1. automotive and vehicles
2. boats and watercraft

LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AGENDA
7:00 PM, Wednesday, April 22, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
ROLL CALL
3.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4.
CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Baasen
 Administer Oath of Office to Fred Meyer- New LMCD Board Member (City of Woodland)
5.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES- 3/25/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
4/8/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
6.
APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
A) Audit of vouchers (4/16/15 - 4/30/15)
B) February and March financial summary and balance sheets
C) City of Wayzata, draft Findings of Fact and Order approving 2015 new multiple dock and special
density license applications
D) Bayshore II HOA, staff recommends Board approval of 2015 new multiple dock (minor change)
license application as outlined in 4/17/15 staff memo
7.
PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)
8.
PUBLIC HEARINGS- None
9.
OTHER BUSINESS
A) Craig Rapp, LLC, Chair update on LMCD Strategic Plan Facilitator Proposal
B) 2015 EWM Harvesting Program, consideration of awarding Truck Hauling Bids (to be e-mailed)
C) Shorewood Yacht Club (Site 1), consideration of overpayment of fees from 2009 through 2015
10.
UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITEES
11.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
12.
OLD BUSINESS
13.
NEW BUSINESS
14.
PERFORMACE EVALUATION- 2014 Performance Evaluation of the Executive Director (Note: the
Board may vote to conduct the evaluation in a closed session)
15.
ADJOURNMENT
ITEM
5
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
Baasen called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jay Green, Mound; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg Thomas,
Tonka Bay; James Doak, Woodland; Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Gabriel Jabbour, Orono; Dave Lang,
Minnetrista; Rob Roy, Greenwood; Sue Shuff, Minnetonka; and Deborah Zorn, Shorewood. Also present:
Charlie LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper, Administrative Technician;
and Emily Herman, Administrative Assistant.
Members absent: Jennifer Caron, Excelsior; Chris Jewett, Deephaven; and Dennis Klohs, Minnetonka
Beach.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Green moved, Zorn seconded to approve the agenda as submitted.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
4. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Baasen
Baasen stated that Board member Jabbour has suggested that we conduct a community survey relative to the
role of the LMCD. He believed this would be helpful in conjunction with updating the LMCD’s strategic plan.
He asked the Board to consider involving Tom Skramstad as a neutral LMCD liaison (based on his
involvement in the strategic planning process) and Jabbour’s concern that the LMCD’s involvement may slow
the process down.
Jabbour stated that this project was a private matter that he is doing independently from the LMCD, that he
has allowed the LMCD to be a part of. He communicated that he had previously spoke with Skramstad, who
stated he did not need to be a part of this project. Jabbour stated that he has worked with the University of
Minnesota Carlson School of Management on multiple occasions and this project is being performed for the
benefit of the community. He did not want to think this body should, for a moment, consider this project
adversarial.
Baasen expressed concern that Jabbour was misunderstanding his intentions as he believed his project was
of benefit to the LMCD’s strategic planning update process, in which his goal was to provide him with a liaison
that was not directly involved with the Board. He offered two additional Chair announcements. First, he
thanked Jay Soule and Brian Roath for coordinating the March 14th Boater Safety Education Course. Second,
he thanked those that participated in the Save the Lake Banquet, which received good attendance. He
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 2
stated it was a celebration of Lake Minnetonka that included former Water Patrol Lt. Art Saunders receiving
the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MN DNR) Boat and Water Safety Officer of the Year Award
and Special Deputy John Feyder receiving the Special Deputy of the Year Award.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES-
1/10/15 LMCD Board Workshop
2/25/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
3/11/15 LMCD Workshop
3/11/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting
MOTION: Roy moved, Shuff seconded to approve the 1/10/15 LMCD Board Workshop minutes as
submitted.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
MOTION: Green moved, Lang seconded to approve the 2/25/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting minutes
as submitted.
VOTE:
Aye (9), Abstained (2; Doak and Roy); motion carried.
