HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-02 City Council Work SessionAgenda
City Council Work Session
City of Edina, Minnesota
Edina City Hall Community Room
Wednesday, March 2, 2016
5:30 PM
I.Call To Order
II.Roll Call
III.Mill Pond - Aquatic Vegetation Management Policy Review
IV.Special Assessment Policy Revisions
V.Adjournment
The City of Edina wants all residents to be comfortable being part of the
public process. If you need assistance in the way of hearing ampli&cation, an
interpreter, large-print documents or something else, please call 952-927-8861
72 hours in advance of the meeting.
Date: March 2, 2016 Agenda Item #: III.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Reports / Recommendation
From:Jessica Van Der Werff, Water Resources Coordinator
Item Activity:
Subject:Mill Pond - Aquatic Vegetation Management Policy
Review
Action
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
Provide direction on proposed changes to service level, assessment district, and Lake & Pond Policy.
INTRODUCTION:
The City has managed aquatic vegetation in Mill Pond at the request of residents since the early 1980s. The
following documents review customer satisfaction surveys, service level, method of assessment, and relation to
the Lake & Pond Policy.
Due to size, appendices C, E, F, and H have been made available online at www.edinamn.gov/millpond
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Mill Pond Report and Recommendation
Appendix A_Mill Pond Assessment District
Appendix B_Mill Pond Survey Packet_20150812
Appendix D_Mill Pond meeting invitation_20150930
Appendix G_Proposed Assessment District
Appendix I_Proposed Lake and Pond Policy Amendment
City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424 City of Edina • 4801 W. 50th St. • Edina, MN 55424
March 2, 2016
Mayor and City Council
Jessica Van Der Werff, Water Resources Coordinator
Mill Pond – aquatic vegetation management policy review
Provide direction on proposed changes to service level, assessment district, and Lake & Pond Policy.
Information / Background:
In 1980, residents petitioned the City to manage the aquatic vegetation in the Mill Pond. The initial
harvesting of aquatic vegetation was funded in part by the City, resident pledges, and the Watershed
District. The arrangement continued in 1981 and City Council recommended that future aquatic vegetation
improvements be treated as an assessment with all benefitted properties paying a share of the cost. By 1982,
the Watershed District declined to fund the project and the cost was assessed equally to 63 properties (see
Appendix A) with the City contributing $1,500. The assessment district of 63 properties and the City
contribution of $1,500 have remained unchanged since then.
At the special assessment public hearing on October 21, 2014, Council heard from a resident who testified
that properties across the street from the Mill Pond should not be assessed at the same rate as those who
were directly adjacent to the pond. Council decided not to make changes to the 2014 assessment and asked
staff to evaluate the methodology for determining the assessment district. The Council directed staff to seek
comments from all assessed property owners who would be affected and provide information on the
impacts of potential assessment district changes. Council also noted favor of the association structure noted
in the Lake & Pond Policy that was adopted earlier in 2014, in which Mill Pond was not included. The new
policy stipulates that formal associations be organized in order to be eligible for elective services, which
includes submerged aquatic vegetation management.
Staff also sought to evaluate the quality and value of the current service to address complaints and seek
opportunities for improvement.
In the summer of 2015, all properties in the assessment district were mailed a ‘Frequently Asked Questions’
fact sheet and a survey to gauge quality and value of the current service, and satisfaction with the overall
aquatic vegetation management strategy and City outreach (Appendix B). An invitation was subsequently
sent for a community meeting to discuss survey results, assessment district boundaries, and formation of an
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 2
association (Appendix D). The outreach was intended to inform residents of potential changes and how they
might be affected. It also was intended to gather feedback that would be used to improve the current
service and be shared with City Council to inform future aquatic vegetation management decisions in Mill
Pond.
Aquatic Vegetation Management and Permits
Aquatic vegetation in Mill Pond is managed by mechanical harvesters, large machines that cut aquatic plants
several feet below the water’s surface. Plants are then removed from the water by a conveyer belt system
and stored on the harvester until they can be transferred to a truck, then composted off-site.
Harvesting can quickly create open areas of water for recreation and fishing access, but it is similar to
mowing a lawn; the plants grow back and may need to be harvested several times during the growing
season.
Minnesota Statute, section 84.091, subdivision 1, establishes that aquatic plants growing in public waters
belong to the state. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has permitting authority for
the management of aquatic plants, outlined in MN Rules 6280. Any destruction or transplanting of aquatic
vegetation in public waters must be authorized by the Commissioner of the DNR. Although the rule was
adopted into Minnesota Statute in 1993, regulations for aquatic plant management had been in place as early
as 1945 through Commissioner’s Orders. The rules are intended to provide a balance between protecting
aquatic plants for fish and wildlife and also allowing access and use of public waters. Removing aquatic plants
where they do not interfere with swimming, boating, or other recreation is not allowed.
Permits for aquatic vegetation destruction are required for the following control methods;
Destruction of any emergent vegetation (for example, cattails and bulrushes).
Cutting or pulling by hand, or by mechanical means, submerged vegetation in an area larger than
2,500 square feet.
Applying herbicides or algaecides.
Moving or removing a bog of any size that is free-floating or lodged in any area other than its place
of origin in public waters.
Transplanting aquatic plants into public waters.
Use of automated aquatic plant control devices.
Physical removal of floating-leaf vegetation from an area larger than a channel 15 feet wide extending
to open water.
There are cases where a permit is not required. If a shoreline property owner wants to maintain a
swimming or boat-docking area, they may cut or pull submerged vegetation without a permit under certain
conditions:
First, the area to be cleared must be no larger than 2,500 square feet.
