita Water Use 2003
0&ur,W3J
C Ji Less than 56
- 56 - 75
L 76 - 95
- 96 - 115
Greater than 115
GPCD = Gallons per capita per day
Residential Per Capita Water Use 2005
(Annual precipitation = 33.41 inches)
Community
GPCD
Andover
116
Anoka
45
Apple Valley
83
Bayport
34
Belle Plaine
73
Blaine
80
Bloomington
82
Brooklyn Center
83
Brooklyn Park
91
Burnsville
82
Carver
107
Centerville
51
Champlin
92
Chanhassen
79
Chaska
96
Circle Pines
81
Cologne
64
Coon Rapids
97
Cottage Grove
73
Eagan
88
Eden Prairie
89
Edina
112
Empire Twp.
87
Excelsior
62
Falcon Heights
49
Farmington
75
Forest Lake
58
Fridley
79
Hamburg
58
Hastings
82
Hopkins
77
Hugo
61
Jordan
68
Lake Elmo
60
Lakeville
89
Lauderdale
49
Lino Lakes
83
Long Lake
64
Loretto
64
Mahtomedi
75
Maple Grove
95
Maple Plain
59
Maplewood
49
Mayer
89
Medina
61
Community
GPCD
Mendota
49
Mendota Heights
49
Minneapolis
58
Minnetrista
99
Mound
63
Mounds View
74
New Brighton
44
New Germany
42
Norwood Young America
59
Oak Park Heights
62
Oakdale
58
Plymouth
82
Prior Lake
78
Ramsey
94
Randolph
98
Richfield
66
Robbinsdale
69
Rogers
118
Rosemount
71
Savage
70
Shakopee
101
Shoreview
64
Shorewood
99
South St. Paul
64
Spring Lake Park
67
Spring Park
70
St. Anthony
69
St. Bonifacius
70
St. Louis Park
73
St. Paul
49
St. Paul Park
66
Stillwater
85
Vadnais Heights
86
Vermillion
68
Victoria
75
Waconia
72
Watertown
67
Wayzata
167
West St. Paul
49
White Bear Lake
67
White Bear Twp.
104
Woodland
82
Average 75
e
Residential Per Capita Water Use 2005
Less than 56
- 56 - 75
76-95
- 96 - 115
Greater than 115 GPCD = Gallons per capita per day
Attachment C: Peak Demands — Maximum Day to
Average Day Water Use Ratio Less than 2.6% (2002)
Maximum Day to Average Day Water Use Ratio
2002
Maximum Day to Average Day Water Use Ratio
2002
Community
Water use ratio
Andover
3.2
Anoka
0.0
Apple Valley
2.6
Arden Hills
0.0
Bayport
2.2
Belle Plaine
2.0
Blaine
3.5
Bloomington
2.1
Brooklyn Center
2.0
Brooklyn Park
2.5
Burnsville
1.9
Carver
2.7
Centerville
2.5
Chanhassen
2.2
Chaska
2.4
Circle Pines
2.8
Columbia
1.2
Cottage Grove
3.7
Dayton
5.7
Eagan
3.1
Eden Prairie
2.3
Edina
1.9
Elko
2.7
Empire Twp.
1.9
Excelsior
1.9
Falcon Heights
2.5
Farmington
2.8
Forest Lake
1.6
Hamburg
1.7
Hampton
2.3
Hastings
2.7
Hopkins
1.4
Hugo
2.8
Inver Grove Heights
1.9
Jordan
1.9
Lake Elmo
3.2
Lakeland
2.5
Lakeville
2.9
Lauderdale
2.5
Lino Lake
2.8
Loretto
3.2
Mahtomedi
2.9
Maple Grove
2.6
Maplewood
2.5
Mayer
1.9
Medina
1.7
Mendota
2.5
Mendota Heights
2.5
Minnetonka
1.7
Community
Water use ratio
Minnetonka Beach
2.3
Minnetrista
1.3
Mound
4.9
Mounds View
2.7
New Brighton
2.2
New Trier
1.5
Newport
1.6
North St.