MOTION: Thomas moved, Green seconded to approve the 3/11/15 LMCD Board Workshop minutes as
submitted.
VOTE:
Aye (10), Abstained (1, Zorn); motion carried.
MOTION: Lang moved, Shuff seconded to approve the 3/11/15 LMCD Regular Board Meeting minutes
as submitted.
VOTE:
Aye (10), Abstained (1, Zorn); motion carried.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Green requested that agenda item 6C be removed from the consent agenda.
Roy moved, Shuff seconded to approve the consent agenda as amended, removing agenda item 6C. Motion
carried unanimously. Items so approved included 6A) Audit of vouchers (3/16/15 – 3/31/15); 6B) January
financial summary and balance sheet; and 6D) 2015 Liquor Licenses, staff recommends Board approval of
renewal applications as outlined in 3/19/15 staff memo.
6C) Three Rivers Park District, 2015 agreement with LMCD to provide watercraft inspectors at selected
public accesses on Lake Minnetonka;
Green stated that the total cost of the 2015 agreement with the Three Rivers Park District (TRPD) to provide
watercraft inspectors is $39,000 (an estimated $4,000 savings from the 2014 program budget). He further
stated the LMCD’s total out-of-pocket expense was estimated at $13,000 based on the receipt of anticipated
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 3
grant funds from the MN DNR and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District.
Jabbour expressed the importance for the Board to be aware that last year’s program was poorly performed.
Green stated that the LMCD previously contracted with Volt Workforce Solutions (Volt) who supplied
watercraft inspectors for the LMCD and a number of other agencies. Although they went through the same
training as the MN DNR inspectors, they lacked supervision and there was some poor employee attendance.
He stated that Volt is no longer providing this service.
Jabbour personally believed 2015 will be a substantially better program.
Baasen publically thanked TRPD for this partnership, as well as Green for his active involvement in initiating
this option.
MOTION: Thomas moved, Zorn seconded to approve the 2015 agreement with the TRPD to provide
watercraft inspectors at selected public accesses on Lake Minnetonka.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Baasen stated he will submit a letter of appreciation to the TRPD.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)
There were no public comments.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
 Belle Properties, LLC, non-conforming, non-multiple dock permit application for four Boat Storage Units
on approximately 107 feet of shoreline on Jennings Bay (continued from the 2/25/15 LMCD Regular
Board Meeting)
Baasen asked Harper for an update of this agenda item.
Harper provided the following comments via a PowerPoint presentation:
 He directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 3/19/15, in which Belle Properties, LLC has
submitted a non-conforming, non-multiple dock license application to moor or dock four restricted
watercraft on approximately 107 feet of shoreline. The watercraft would be owned by tenants of the
subject site (5040 Enchanted Road) or owners of such (Rafik Moore and Fonda Broekhuis). A draft
site plan was presented, as well as an additional email, dated 3/25/15, from Ms. Sharon King
(neighboring property owner).
 A public hearing for this application was held at the February 25th LMCD Board Meeting in which
the following was offered:
o Testimony was given by the applicant and evidence was presented. The applicant had
submitted a photo obtained from the previous property owner of two docks with four boats that
they believed was taken sometime during the 1970's. The applicant had also submitted a letter
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015






Page 4
from prior owner Jay C. Rusthoven, which was read in full and offered within the packet.
o The majority of the Board did not feel that the evidence submitted was sufficient to prove that
four restricted watercraft were moored or docked at this site on May 3, 1978. The Board did
not take action on this application to allow more time for the applicant to obtain additional
evidence. The Board continued the public hearing to this meeting (with a few Board members
offering to assist the applicant). The Board also directed staff to look through aerial photos
within the LMCD office and other possible sources to try to find additional evidence of the
number of boats moored at this site.
Staff discovered three 1977 aerial photos of the West Arm shoreline in the LMCD office. Staff
worked with Jabbour to digitize the photos from the negatives. Unfortunately, because of the angle
that the photos were taken and the altitude of the plane, the dock or boats could not be
distinguished.