Second, the cleared area must not extend more than 50 feet along the shoreline or one-half the
length of the shoreline, whichever is less.
A boat channel up to 15 feet wide, and as long as necessary to reach open water, may also be
cleared, through submerged vegetation. The boat channel is in addition to the 2,500 square feet
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 3
allowed. Cut or pulled weeds must be disposed of properly. This channel can also be maintained
through floating-leaf vegetation (except for the yellow lotus, a protected wildflower).
Mechanical harvesting of the Mill Pond requires a permit from the DNR. The permit stipulates the following;
50% maximum removal: The rule limits mechanical removal to up to 50% of the total vegetation.
The limit was set as a compromise between total prohibition of plant removal and total lack of
regulation. The 50% limit is not new; it was codified into Minnesota Rules in 1993 as a result of
legislation that required the DNR to use the rule-making process when making regulations, but it
had been established in previous versions of the rules.
The removal extent must stay the same year to year: The area allowed for control must
remain in the same location each year. This is stated so that the rules are not used to destroy all
vegetation along the shoreline piecemeal a year at a time.
Invasive species removal: The City of Edina applied for and received an invasive species permit in
2014. Invasive species permits do not have a permit fee. Any removal of invasive species counts
toward the 50% removal maximum.
White Water Lily (Nymphaea odorata): The White Water Lily is a blooming native plant. The
DNR recommends that it be left alone but allows for a channel to be cleared for boat access.
Chemical treatment: Mill Pond is part of Minnehaha Creek. Chemical treatments are not allowed
in moving water and past chemical treatment permit applications have been denied by the DNR.
Current Practices and Constraints
Each summer the City hears feedback about quality and value of the aquatic vegetation harvesting service
related to harvesting areas, frequency, and vendor. The City strives to provide a high level of service while
also considering the legal constraints spelled out by the DNR permit, the physical constraints of the
harvesting equipment, and administrative constraints.
Mill Pond is typically harvested twice per year; in early summer (about June) and late summer (about
August). The contractor uses professional judgment to determine the optimum time to conduct harvesting.
During each visit, the contractor receives a directive from the City to harvest 7 acres (of 14 total acres)
according to the DNR permit which allows for up to 50% of the pond to be harvested. The current strategy
has been to target a center channel plus 50% of each property’s shoreline twice/year. Removal of invasive
species counts toward the 50% limit and native white water lilies have some protections that allow only a
boat access channel. Additionally, Minnehaha Creek runs through Mill Pond which limits the control
methods that may be used; the DNR rules do not allow chemical treatments in streams.
Millpond is 3-5 feet deep, with a couple deep areas that extend to 6 feet deep. There are also shallow areas
along the shore and in much of the upstream end (see Appendix E, page 19) that are less than 2 feet deep.
Harvesting equipment requires about 2 feet of water depth to operate.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 4
Budgets for mechanical harvesting are set the previous year which does not allowing for adjustments due to
variability in vegetation density and water level in any given growing season. Additionally, few bids are
received from contractors each year. There is usually one or two to choose from.
Service Quality and Value Evaluation
A survey was sent to owners of properties that are in the special assessment district to gauge the quality
and value of the service as well as gather general comments. Of the 63 surveys sent out, 38 were returned
(60% return rate).
Residents were asked;
1. What are your primary activities on Mill Pond?
2. How would you rate the overall value of the service compared with the price paid?
3. How would you rate the quality of the harvesting work?
4. How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall aquatic vegetation management
strategy?
5. How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall contact between you and the City
regarding management of Mill Pond?
6. Which level of service (regarding frequency) would you be in favor of?
The original survey and returned surveys are shown in Appendices B and C. Specific data related to each
question are shown in Appendix E, pages 11-16.
In general, the data showed mixed uses and activities on the pond that continue year-round. Ratings for
value and quality of service were low and satisfaction with the overall management strategy and City
outreach were mixed, with no real apparent pattern. Lastly, the majority of respondents indicated they were
willing to pay more for increased frequency of harvesting, such as three times per year. In some surveys, it
was apparent that residents were requesting more harvesting in a spatial sense to some areas, however,
harvesting equipment is limited in very near shore where it is shallow and harvesting is already being
conducted to the legal maximum extent under the DNR permit.
Much of the conversation at the community meeting and the feedback from the survey and submitted
comments were related the 50% vegetation removal limit imposed by the DNR permit. The overall message
from the feedback was frustration that more couldn’t be removed, especially in light of the invasive species
presence in Mill Pond. Staff has communicated extensively with the DNR on this matter and has gotten clear
direction that Mill Pond is not a unique situation with regard to vegetation density and that a variance to the
50% removal rule would be difficult to acquire.
Staff recommends increasing harvesting frequency to three times per year.
Although the spatial extent cannot be expanded, the frequency of harvesting may be increased. Based on
resident feedback, staff is recommending increasing the frequency of harvesting to three times per year
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 5
when seeking bids. The area of harvesting would remain the same for each of the three harvesting events,
per the DNR permit requirement.
Assessment District
The cost of the improvement, less the city share, is currently assessed equally among all 63 properties in the
assessment district with each property being assigned a 1.0 residential equivalent unit (REU). Appendix A
shows the properties included in the current assessment district.