2.4
Norwood Young America
1.5
Oakdale
5.8
Orono
2.0
Plymouth
2.1
Prior Lake
2.4
Ramsey
4.5
Richfield
1.7
Robbinsdale
1.6
Rogers
3.0
Rosemount
2.6
Savage
2.5
Shakopee
2.3
Shoreview
2.4
South St. Paul
2.5
Spring Park
1.5
St. Anthony
1.7
St. Francis
2.8
St. Louis
1.9
St. Paul
2.6
St. Paul Park
2.5
Stillwate
2.5
Tonka Bay
2.6
Vadnais Heights
2.1
Waconia
2.1
Watertown
1.8
Wayzata
1.9
West St.
2.5
White Bear Lake
2.4
White Bear Twp.
5.8
Woodbury
3.6
Average 2.6
('11
Golden Valley
OPEN SPACE & RECREATION COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes
Brookview Community Center
Monday, October 23, 2006
7:00 PM
1. CALL TO ORDER
Sandler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
11. ROLL CALL
IV.
V.
Present: Roger Bergman, Kelly Kuebelbeck, Bob Mattison, Jerry Sandler, Jim Vaughan, Tom Zins, Rick
Jacobson, Director of Park and Recreation; Sheila Van Sloun, Park and Recreation Administrative
Assistant; and Brian Erickson, Recreation Supervisor.
Absent: J im Johnson and Roger McConico.
AGENDA CHANGES OR ADDITIONS
Bergman made the following corrections to the minutes:
1) Addition of the word Valley under those present; Jackie Wells, Golden Valley Federated Women's Club
2) Under Brookview Performance Area; change the word the, to then, in the first paragraph, third sentence.
3) Under Brookview Performance Area; change the name Sadler to Sandler in the third paragraph, second
sentence.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — September 24, 2006
MOTION: Moved by Bergman and seconded by Vaughan to approve the September 24`h meeting
minutes. Motion carried unanimously.
RECREATION REPORT — Brian Erickson
Erickson discussed program numbers from this past summer and explained that attendance was consistent with
previous years. Overall numbers were up due to higher field trip attendance and the addition of a few new
programs. He then gave details on the new programs, which include: Pens, Pencils, Markers and More,
Summer Survivor, Kids' Korner II and an evening Pitch By Coach program. He added that these programs
were well received.
Erickson said the staff was great and included a lot of returning people.
V1. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Jacobson included a copy of the Park Section of the reviewed and updated Comp Plan from 1999 in the agenda
packet. He said he added it so the Commission can begin looking through and prepare to update the park
section. He said the Metropolitan Council needs the plan by September 2008. He added the City has set a
target date of late 2007
to have it updated. He explained that ultimately the facility survey would be folded into the Comp Plan.
Sandler suggested the Commission look through and make notes on thing that are needed or reevaluated.
Sandler asked Jacobson to highlight the items that have been achieved so they can discuss them at the next
meeting.
VII. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITY STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Sandler recommended City staff brainstorm needs and submit them to the Commission. He feels City
recommendations are very important because they work directly with the facilities. Jacobson said they could
do that.
Mattison, with the Athletic Association Committee, explained they would like to meet with each association
and/or board after submitting them the questions in advance. They would like to have a meeting to go over the
questions and have maps available to get a good comprehensive picture of what each association needs. He
said they would like to have the meetings as soon as possible.
Kuebelbeck, with the Citizen Survey Committee, said she created a computer program for tallying the survey
result and is currently working with Park and Recreation staff to input all the data. Jacobson said about 12,000
surveys were mailed.
Sandler, with the Open House Committee, said attendance was comparable to other area open houses and the
people that came were interested, asked questions and stayed awhile. He feels it was worth doing.
VIII. OLD BUSINESS
A. Deer Task Force Update
Vaughan explained the task force met with the Council to review the management plan. He said the
Council agreed there was a need that had to be addressed. He also said the management plan will be on
the next Council agenda for approval.
B. Regional Trail Update
Jacobson explained that construction has started on the railroad corridor section from Boone to Winnetka.
Then, Winnetka to Pennsylvania is next. Jacobson also said Xcel Energy has been working to relocate
phone poles for the construction.
C. City Phone Survey
Jacobson discussed the upcoming phone survey. If approved by the Council, surveys are scheduled to
take place the week after Thanksgiving. Jacobson said 400 random phone surveys will be made. Copies
of the survey were distributed. Jacobson said the Council would like final suggestions or changes. After
overview and discussion, Open Space and Nature Areas was added to list of facilities used during the past
year, and in the same list, (Meadowbrook) was added to Davis Community Center.
IX. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Kuebelbeck and seconded by Mattison to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. Motion carried
unanimously.
2