Staff obtained additional aerial photos from 1957-1989 through a contact within Hennepin County
Geographic Information System Department. Staff also utilized online sources to obtain aerial
photos of the site from 1991-2014. He directed the Board to an aerial photograph packet from
1957-2014, in which he provided a chart (outlined within his memo) that assessed to the best of his
abilities the dates of the photographs and either the estimated number of watercraft that were
present within or that the respective photograph was not discernible.
The photos obtained by staff did not provide a documented instance in which up to four watercraft
were moored at the dock at 5040 Enchanted Road. To date, the applicant has not provided
additional evidence that four restricted watercraft were moored or docked at this site on May 3,
1978.
He directed the Board to an email within their packet, dated 3/4/15, from Ms. Lori Hays who is a
neighboring property owner. In this e-mail, she outlined her concerns for the consideration of this
application.
Based on the evidence provided, staff did not believe there was sufficient evidence to prove that
four restricted watercraft were moored or docked at 5040 Enchanted Road on May 3, 1978. He
recommended the LMCD Board direct LeFevere to prepare draft Findings of Fact and Order for denial
of the non-conforming, non-multiple dock license application.
He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Jabbour requested clarification that the applicant had previously provided a photograph documenting the
existence of four boats; however, the date of the photograph could not be confirmed.
Harper confirmed Jabbour was correct that the applicant did provide a photograph with four watercraft;
however, the date could not be confirmed. Additionally, he reiterated that from the aerial photographs
that staff obtained, there had not been a documented instance of four watercraft moored at the site.
Thomas thanked Klohs, Jabbour, and staff for their time in doing what they could for the applicant.
Baasen invited the applicant to address the Board.
Ms. Fonda Broekhuis, representing Belle Properties, LLC, stated that she was simply requesting to be
grandfathered in for the watercraft that was historically stored at the subject property. She had never
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 5
asked for five boats (per one of the emails enclosed within the packet from a neighboring property owner).
She stated there are an estimated 15 abandoned properties that she has rehabilitated and are now
occupied with tenants. She was not aware of the rule whereby she could not store her boat at the subject
dock. She respectively asked for the four boat storage slips to be available to the tenants. She stated
that if the Board did not concur with her request, so be it and she would move forward. In closing, she
stated she does her best to clean up the properties (specifically this one) and believed that it looked pretty
nice.
Baasen stated that should the approval not be granted, she would have the ability to store up to two
restricted watercraft.
LeFevere stated that if the Board was satisfied with the proposed grandfathered number of watercraft,
then the storage would reference no ownership restrictions (only dock use area restrictions).
Broekhuis stated the Board will find no photographs that will provide sufficient evidence (as per the
ordinance). Most boats are out in May and the photos are dated from the month of April. Many of the
tenants did not have boats. If the Board’s decision denied the request, she asked if her boat could be one
of the two that could be stored there, in which LeFevere confirmed the two would not have ownership
restrictions. She expressed concern that the neighbors who commented were placing her on trial.
Baasen reassured Broekhuis that she was not on trail and that the Board was offering due process of her
request.
Baasen opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m.
Mr. Jay Rusthoven, 505 Orleans Street in St. Paul, stated that he was the previous property owner. He
purchased the property in 1970 at which time he installed two long dock structures that offered four slips.
Since that date, there would have been any number of up to four boats present at a time (i.e., one, three,
four, etc.) He confirmed those two dock structures historically offered four slips. He apologized for not
taking historical pictures. He stated it was nice to offer a slip to the tenants that rented the units, which
historically had not been a concern.
LeFevere reminded the Board that granting the grandfathered status is not within the Board’s discretion.
Approval of this application must be based on the Board’s determination that sufficient evidence existed
to document a specific number of boats were present on May 3, 1978. The applicant would then be
entitled to that watercraft density.
There being no further comments, Baasen closed the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. He entertained further
discussion by the Board or a motion.