Feedback regarding the assessment district was gathered from the community meeting, surveys, and direct
comments via e-mail, phone, and in-person correspondence. Participants at the community meeting
commented that the assessment district seemed fair, but would support a decision to make a change as long
as it was objective. The general consensus among meeting participants seemed to be that if properties have
a view of the pond, they should be included but perhaps not at a full REU. Several surveys and submitted
comments also addressed the assessment district. Some echoed a similar sentiment that was expressed
among the community meeting participants – that properties with a view benefit from the improvement and
should be included at some level. Others that live on Browndale Avenue, across the street from the pond,
stated that their share should be reduced or eliminated completely because they do not have an equal
benefit as those directly adjacent to the pond. Properties on the northern end of Browndale Avenue are
across from Browndale Park and properties on the southern end have views that are almost completely
obstructed by woody vegetation. There are four properties on Sunnyslope Rd E that are across the street
from the pond.
Comments from property owners in the shallow upstream areas also expressed a sense of inequity and
were frustrated that they were paying an equal share, yet didn’t perceive an equal benefit. Sixteen properties
in the upstream portion of the pond are adjacent to a section of the creek that has been historically and
consistently more shallow. These sixteen properties were identified with input from the owner of the
harvesting company who had worked on the creek for many years and noted the area that is historically
shallow and inaccessible in dry years. A share of less than a full REU would ensure that those properties
contribute to the improvement in normal years while recognizing that the shallow area may not get equal
service if water depth prohibits access in dry years. In dry years when the water is low, this section of the
pond is inaccessible with the harvester equipment.
In any case, shoreline property owners may remove additional vegetation (by pulling or cutting) under the
DNR general permit, given certain conditions. For areas that are too shallow for the harvester to access in
any given year, residents may still manage the aquatic vegetation along their shoreline. The work may be
contracted out or may be performed by the property owners themselves.
The assessor’s office was contacted for feedback on the matter. One idea from the community meeting to
objectively approach the assessment district was to include only properties that were classified as ‘lakeshore
residential’ on the tax rolls (properties that are classified as ‘lakeshore residential’ are taxed at the same rate
as non-lakeshore properties). This approach was unproductive because none of the properties along the Mill
Pond are classified as lakeshore, even those that are directly adjacent to the water, because a pond on a
creek doesn’t fit the assessor’s definition of lakeshore. The assessor’s office seemed to support assessing
only those directly adjacent to the water. The hypothetical question raised was, “What if owners are
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 6
assessed for a view across the park, then a tree grows in the park and obstructs views?” Views are screened
by vegetation that presently exists or could exist in the future, and those areas are owned and managed by
others. Property owners that are not directly adjacent to the pond have limited ability to maintain their
view. In the case of the two properties on the southern end of Browndale Avenue (4905 and 4909) views
are completely obstructed by vegetation during the growing season. Furthermore, maintaining vegetation in
this particular area is important for stabilizing the steep slope.
Four properties on Sunnyslope Road E are also across the street, but have a more clear view of the pond.
These properties have minimal vegetation obstructing their view, unlike the properties on the southern end
of Browndale Avenue (4905 and 4909) which have a dense vegetation screen.
Resident feedback, landscape characteristics, and pond depth constraints have been carefully considered. A
map of the proposed assessment district is shown in Appendix G.
Staff recommends the following changes to the Mill Pond assessment district;
Two properties on the southern end of Browndale Avenue (4905 and 4909) be removed from the
assessment district
Four properties on the northern end of Browndale Ave be reduced to 0.33 REU
Four properties on Sunnyslope Rd E be reduced to 0.33 REU
Sixteen properties in upstream shallow area be reduced to 0.66 REU
Remaining properties maintained at 1.0 REU
Lake & Pond Policy and Forming an Association
An association is a voluntary organization made up of people who own land on or near a body of water and
is often formed by land owners who are concerned about issues regarding the quality or use of the body of
water and want to deal with them in an organized manner. According to the City Lakes & Ponds policy,
adopted in 2014, lake and pond groups must organize as an association in order to be eligible for elective
city-coordinated activities (such as mechanical harvesting). Mill Pond wasn’t originally included in the policy,
but could be added. The approved Lake and Pond Policy is included in Appendix H.
Currently, there is no structure for regularly obtaining feedback from the Mill Pond community as a whole
to ensure that decisions represent the majority. City staff attempt to balance requests for service and
competing values based on feedback from a relatively small subset of property owners. Organizing an
association empowers the community to play a larger role in the decision making process and encourages a
more representative voice.
Based on feedback from the community meeting and submitted comments, the participants seemed mostly
neutral, with a small group speaking in favor of organizing an association. Many commented that they didn’t
see the added value of forming and that it seemed like another component to manage. City staff noted that
an association is required among other lake and pond groups in order to be eligible for elective services,
including submerged aquatic vegetation management.
REPORT / RECOMMENDATION Page 7
Staff recommends that Mill Pond be included in the Lake & Pond Policy which would require
residents to formalize as an association in order to be eligible for elective services. A proposed
amendment to the Lake and Pond Policy is included in Appendix I.
