Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout04.21.2015 City Council Special Meeting PacketMEDIIVA WORK SESSION AGENDA MEDINA CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, April 21, 2015 6:00 P.M. Medina City Hall 2052 County Road 24 I. Call to Order II. Pioneer Sarah Watershed Discussion III. Adjourn Posted 4.17.15 MEMORANDUM TO: Medina City Council FROM: Scott Johnson, City Administrator DATE OF REPORT: April 17, 2015 DATE OF MEETING: April 21, 2015 SUBJECT: April 21, 2015 Work Session — 6:00 PM Work Session 6:00 PM Pioneer Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission Discussion — (1 hour) I will update the City Council on the options available regarding the Pioneer Sarah Creek Watershed. Attached for review and discussion are the results from the survey that was requested by the Pioneer Sarah Creek Watershed. Pioneer Sarah is asking for Council discussion and direction on two items: • Is the City Council supportive of the watershed implementing yearly incremental increases to double the budget and use the funds for projects? Medina's current budget share is $15,140.51 (doubling the amount would be $30,281.02). The City Council was in favor of the increase if the funds went to projects according to the survey. • Would the Medina City Council be supportive of using Ad Valorem tax in conjunction with yearly incremental increases for the watershed budget? 2015 Watershed Comparisons Market Value Minnehaha Creek Elm Creek Pioneer Sarah Existing Levy Ad Valorem ($131,500) If $106,500 were levied $1,000,000 204.87 14.38 105.42 $750,000 144.47 10.17 73.29 $500,000 86.55 6.24 45.64 $250,000 40.7 3.08 21.62 For 2015, Medina's share of the $136,720 operating budget is $15,140.51, or 11.95%. In 2014 it was 10.69% or $13,469.40. Below are the 2014 and 2015 approved budget amounts for Pioneer Sarah. 1 I i 2014 Approved 2013 Market Value PSC Basin 2014 Total Assessment Increase over Prey Year %age Amount %age Amount Greenfield 365,010,854 -4.25% 29.52% 37,195.20 9.31% 3,167.86 Independence 477,361,467 -1.37% 38.61 % 48,648.60 12.61 % 5,447.64 Loretto 46,244,015 -9.42% 3.74% 4,712.40 3.41 % 155.40 Maple Plain 91,010,859 -12.49% 7.36% 9,273.60 -0.10% $ (9.62) Medina 132,129,100 -6.58% 10.69% 13,469.40 6.69% 845.16 Minnetrista 124,675,269 -7.51 % 10.08% 12,700.80 5.56% 668.56 TOTALS 1,236,431,564 -4.63% 100.00% 126,000.00 8.88% 10,275.00 2014 Market Value PSC Basin 2015 Op Budget Increase over Prey Year 2015 Approved %age Amount %age Amount Greenfield 350,761,259 -3.90% 28.05% 35,539.65 -4.45% (1,655.55) Independence 480,214,274 0.60% 38.40% 48,656.01 0.02% 7.41 Loretto 48,868,030 5.67% 3.91 % 4,951.38 5.07% 238.98 Maple Plain 97,240,148 6.84% 7.78% 9,852.51 6.24% 578.91 Medina 149,430,452 13.09% 11.95% 15,140.51 12.41% 1,671.11 Minnetrista 124,158,610 -0.41% 9.93% 12,579.93 -0.95% (120.87) TOTALS 1,250,672,773 1.15% 100.00% 126,720.00 0.57% 720.00 SURVEY- April 8, 2015 On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. ❑ YES Independence ❑ NO Greenfield 5-0 Loretto Maple Plain Medina Minnetrista 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES ❑ NO Greenfield 5-0 Independence Loretto Maple Plain Medina Minnetrista The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. B WSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. ❑ YES Greenfield 4-1 Independence Maple Plain ❑ NO Loretto Medina Minnetrista B WSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. -- 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? ❑ YES Independence Loretto Medina ❑ NO Greenfield 5-0 Maple Plain Minnetrista The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? ❑ YES Independence Maple Plain Medina Minnetrista ❑ NO Greenfield 5-0 Loretto #3. Greenfield is planning to create a storm water district(s) in the City. Funding for the watershed obligation will be partially or fully handled by this separate enterprise fund. When passed by the Council, it is expected the district will be functional in 2016. #4. The current Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) does not allow the member cities adequate input in the decision to use Ad Valorem taxation. Greenfield proposes to address changes to the JPA that would give the cities more authority and assure that an adequate process is defined and followed at the Commission before any action is taken. Loretto: I just wanted to let you know that I spoke with our city staff this morning about doing a workshop to discuss and fill out the PSCW survey. Unfortunately we do not have funds in the budget for an extra meeting. Therefore we will discuss and fill out the survey at our next council meeting on 4/14. I will have results to bring for discussion purposes at our next watershed meeting. I will also email you Wednesday morning with our survey results so you can communicate Loretto's stance prior to the meeting. Ultimately whatever Medina decides Loretto must follow. If you are planning some sort of tally to go out in the meeting packet; Loretto should be with Medina. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Cari Girk, March 25, 2015. Medina. The City of Medina's answer to each of Questions 1, 2 and 3 is dependent on whether the City would receive assurance that the additional contribution would be employed to fund identified capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Medina has seen little active water quality management from the Commission in recent years. If the Commission will not seek ad valorem funding to implement the Third Generation Plan, then the City would support replacing the Commission with a Watershed District. City of Greenfield City Council Responses: SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. ❑ YES -0 ❑ NO-5 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES-0 ❑ NO-5 The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. ❑ YES-4 ❑ NO-1 BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? ❑ YES-0 ❑ NO-5 The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? ❑ YES-0 ❑ NO-5 We invite you to share your comments, concerns and questions on the back side of this survey. City: City of Greenf field City Administrator: s E /1`2� Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. Comments on Watershed Survey - City of Greenfield #3. Greenfield is planning to create a storm water district(s) in the City. Funding for the watershed obligation will be partially or fully handled by this separate enterprise fund. When passed by the Council, it is expected the district will be functional in 2016. #4. The current Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) does not allow the member cities adequate input in the decision to use Ad Valorem taxation. Greenfield proposes to address changes to the JPA that would give the cities more authority and assure that an adequate process is defined and followed at the Commission before any action is taken. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. Er/YES ❑ NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES E NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. YES ❑ NO BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? YES ❑ NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? ❑'YES ❑ NO We invite you to share your comments, concerns and questions on the tack side of this survey. City: City Administrators MG* Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. FYYES ❑ NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. 61 YES ❑ NO BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? tiir YES ❑ NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? YES ❑ NO We invite you to share your comments. concerns and questions on the back side of this survey. City: r mNggJafa}a...- City Administrator:( o,4 ,Cti rs c,L Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. Ni YES ❑ NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 201S, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. X YES ❑ NO BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? ti' YES ❑ NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? e YES ❑ NO We invite you to share your comments, concerns and questions on the back side of this survey. lone City: ems— City Administrator: lease return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@joss.biz, no later than April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. YES ❑ NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. /41 YES ❑ NO BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? i1 YES ❑ NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? �] YES ❑ NO Vve �i�v_ite you to stiaie your comments. concerns grid questions on the back side. of this survey. City:( City Administrator: Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. From: Toni Hirsch [mailto:THirsch@ci.independence.mn.us] Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 12:28 PM To: Judie Anderson Subject: FW: Survey Judi Heres Norms. Toni SURVEY L1tn Mewsley 1O. MS the eamd of Wm, pad Sam Resaveh lOWSRi aRproved bi a rieettet •;Pete+ Crete wattlsnhy ►4dealrm[ht CdeloWts Ti h timed terin d5O• Weitif abed M¢ x evmrnt P4PT fur aWood of t" M'4r1. hWSfl RL1 SuaeSted that The Seve1 of [dHdMttYJM hit ow mtlo6er (4Rf is rat suelielht to hind Caplet vogitoreraent paged& The lust terra westicia Won are elettpted to raeatiiet.aegieet for Merited hit tdte letatdt abacitidn tttaettne Lo tae