The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1998-05-20 PACKET 08.D.REQl1EST OF CITY COUNCIL ACTBdN COUNCIL AGE�DA MEETII�G ITEM # DPoTE 5/20/98 B PREPARED BY Community Development Kim Lindquist UF2IGINATING DEPARTMEiVT STAFF AUTHOR e��.�...,�.a.ab�4�.�ws.�..�w�.«��...«��4.�...�� i � • �III�.�i Forv✓ard a nomination to Washington County for representation on the Committee to Evaluate ttae Governance of Water Management in Washington Gounfy. �UDGET IMPLICATION N/A BUDGETED AMOUNT ADVISORY COMMISSION ACTION: �' ' � ` = • � � : •- ■ "' • t ' � • � • • � � � � . �- ■ SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS �•_ � N/A ACTUAL AMOUiVT APPROVED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ DENIED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ REVIEWED ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ � MEMO/LETfER: Memo from Kim Lindquis4 dated 5/19/98 ❑ RESOLUTION: ❑ ORDINANGE: ❑ ENGINEERING RECOMiVIENDATION: ❑ LEGAL RECC1CVIiVIENDATI0F1: � OTHER: Information on the VVashington Caunty Water Management Study ,� .; �. � — � � _ r.. � ��C.�C2 tiS � � � __ `� � ity,4dminisfrator Date tr�.�«�«�..��,��««��«��.�.��.�«��.¢.�� CC�tJNC6L AC`�IOt� TA�CEN: ❑ APPfdt7i/�L� ❑ DE�li�C7 ❑(7TN�R �:�GROU�sw��vAwG�9ssa�cirvcoura�w�r�r e�r�t sr�ay oo� a� MEMORANDUM T0: Honorable Mayor and City Council Ryan Schroeder, City Administrator FROM: Kim lindquist, Community Development Director DATE: May 19, 1998 RE: Washington County Water Management Study Background Attached is information from the County regarding their Water Management Study. As noted in the letter, the study is primarily to study the existing governance system and make any recommendations to the structure rather than water management policies and practices. The letter is specificaily requesting that the City nominate a representative to serve on the study work group. Ms. Harper indicated that she does not believe this assignment would require a lot of ineetings, perhaps once a month. The County has not, as yet, chosen a consultant to facilitate the study and therefore it is unciear when and where the meetings would be held. Because of the City's strong interest in water management within the County, it would be beneficial to have a City representative on the work group. Due to the proposed content of the study, nomination of a Counciimember would be appropriate. Recommendation The Counci! forvvard a nomination to the County for representation on the Committee to Evaluate the Governance of Water Management in Washington County. � WASHINGTON COUNTY OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION GOVERNMENTCENTER 14900 67ST STREET NORTH • STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082A006 612-430-6000 Facsimile Machine 612-430-6017 Washington County Communities Date: May 7, 1998 Jarnes A. Schug Counry Administrata V�Binia Erdahi Deputy Administratw RE: Request Participation on Committee to Evaluate the Governance of Water Management in Washington County Washington County is beginning a study to evaluate the governance of water management in the County. The County will use the study to deternune how the county should be organized to imnrove the efficiency and effectiveness of its water resources management. The County is looking for a unique solution that provides comprehensive, coordinated management of water resources. The County would like to involve all of those currently invoived in water management in the study process. The County Board will appoint five representatives of local units of �overnment (one from each comrnissioner district) to a work group that will assist with the study. The Counry is seeking recommendations for these five members. Key roles for the work group wili be to: articulate the vision, goals and values for countywide water management; identify current problems and concerns regardin� water management; describe and evaluate alternative models; and recommend a preferred model and associated implementation needs. The focus oi the study is on governance issues not on water management policies and practices. The outcome of the study is not a countywide water management plan. Attached is a project work plan with more details about the study. The Counry will be hiring a consultant to conduct this study. We hope tu have ine consultaa: n:red by mid-June and to have the first meeting of the work group to be sometime in July. I expect that the work group will meet monthly for the duration of the study. Please inform me of your recommendation by June 5. I wili be asking the County Boazd to appoint the work group in early June. Call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, �°"�'�`�� ane Harper Principal Planner (612)430-6011 attachment nm.a m a ywe c,p� M'VUSERS�ADMUMHARPElWP1WA71AQSOLt.WPD "-,l✓ EQUAL EMPLOVMENT OPPORTUNITY / AFFIRMATIVE ACTION � y,,�' WASHINGTON COUNTY WATER GOVERNANCE STUDY , WORK PLAN APRIL 1998 BACKGROUND The Counry has a high degree of interest in protecting ground and surface water resources. The County needs to work with a multitude of other jurisdictions and agencies in order to meet this goal. The County's interest is in providing leadership and policy direction for ground and surEace water issues, but not necessarily govemance or regulation e�ccept where that role is appropriate. "The Metropolitan Water Management Act of 1982 required watershed-based planning and management in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Where no watershed district was in esistence, local govemment was given the option to form a joint powers watershed management organization (WMO). In 1987, amendmenu to the act gave counties in the Twin Cities voluntary ground water plann� authority. Watershed districts, authorized by the Legislature in 1955, have broad authoriry to address a wide variety of water-related issues, including flood control and water quality. The WMOs have limited land use powers and taxing authoriries. Counties, ciries and towns aze responsible for zoning, land use decisions, local ordinances and pemrit actions that can affect water resources. Six