Appendices
Appendix A: Mill Pond Assessment District
Appendix B: Mill Pond Survey Packet_20150812
Appendix C: Mill Pond Surveys_raw
Appendix D: Mill Pond Meeting Invitation_20150930
Appendix E: Mill Pond Aquatic Vegetation Management Presentation
Appendix F: Mill Pond Resident Comments
Appendix G: Proposed Assessment District
Appendix H: Lake and Pond Policy
Appendix I: Proposed Lake and Pond Policy Amendment
49 33
4901
4805
4 6 3 4
4 8 2 0
4 8 1 2
4
8
0
0
4808
4
9
1
1
4 9 2 9
4 9 1 3
4
8
3
2
4909
4828
4905
4808
4 6 0 04824
4 9 1 7
4 8 0 14804
4610
4
8
0
0
4804
4 9 2 1
4 8 0 0
46
0
4
4925
4
6
0
1
4 6 3 0
4 5 1 8
4 6 2 6
46 12
4 5 2 0
4907
4 6 3 8 4
6
4
0
4
9
0
7
4
6
0
3
4
9
0
9
4 6 1 8
4801
4 6 1 4
4
7
0
7
4 5 0 4
4905
4903
4 6 0 2
4 5 1 3
4901
4 5 11
4909
4
8
0
7
4
6
0
5
4 5 0 9
4 6 2 2
4 5 0 7
4905
4
8
0
5
4
7
0
1
4
7
0
5
4
7
0
3
4506
B
R
O
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
E
D
I
N
A
B
L
V
D
5 0 T H S T W
B RI DG E L A
M
O
O
R
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
S U N N Y S I D E R D
S U N N Y S L O P E R D W
HILLTO P LA
WOODHILL WAY
VERNON AVE
S U N N Y S L O P E R D E
D A L E D R
EDGEBROOK PL
Mill PondAssessed Properties
/
Engineering DepartmentLast Revision: September 2015
Legend
Mill Pond
Assessed properties
Roads
Dear Resident,
The City is coordinating mechanical harvesting of aquatic vegetation in Mill Pond again this year, as it has since 1980.
Although aquatic vegetation provides many water quality and wildlife benefits, it can degrade the aesthetic appearance of
and impede recreational access to the creek when vegetation becomes dense. The City works with residents and the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to find a balance between these values.
Harvesting aquatic vegetation creates open areas of water for recreation. Mechanical harvesters are large machines which
cut and collect aquatic plants. Cut plants are removed from the water by a conveyor belt system and transported offsite.
The process is analogous to mowing a lawn.
Each year there are many questions about the harvesting operations on Mill Pond. We’ve compiled some frequently
asked questions and their responses. We’re also asking you to participate in a brief survey related to the service and
value of harvesting aquatic vegetation in Mill Pond so that we may better serve you.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at jvanderwerff@EdinaMN.gov or 952-826-0445.
Sincerely,
Jessica Van Der Werff
Water Resources Coordinator
Mill Pond Aquatic Vegetation Harvesting
Frequently Asked Questions
The Pond has patches of aquatic vegetation after harvesting. Why isn’t all the vegetation removed?
Aquatic vegetation is important for maintaining a stable pond environment. It helps provide food and shelter for fish and
waterfowl, improve water quality and clarity, and protect shorelines and lake bottoms. Many of the things that we enjoy
most about the pond are directly linked to aquatic vegetation.
In Minnesota, the state is the owner of aquatic vegetation growing in public waters (M.S. 84.091). The Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) regulates the harvest, transplanting, and destruction of aquatic plants in public
waters through a permit program. The purpose of the DNR permit program is to protect the beneficial functions of
aquatic vegetation while managing invasive species and allowing property owners to obtain reasonable access for
recreation. DNR permits may not be issued for aesthetic reasons alone.
How are harvesting areas determined?
The DNR permit allows for harvesting of a navigation channel and up to 50% of each property owner’s shoreline. The
overall area of aquatic vegetation harvested cannot exceed 50% of the Pond. Additionally, some areas may not be
harvested because they are too shallow for the harvester equipment to operate or they may contain DNR protected
plants, like water lilies, which have harvesting limitations. Each year is unique and adjustments are made where necessary.
Can a chemical treatment be used to manage the vegetation?
Minnehaha Creek flows through Mill Pond. DNR permits restrict the use of chemical treatments in flowing water because
they don’t remain in place long enough to work and can have impacts downstream. If chemical treatment were allowed, it
would be limited to 15% of the area; whereas mechanical treatment allows for up to 50%.
How many times will the vegetation be harvested?
Mill Pond is typically harvested twice per year; in early summer (about June) and late summer (about August). The
contractor uses professional judgment to determine the optimum time to conduct harvesting.
Is the harvesting work paid by the hour?
Harvesting work is paid by the acre, not the hour.
What is causing the dense aquatic plant growth?
Mill Pond contains several varieties of native plants and two non-native species; Eurasian water milfoil and curly-leaf
pondweed. Both non-native species grow prolifically and can out-compete native plants.
Another major contributor to algae and aquatic vegetation growth is excess nutrients, namely phosphorus. Common
sources for phosphorus include grass clippings, leaves, car wash soap, and some fertilizers.
As a homeowner, what can I do to limit nutrient additions to Mill Pond?
Small actions can make a big difference.
Keep grass clippings and leaves from getting into the street and into the storm drain. Water, and the pollution it
picks up on its path to the storm drain, enters the Pond untreated. If you’re interested in protecting the storm
drains in your neighborhood, contact Jessica Van Der Werff (jvanderwerff@EdinaMN.gov or 952-826-0445) to
learn about the storm drain stenciling program.
Many detergents used for car washing contain phosphorus. Consider washing on your lawn or at a car wash
facility where water can be treated.
Avoid using any kind of fertilizer that contains phosphorus, especially near the shoreline.
Natural shoreline plantings can protect waters from pollution and erosion. They are also a relatively easy and
cost effective method for deterring waterfowl from using your shoreline as a bathroom. If you’re interested in a
shoreline planting or other planting project, you may be eligible for grant funding available through the Minnehaha
Creek Watershed District (http://www.minnehahacreek.org/).
What is the City doing to reduce nutrient additions and other pollutants to the Pond?