ramble, cities i wood Yam City impanel twitters your yearly WO ibuteet to the Wattrtteed Comm own by ism (et. tl you e a ribtn:*t{ dIS.OD0 in MI5. yout taatly Contrtboti n Ire /Mb wottd be 530.060). Iohdt rtvutd be vatd �i'u Lagtel imprar'enteW Meted* M030t a CcRIARtare ptttielim `if 'as D NO 4, woutd yWr phi toodart eteeeatot vow yeasty conteibutkin t0 the Weteriend Carr otstan by MA O.; tf you an car#ntbutiott 515,1:00 n MIS, yaw ynatk cantrtbttrin for MI6,, tdrld tx 545.000i? twads nosed be vend to town eaodar envoremertt oeoyKtt Movie ►[otiethete rrolparh fl YES vno The cement policies. o1 the Spmm+stton etude uQ to 3Sle of the colt of s tmojeCt {ram by the We nested COMM:MPry 6YiSR het tyytolted tAat with a colt thine gutdosidn- tpdiY+OYal obi' will hart to venal addrkonrtConan on pgreld *i thin their Cadet Obit eiwt i is destned to meetwe w000et hoe increment +t ate yore ebocano^ thaitted to the merntae, cltilt ;.isyourCRywpdoeltwpfstmod itfvndr4ternvgtendta[eitear,mate,rntaterlrrrerllPtier',thatate weber Out [dirt ttl a vow* wrote. *441,40 lira would be to /demon to tier tax diddle* vied to per for you* Catet avocation provided to the wattatte C.ommestua NG OKStt eat worsted INA Chit watene ed UO0114000 mom atsaetntty ate add Yatevo*rt tseition an a meant of ttaidtrypeofrr cis. lAkovoid/SIwthe WiteethtdOorrouadmtodnecxyore iteda4otlee Ica membarGAMS Owttttprt e n YatWi e W rwiinure *PK Iran lot toe dt thin ad Valxem to r styour Calf lttpptrntet drtalfetrRaq your Ceitolo tioe a to *porgy? al veer tm that al+x t:tktrwt. ycoi City to support wtUr tenpepreetpte Itegetra 1 Ei O NO The evoeee•Set tth Creek Witte/kW ttSsnar[rnaM. Cdteerittim at a tarot powers rmo by a boats] watete ltttereetts are aVtl4t ete tit the patlitiptlittt titers there M14* been 0{ottion as to*balit a bIgk .....i e Wilmette Deleitt waded be a more [lfettree form M )tv*erenenCe Member d e watershed ttoatd d ak monk are aaoterrilbte :9 Via Courtly ewaro of s t?rnm wooers that apyd.nrty them 5. n yove Car tupWrtae of rt.:Sittig art+ Cram*n ttooet wah a WatetWd CROW that we *taws,* local t.aMte0 *YES tab coy ,_T—P,Kfid9ENL-Zr- Ott Adm oichtratoe ateote inane thet wren, to eu4tee andteruw, mu0ar(PfetsDa, noW We tAatION 8, IOU the tvotrlltttl COmtRitft[» *In tt«ewr ttictRt of the s,trny befatt Oetermtevey nest stept Norman C. Wenck, PE Founder Wenck Associates nwenck(awenck.com I D763.479.4201 From: Cari Girk [mailto:cgirk@ci.loretto.mn.us] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 11:25 AM To: Judie Anderson Cc: Brenda Daniels; Mary Schneider Subject: Loretto Survey results Hi Judie, I just wanted to let you know that I spoke with our city staff this morning about doing a workshop to discuss and fill out the PSCW survey. Unfortunately we do not have funds in the budget for an extra meeting. Therefore we will discuss and fill out the survey at our next council meeting on 4/14. I will have results to bring for discussion purposes at our next watershed meeting. I will also email you Wednesday morning with our survey results so you can communicate Loretto's stance prior to the meeting. Ultimately whatever Medina decides Loretto must follow. If you are planning some sort of tally to go out in the meeting packet; Loretto should be with Medina. Feel free to contact me with any questions. Thanks, Cari SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generatidn Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. ❑ YES Ni NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES. NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. ❑ YES jg NO BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? Pif YES ❑ NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? ❑ YES NO We invite you to share your comments, concerns and questions on the back side of this curve 1 City: W re City Administrator; Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judiegass.biz, no later{han April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. ❑ YES 1,11,\NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that/vvith a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. )i( YES ❑ NO BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? ❑ YES x NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. S. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? YES ❑ NO We invite you to share your comments, concerns and questions on the back side of this survey. (1\1 City Administrator: t 1OVA City: Gfri efF Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (Medina is contributing $15,145.30 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,290.60). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. ❑ YES X NO The City of Medina's answer to each of Questions 1, 2 and 3 is dependent on whether the City would receive assurance that the additional contribution would be employed to fund identified capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Medina has seen little active water quality management from the Commission in recent years. 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (Medina contributes $15,145.30 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,435.90)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES X NO The City of Medina's answer to each of Questions 1, 2 and 3 is dependent on whether the City would receive assurance that the additional contribution would be employed to fund identified capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Medina has seen little active water quality management from the Commission in recent years. The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. ❑ YES X NO The City of Medina's answer to each of Questions 1, 2 and 3 is dependent on whether the City would receive assurance that the additional contribution would be employed to fund identified capital improvements within the jurisdiction of the Commission. Medina has seen little active water quality management from the Commission in recent years. BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? X YES ❑ NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? X YES O NO If the Commission will not seek ad valorem funding to implement the Third Generation Plan, then the City would support replacing the Commission with a Watershed District. We invite you to share your comments, c nc rns a 4 City: Medina City Administrator: k e c_, uestio . on the back side of this survey. Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. SURVEY On January 28, 2015 the Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) approved the Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission's Third Generation Watershed Management Plan for a period of six years. BWSR has suggested that the level of commitment by the member cities is not sufficient to fund capital improvement projects. The first two questions below are designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 1. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 100% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $30,000). Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects through a cost -share program. ❑ YES IR NO 2. Would your City support increasing your yearly contribution to the Watershed Commission by 200% (e.g., if you are contributing $15,000 in 2015, your yearly contribution for 2016 would be $45,000)? Funds would be used to support capital improvement projects though a cost -share program. ❑ YES 11 NO The current policies of the Commission allow up to 25% of the cost of a project paid by the Watershed Commission. BWSR has suggested that with a cost share provision, individual cities will have to spend additional dollars on projects within their Cities. Question 3 is designed to measure support for increases in the yearly allocation charged to the member cities. 3. Is your City supportive of providing funding through city taxes for water improvement projects that are within your cities to improve water quality? This would be in addition to the tax dollars used to pay for your Cities allocation provided to the Watershed Commission. ❑ YES Eel BWSR has suggested that the Watershed Commission more assertively use Ad Valorem taxation as a means of funding projects. This would allow the Watershed Commission to directly tax residents of the six member cities. Question 4 is designed to measure support for the use of the Ad Valorem tax. 4. Is your City supportive of empowering your Commissioner to approve Ad Valorem taxation of residents of your City to support water improvement projects? ❑ YES R NO The Pioneer -Sarah Creek Watershed Management Commission is a joint powers organization, administered by a board whose members are appointed by the participating cities. There has been discussion as to whether becoming a Watershed District would be a more effective form of governance. Members of a watershed board of managers are accountable to the County Board of Commissioners that appointed them. Minnetrista City: City Administrator: Please return this survey to Judie Anderson, judie@jass.biz, no later than April 8, 2015. The Watershed Commission will review results of the survey before determining next steps. 5. Is your City supportive of replacing the Commission with a Watershed District that will remove local control? C8 YouES ❑ NO We invite you to share your comments, concerns and questions on the back side of this survey. Mike Barone 4 •