watershed districts are located wholly or paraally within Wash� ^n County. Five watershed management organizations aze located within the County. CHARGE To detercnine how water ma�ement should be organized to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of how water resources aze managed in Washington County. The County is looldng for a unique solution that provides comprehensive, coordinated management of water resources. ' :. ..... u1. . ' :.. "I'he study will encompass the following considerations: A. The sUidy will be proactive, not reactive. The County iutends tr, be proactive in implementing the preferred governance option. B. Options considered and recommended must be unconstrained by curtent law. The County is willing to seek necessary legisiation to implement the preferred solution. C. The siudy will encompass the entire Courny, including azeas tbat are eurrendy included in multi- counry water management entities. D. The County is seeking solutions to realignment the governance of water mwagement, not simply and identification of program euhancemems to improve service delivery. E. T6e study should evaluate the effectiveness of various options as related to watershed management (land and water). F. The study should incorporate previous wozk that the Counry has wmpleted regazding roles of various local organizations in ground water managemenY. G. The study should idenrify where the law is disjointed, especially as it relates to coordination of ground and surFace water man�ement. •G;�Zi7�i� A. Articulate the County's vision, goais and vatues for water management. B. Idenrify current problems and conceans with surEace and ground water coordination and mana� ement. C. Identify current activities or strategies being employed in the County to address surface and ground water concerns. D. Describe the current goverqance and coordination of surface and ground water. E. Describe the degree to which the current system dces or does not meet the Counry's vision and goals for water maoageme� and coordination. F. Describe possible govemance models. G. Narrow govemance options based on the vision, goals, values H. Evaluate governance malels. I. Choose a preferred govemance oprion. J. Identify strategies to move the Counry toward iu vision and goals. K. Define the roles of various organizations within those strategies. L. Identify other actions wtuch the parties can take to improve management or surface and ground water in the County. ROLES County Board: Will define scope of project. Reports on progress will be provided to the County Board on a regutu basis (no less than every 12 weeks). Will clarify policy questions when identified. Steering Committee: Will provide guidance throughout the process. Members include Commissioner's liaison, Public Works Director, Firaith Environment and Land Management Director, Couury Adminisuator, Board of Water and Soil Resources, and Soil and Water Conservation District Chair. Work Group: Will complete steps of tl�e project and will recommend future actions. Possible members include SWCD, DNR, PCA, BWSR, Public Works Department, Health Environment and Land M Deparhnent, Watershed Districts, 7oint Powers Water Management Organizations, five representarives from local units of govemment, and Steering Committce liaison. Consultant. Will lead the process, facilitate meetings and do analysis. Staff. Will participate as appropriate. Plannez from the Office of Administtation will manage the consultani contract, handle meeting logistics, and be the Steering Committee liaison to the Work Cnoup. MILESTONES Phase 1: Workshop with County Board to clatify direction of project. March 10, 1998. Phase 2: Appoint work group and begin study: June I5, 1998. Phase 3: Steps A-I. Estimated completion date: December 31, 1998. Phase 4: Stegrs J-Y.. Estimated completion date: Mazch 31, 1999. Phase 5: Implementation: As described in recommended solution. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The following information further describes what is being asked for in this study. IDENTIFY CURRfiNT PROBLEMS AND ACTIVITIES 1. Understand the geaeral roles of each water management enrity. 2. Identify the current acdvities and problems with each water management organization (WMO). A. General assessment of resource problems count}nvide - classify as to crises, short-term, or long-term- B. Current activities and services of each WMO. C. Current financial commiunent and funding source of each WMO. D. Status of joint powers agreemenu. E. W6at is worldng and should remaiu the sazne. F. Whai is not woridng and should change. 3. Idenrify the current activities of the County. 4. Identify ihe current activities of municipalities. EVALUATE GOVERNANCE OPTIONS 1. Perfocmance criteria A. Expertise - technical and administrative B. Enfom,emem C. Efficiency D. Accountability and access to the pubIic E. Leaderslup capabilities F. Authority G. Funding mechanisms and ability to finance H, Ability to deal with n'��ement as well as plaaniug issues. I. Ability to manage different types of water problems - flooding, nonpoint pollution, source poilution, etc. J. Ability to mavage watershed projects such as studies, programmatic solutions, and capital projects K. Ability to link ground and surface water management L. Ability to link water management and land use actions 2. Barriers to success of each model 3. Roles and responsibilities of various agencies given each model 4. lmpact on e�cisting prograzns and strategies - local, county, state 5. Anticipated expenses and who pays - compare to existing situation 6. Legalexposure N:\WP�WA'NiFQI.WPD . , '�� . �nl�� — � a� �� o cn c� cn c � � o�� .N�OO ��' I�I � �7 :'._�r''�i�� ' 7� � � �� .. Fa ,�,�^� - �}+"�� yi��{�>_.@ "w ��'�: `�'-� '� r� N" '^'� .. �. � - �'�UFtl.4;s x � .� _ ' #f � r; /7 � � �� N � V O L t� � •� � Q 1 r► � .� .� � c 0 .� � N > W � � F , � \ c � � � ai o . Q �z� c 0 .� c � � N n L m � >� v� Qr m; U 2� �� r= mo � T O � Ud > �p'c m C - O ?� U� m� O i0 x mv z� �� r ov am 0 � U �e oa T� a d o m� n¢ 4` �o <p �- N O � Ql � N T (� � G Y N O V �S U Q ��