The City performs street sweeping during critical times in early spring and fall to keep pollutants from entering storm
drains and ultimately ending up in nearby waterbodies. During other times of the year, volunteers can help to build
awareness and local stewardship for storm drains in their neighborhoods through the storm drain stenciling program.
The City also monitors construction activities and enforces common-sense erosion control practices.
Mill Pond Aquatic Vegetation Harvesting Survey
Please complete and return the survey in the included postage-paid envelope by September 1, 2015 to Edina Public
Works, 7450 Metro Boulevard, Edina 55439.
1. What are your primary activities on Mill Pond? Check all that apply.
□ viewing water/wildlife □ swimming □ socializing/entertaining
□ canoeing/kayaking/boating □ fishing □ other: _____________
2. Over the past two years, the average annual cost for harvesting has been about $180 per property. How would
you rate the overall value of the service compared with the price paid?
poor fair good very good excellent
3. How would you rate the quality of the harvesting work over the last two years?
poor fair good very good excellent
4. How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall aquatic vegetation management strategy in Mill
Pond over the last two years?
very dissatisfied dissatisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied
5. How would you rate your level of satisfaction with the overall contact between you and the City of Edina
regarding management of Mill Pond over the past two years?
very dissatisfied dissatisfied neutral satisfied very satisfied
6. Which of the following levels of service would you be in favor of?
□ paying more to get an additional cutting (for a total of three cuttings per year).
□ maintaining the current strategy of harvesting twice per year.
□ reducing the frequency of harvesting to one time per year.
□ discontinuing mechanical harvesting.
7. If you have any other comments, please include them in the space provided. You may also use the back of this
page.
September 11, 2015
Dear Resident,
Please join us for a community meeting to discuss the aquatic vegetation harvesting program on the Mill Pond.
The purpose of the meeting is to share a summary of the recent survey results and also get feedback from the
community about the special assessment boundary and a structure for making future decisions about pond
management. Feedback gathered from the recent survey and this community meeting will be shared with City
Council to inform future vegetation management decisions in the Mill Pond.
Please join us for a community meeting
Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 6:00pm*
in the Multipurpose Room at the Public Works Bldg, 7450 Metro Blvd
*If you are unable to attend the meeting, please share your
comments, concerns, and questions via phone or email, listed below.
You are encouraged to join in the conversation and provide feedback on the following topics;
Aquatic vegetation harvesting survey results
Last month, a survey was sent to owners of properties that are special assessed for aquatic vegetation
harvesting to gauge the quality and value of the service as well as gather general comments. If you
missed the survey and would like to provide a response, please contact me for a copy. All survey
responses will be summarized and shared with City Council to inform the management strategy into the
future.
Special assessment boundary
Presently, there are 63 properties that are special assessed an equal share for harvesting of the Mill
Pond. The City also pays a share of the cost. Ten of the properties included in the special assessment
are located across the street from the pond (see attached map). We are seeking feedback on alternative
special assessment boundaries that may maintain, exclude, or reduce the share paid by all or some of
the properties that are not directly adjacent to the pond. Any change to the special assessment
boundary will have an impact on your special assessment; we’d like to hear from you. Feedback will be
summarized and brought to City Council members who will make the ultimate decision.
Structure for making future pond management decisions
Each summer we hear feedback about quality and value of the aquatic vegetation harvesting service
related to harvesting areas, frequency, and vendor. We also field requests for additional services,
elimination of services, and education. The City strives to balance these competing values and requests
for service while also weighing other factors including the physical constraints of the harvesting
equipment, the legal constraints spelled out by the DNR permit, and the nature of a pond with a stream
moving through it.
Currently, there is no structure for regularly obtaining feedback from the community as a whole to
ensure that decisions represent the majority. Organizing an association group may be a suitable solution
because it empowers the community to play a larger role in the decision making process and
encourages a more representative voice. It is a voluntary organization made up of people who own land
on or near a body of water and is often formed by land owners when they are concerned about issues
regarding the quality or use of the body of water and want to deal with them in an organized manner.
Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has funding available to help associations form. The City can
provide mailing addresses and further guidance on the process. It only takes a few volunteers to get
started.
Please provide your feedback on these topics at the community meeting. If you are unable to attend, I would be
happy to receive your feedback via phone, email, or in person.
Sincerely,
Jessica Van Der Werff
Water Resources Coordinator
jvanderwerff@EdinaMN.gov
952-826-0445
49 33
4901
4805
4 6 3 4
4 8 2 0
4 8 1 2
4
8
0
0
4808
4
9
1
1
4 9 2 9
4 9 1 3
4
8
3
2
4909
4828
4905
4808
4 6 0 04824
4 9 1 7
4 8 0 14804
4610
4
8
0
0
4804
4 9 2 1
4 8 0 0
46
0
4
4925
4
6
0
1
4 6 3 0
4 5 1 8
4 6 2 6
46 12
4 5 2 0
4907
4 6 3 8 4
6
4
0
4
9
0
7
4
6
0
3
4
9
0
9
4 6 1 8
4801
4 6 1 4
4
7
0
7
4 5 0 4
4905
4903
4 6 0 2
4 5 1 3
4901
4 5 11
4909
4
8
0
7
4
6
0
5
4 5 0 9
4 6 2 2
4 5 0 7
4905
4
8
0
5
4
7
0
1
4
7
0
5
4
7
0
3
4506
B
R
O
W
N
D
A
L
E
A
V
E
E
D
I
N
A
B
L
V
D
5 0 T H S T W
B RI DG E L A
M
O
O
R
L
A
N
D
A
V
E
S U N N Y S I D E R D
S U N N Y S L O P E R D W
HILLTO P LA
WOODHILL WAY
VERNON AVE
S U N N Y S L O P E R D E
D A L E D R
EDGEBROOK PL
Mill PondProposed Assessment District
/
Engineering DepartmentLast Revision: November 20150200400100Feet
Proposed Assessment District 2016
1.00 REU
0.66 REU
0.33 REU
Remove
Page 1 of 1
Lake & Pond Management Policy
DRAFT Proposed Amendment to Include Mill Pond
Purpose
The purpose of this proposed amendment is to add Mill Pond to the City’s Lake & Pond Management
Policy. The policy establishes a system to prioritize the waterbodies for management, define
management service levels, and lay out a process to encourage resident involvement.
Inclusion in the policy requires residents to form an association to be eligible for additional elective
services. The association members then submit a request for services that is representative of the
majority. The City coordinates elective services and special assesses costs back to property owners in
the assessment district.
Rationale
Mill Pond was not originally included in the policy; it is quite different than the other lakes and ponds
within the City because Minnehaha Creek runs through it. The DNR does not permit chemical
treatments in streams and rivers, thus a different management strategy is required. Submerged aquatic
vegetation is managed through mechanical removal and, under the policy, is an elective service available
to eligible waterbodies with an established association.
An association encourages residents to come to an agreement about the type of management they
would like, and for which they will ultimately be financially responsible for. It also allows for a shared
management vision to be communicated to the city.
In the policy, lakes and ponds are prioritized based on size, water quality, stakeholder participation, and
public use. Mill Pond is 14 acres in size, and thus is categorized as large and Minnehaha Creek is listed on
the Impaired Waters List. Mill Pond also has a high amount of public use.
Based on these criteria, the Mill Pond is eligible for a high service level including additional elective
services. These additional elective services are coordinated by the City, and associated costs are special
assessed back to property owners. An association is required to special assess these costs.
Proposed Policy Amendment
Staff recommends the following amendment to the Lake & Pond Policy;
The Lake & Pond Management Policy is hereby amended to include Mill Pond as follows;
1. Appendix C: Prioritization List is amended to include Mill Pond under the following categories;
a. Size: Large (10+ acres)
b. Water Quality: 303(d) Impaired Waters List
c. Public Access and Use
2. Appendix D: Prioritization Chart is amended to include the points awarded based on criteria
from Appendix C, indicating eligibility for service level, ‘High.’
Date: March 2, 2016 Agenda Item #: IV.
To:Mayor and City Council Item Type:
Reports / Recommendation
From:Chad A. Millner, PE, Director of Engineering
Item Activity:
Subject:Special Assessment Policy Revisions Discussion
CITY OF EDINA
4801 West 50th Street
Edina, MN 55424
www.edinamn.gov
ACTION REQUESTED:
None.
INTRODUCTION:
Attached is a staff report detailing potential revisions to our assessment policy staff would like to discuss with the
council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
Staff Report
Redlined Assessment Policy
March 2, 2016 Work Session
City Council
Chad A. Millner, Director of Engineering
Special Assessment Policy Revisions
Executive Summary:
Item
No.
Description / Problem Suggested Revision
1 Two Assessment Policies – Local & Municipal
State Aid
Create One Assessment Policy
2 Decorative Street Lights Not Included Insert Decorative Street Lights into Policy
3 Land Use Table referenced in background data Insert Land Use Table into Policy
4 Church REU Value Revise to 0.2 REU’s per 1000 SF
5 Corner Lot Partial REU Value Calculation Revise to 1 divided by # of adjacent streets
6 Phase in of Corner Lot Calculations Apply immediately except per policy only assess up
to 1 REU.
Input needed on previous 2/3 REU assessments.
Information / Background:
There are a few revisions to our assessment policies staff would like feedback on from council. These
revisions would simplify and/or clarify a few things.
Item No. 1
There is a local assessment policy and a municipal state aid assessment policy. This creates confusion from
our residents on which one should be applied. The policies are identical except for a couple minor notes
STAFF REPORT Page 2
associated with the percent assessed on a municipal state aid street. These minor differences can be
incorporated into one policy to reduce the confusion dealing with two policies.
Item No. 2
The Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety (PACS) Fund provides funding for the creation, maintenance and
improvement of non-motorized transportation facilities for the primary benefit of pedestrians and cyclists in
Edina. Non-motorized transportation facilities (NMTF) shall be defined as sidewalks, trails and other
bicyclist-related facilities. It is noted that street lighting and traffic signals necessary to meet safety standards
for new and existing NMTF is an eligible expense.
Following the approval of the PACS fund policy, the assessment policy was revised and decorative street
lighting was removed as an assessable item. There is not adequate funding to cover neighborhood wide
improvements to street lighting. It was the intent of the PACS fund to cover specific lighting improvements
related to a specific NMTF safety issue. An example is the installation of the light at an intersection or
crosswalk to increase the visibility of pedestrians. Staff suggests inserting decorative street lighting back into
the assessment policy.
Item No. 3
Our current policy references a Land Use Class table to determine how to calculate assessments for various
land uses. The intent of the table is to determine REU’s from various uses to estimate an assessment. Staff
suggests inserting the Land Use Class table into the policy.
Table 1. Current Land Use Class
Scenario
Current Land Use Class
REU
Factor Notes
A Residential - Single Family Dwelling 1.0 1
B Residential - Two Family,
Duplexes, Quads 0.8 1
C Residential – Apartments,
Condominiums, Cooperatives,
Nurseries, Convalescent Homes 0.5 1
D Industrial 0.5 2,3
E Office/Retail/Financial Institutions 1.5 2
F Public Buildings - City 0.9 2
G Public Buildings - Schools 0.2 2
H Churches 0.8 2
Notes: 1. Per Unit
2. Per Gross Floor Area 1000 SF from the
assessing department
3. All uses allowed in Planned Industrial
Development (PID) except offices and retail.
STAFF REPORT Page 3
Item No. 4
There have been some differences in how the assessment policy has been applied to churches. The research
included 7 churches, 2 have been assessed and 5 will be assessed within the next two years. The differences
include using the 1/3 or 2/3 REU calculations, the numbers of driveways, and the amount of assessable
square footage. The assessment amount estimated thus far for each church has been consistent and relative
to the size of the building.
In order to determine how much value our infrastructure improvement projects provide to these
properties, we hired Nagell Appraisal & Consulting, Inc. to study all 7 churches and the value of public
improvements. Nagell Consulting is known for providing cities guidance and general price range
observations of benefit received by adjacent properties. The results show benefit up to approximately
$130,000 for the 7 church properties studied. When applying our policy using a $10,000 per REU
assessment, it results in an average assessment up to approximately $430,000 for the 7 church properties.
This does not meet the benefit test as required by State Statue. It is nearly four times the amount of benefit
provided.
Our current policy references a Land Use Class Table to determine how to calculate assessments for
various land uses. The intent of the table is to determine REU’s from various uses to estimate an
assessment. A church is calculated at 0.8 REU’s per 1000 square feet of building space. If the value used to
calculate assessments for a church is changed to 0.2 REU’s per 1000 SF and applied using a $10,000 per REU
assessment, the results show an approximate assessment up to $110,000. This falls within the range
provided by the study. The graph below shows the results of each scenario. Column 1 is the average of our
current policy, column two is the average with a 0.2 REU value, and column 3 is the benefit range supplied in
the study.
STAFF REPORT Page 4
Staff suggests revising the church REU value to 0.2 REU’s per 1000 SF. No reference would be made to the
number of driveways on the parcel or number of driveways accessing a specific street.
Item No. 5
As staff continues to apply our current policy to multiple projects, the results for corner lots are not
consistent. Currently the policy details how to calculate corner lot REU’s based on the timing of the project
and the street address of the parcel. It results in REU values of 1/3, 2/3, or 1 for the first street
reconstruction project. When the corresponding street is reconstructed, similar parcels are being assessed
differently just because their street address is different from their neighbors.
Examples
The cyan color has an assessment of 1.0 REU, the purple of 0.66 REU’s, and the green 0 REU’s. This occurs
because our policy states the address determines the value even though the parcels have the same
characteristics.
Staff suggests calculating corner lot REU’s based on 1 divided by the number of adjacent streets. Typically
this would result in a 0.5 REU’s per project if the adjacent streets were reconstructed over two separate
projects.
Item No. 6
If Item No. 5 on corner lot REU calculation is approved, staff requests guidance on how to phase in the
changes to the corner lot calculations. Street assessments have occurred based on REU’s since 2006. At that
time assessments were paid over a 10-year timeframe. Since 2012, assessments have been paid over a 15-
year timeframe. For corner lots with no previous assessments, this policy would be active immediately. For
corner lots with previous assessments, the table below provides options about how to apply this change. All
STAFF REPORT Page 5
options would be applied for new pending assessments. The first year would be for 2017 construction
projects.
Options Benefits Comments
Option 1: Policy Active
Immediately except per
policy only assess up to 1
REU for 1st infrastructure
replacement cycle
Previous 1/3 REU’s assessed 17%
less REU’s (1/3 +1/2 = 5/6)
Previous 2/3 REU’s assessed 1.0
REU’s (2/3 + 1/3 = 1)
Staff has to research previous
assessment calculations to determine
previous 2/3 REU values.
Option 1A: Policy Active
Immediately except per
policy only assess up to 1
REU.
In 5-years, all go to 0.5
REU’s no matter what
previous REU value was
Previous 1/3 REU’s assessed 17%
less REU’s (1/3 +1/2 = 5/6)
Previous 2/3 REU’s assessed1total
17% greater REU’s (2/3 + 1/2 = 7/6)
With the current policy, assessments
vary widely and in many cases greater
than 17%
Option 2: Phase in Over
5-years
Phase in timeframe spread over
longer time.
Varied Assessment Amounts per Option
1 still occur.
Option 3: Phase in After
Previous Assessment
Duration (10 or 15-years)
1/3 REU’s and 2/3 REU’s still used
until assessment period ended.
Difficult for staff to track over time.
Option 4: Apply only
during 2nd round of
infrastructure
replacement
1/3 REU’s and 2/3 REU’s still used
until 2nd round of infrastructure
replacement.
More difficult for staff to track over
time. Timeframe could be up to 50-years
or more.
Staff recommends Option 1 or Option 1A for further discussion.
CITY OF EDINA
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT POLICY
March 2, 2016
POLICY PURPOSE:
Establish an assessment policy for typical assessments that include local roadways, alleys, sound walls,
water utility lines, sanitary sewer utility lines, sump pump removal or redirection, garbage and debris
removal, aquatic weeds, weed mowing, tree removals, and maintenance districts.
POLICY:
1. Allocated Costs: The cost of curbs, gutters and other storm water management improvements for a
Non-State Aid Residential Street Reconstruction Project will be paid from the City’s Storm Water
Utility Fund. The cost of replacing and repairing the publicly-owned portions of underground water
and sanitary sewer utility lines will be paid from the City’s Utility Fund. The cost of sidewalks, trails,
lighting and pedestrian/cyclist related safety improvements and street markings will be paid from the
City’s Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety Fund.
• Cost of Municipal State Aid (MSA) Street Curb and Gutter will be financed by either MSA
funds or by the Storm Water Utility Fund.
2. Assessable Costs: 100% of the costs incurred for the reconstruction of a Non-State Aid Residential
Street, excluding allocated costs, shall be assessed to the directly benefitting properties of the
project, pursuant to a formula based on a Residential Equivalent Unit (REU). Assessable costs include
the following: mobilization, direct construction costs, construction finance costs, City and contracted
engineering costs, scientific and technical consulting costs, printing and mailing, legal and other
project related costs. Construction finance costs are the cost of funds used to finance the project
construction until the adoption of the resolution imposing the special assessment.
• Street Reconstruction Costs (excluding curb and gutter) on MSA streets shall be assessed at
20 percent of the cost.
1. Unit of Assessment: The assessable unit for non-state aid residential street projects will be the
residential equivalent unit (REU). An REU shall be one residential lot, regardless of lot size or amount
of street frontage. For publicly owned or undeveloped parcels with developable residential potential,
the number of REU’s shall be computed based upon the maximum residential development potential
of the parcel based upon the density allowed under the applicable zoning Code and Comprehensive
Land Use Plan. REU’s for non-single family or other mixed-use developments is based on trip
generation and shall be calculated per Table 1.
3. Corner Lots: If a corner lot is subject to multiple street reconstruction assessments, the total
assessable cost should be the equivalent to 1 residential equivalent unit. A partial REU shall be
determined by dividing 1 by the number of adjacent streets. In a typical corner lot, this will result in a
0.5 REU per street.
2. The address of the lot shall determine if the corner lot is assessed at 1, 1/3, 2/3, or 0 REU’s for that
project:
3. If the address of the lot is on the roadway being reconstructed and no previous roadway assessments
have been levied for that lot, the REU shall be 1 REU.
4. If the address of the lot is on the roadway being constructed and a roadway assessment has been
levied previously for that lot, the REU shall be 2/3 REU.
5. If the address of the lot is not on the roadway being constructed, but the side or rear yard is and no
previous roadway assessment has been levied for that lot, the REU shall be 1/3 REU.
6. If the address of the lot is not on the roadway being constructed, but the side or rear yard is and a
roadway assessment has previously been levied for that lot of 1 REU, the REU shall be 0 REU.
7.4. Multiple Assessments: Lots subject to multiple assessments cannot be treated differently than
lots subject to a single assessment.
8.5. Repayment Periods: Repayment period for special assessments levied by the City of Edina vary
depending on the purpose for which the assessment was levied: Repayment periods and terms are
as follows:
a. Maximum Repayment Periods:
i. Local roadway reconstruction - 15 years.
ii. Sound walls – 15 years.
iii. Garbage and debris removal, aquatic weeds, weed mowing, and maintenance
districts – 1 year.
iv. Tree removals - 1 year if under $500, 2 years if $500 to $1000, and 3 years if over
$1000.
v. Underground utility line replacements – 15 years.
vi. Sump pump removal or redirection – 5 years
vi.vii. Decorative street lighting – 5 years.
b. Assessment Interest Rate – The interest rate for a special assessment shall be 1% higher than
the estimated “net interest” rate of the bonds to be issued for the project. If a bond is not
issued for a project then the interest rate shall be 1% higher than the net interest rate of the
most recent bonds sold by the City prior to ordering the public improvement. The interest
rates for 6.a.iii., 6.a.iv., 6.a.v., and 6.a.vi. shall be 6.5%
c. The City will accept both partial pre-payments and full pre-payments on assessments before
certifying the assessment to the County. For ease of administration, a minimum of 25% of the
assessable cost must be applied for a partial payment.
d. The City shall inform all property owners received a special assessment of the City’s Senior
Deferral Program.
e. Payments shall be amortized using a level annual payment schedule.
6. The new policy will not be retroactive to projects that have already been assessed. Special
assessment policy revisions approved on March 2, 2016 shall become effective for projects with final
assessments hearings after October 2017.
a. Phase in INPUT FROM COUNCIL
9.7. Table 1. Current Land Use Class
Scenario
Current Land Use Class
REU
Factor Notes
A Residential - Single Family
Dwelling 1.0 1
B Residential - Two Family,
Duplexes, Quads 0.8 1
C Residential – Apartments,
Condominiums, Cooperatives,
Nurseries, Convalescent Homes 0.5 1
D Industrial 0.5 2,3
E Office/Retail/Financial Institutions 1.5 2
F Public Buildings - City 0.9 2
G Public Buildings - Schools 0.2 2
H Churches 0.2 0.8 2
Notes: 1. Per Unit
2. Per Gross Floor Area 1000 SF from the
assessing department
3. All uses allowed in Planned Industrial
Development (PID) except offices and retail.
Background:
A. Special Assessment Policy dated August 6, 2012
B. Special Assessment Policy Background dated September 7, 2010
C. Special Assessment Policy Proposal dated August 16, 2005
D. Municipal State Aid Special Assessment Policy dated December 5, 2006
E. Municipal State Aid Special Assessment Policy dated December 21, 2010
G:\ENG\ADMIN\ASSESSMENTS\POLICY\2015 Review of Policy\20160302 Special Assessment Policy_Combined.docx