MOVED:
Thomas moved, Lang seconded to direct LeFevere to prepare draft Findings of Fact and
Order for denial of the Belle Properties, LLC non-conforming, non-multiple dock permit
application.
VOTE:
Ayes (10), Nays (1, Green); motion carried.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 6
Green asked if the applicant were to find additional evidence, could she request the Board reconsider her
application.
LeFevere stated that there is nothing in the Code that would prohibit a reapplication. The Board would
not want to reconsider a matter that it had already decided. However, nothing would prevent the Board
from considering a new application if there was newly discovered evidence that should be considered in
the interest of fairness.
Broekhuis stated that she would not be finding additional evidence and will be selling the property with the
storage stipulation of two watercraft.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, review of draft 2014 LMCD Audit
Baasen welcomed representatives and invited them to provide an overview of the draft 2014 LMCD Audit.
Mr. Steve McDonald, Managing Partner of Abdo, Eick, & Meyers, introduced himself and Mr. Kevin
Knopik, Audit Manager. He explained the difference between the Management Letter vs. the Annual
Financial Report. The representatives offered the following comments via a PowerPoint presentation:
 Financial operations were in compliance with State of Minnesota standards, which met the goal of
an “unmodified” opinion within the audit process. Additionally, no legal compliance issues existed.
 One internal control deficiency was noted (preparation of financial statements). He explained that
the accounts receivable portion of finances is well segregated. However, at the end of the year, it
is the Executive Director (one employee) who has ultimate responsibility for the financial statements
(working closely with the treasurer). He stated this is common in a small office setting. He believed
Nybeck takes full responsibility for this task, in which he asks very good questions and keeps the
auditor accountable; offering good compensating control measures.
 Performing the audit provided for no disagreements or difficulties. All materials requested were
received and in compliance.
 The 2014 General Reserve Fund budget planned for the use of $44,565. An overall positive
variance of $37,493 was offered, which was mainly a result of less rent expenditures than
anticipated. He stated the LMCD has a 50% General Reserve Fund balance policy as of the start of
the next budgeted year; providing for the ending Fund balance to be at 56% at the end of 2014. He
confirmed the LMCD has maintained this policy for the past five years.
 The Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Fund had a flat budget of $125,000. The Fund ended up with
an excess of $13,478 ($21,466 in revenue and an excess of $7,998 in expenses). This was driven
by additional funds received from other public agencies to increase watercraft inspections beyond
the adopted budget. This resulted in increased expenses in that area being over budget. He
stated the LMCD has a 50% AIS Reserve Fund balance policy, which provided for 68% at the end
of 2014.
 The Save the Lake Fund had a flat budget of $44,100. The Fund ended up with an excess of
$8,463 (a revenue shortfall of $4,341 and a surplus of $12,804 in expenditures). This was due to
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015


Page 7
less than anticipated contributions and less expenditure needs than budgeted for in the contingency
line item ($11,800).
The Equipment Replacement Fund, which provides for future capital equipment purchases, was at
$67,472. He referenced a harvester that was purchased in 2012 that brought the Fund balance
significantly down and that $25,000 was transferred from the General Fund during 2013 and 2014
to increase that fund balance.
He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Baasen asked Treasurer Hughes if he had any questions prior to opening this up to the Board.
Hughes preferred to offer comments after the Board’s discussion.
Roy directed the Board to pages 20 and 39 of the draft audit. Specifically, capital assets (net of
accumulated depreciation) and inquired if there was a more detailed depreciation schedule than what was
documented within the audit.
Knopik confirmed a more detailed schedule was provided by staff during the course of the audit. The first
line item on page 39 is the total cost of all the machinery the LMCD had purchased with the depreciation
line item offering an estimated accounting life on the use of that equipment.
Roy believed that depreciation value should be reflected in the LMCD’s monthly summary and balance
sheet figures.
McDonald stated, to Roy’s point, most businesses account for their depreciation schedule. The
complication in this matter is specific to the cash values and financial statements, which is what the Board
receives on a monthly basis. The LMCD falls under governmental accounting standards whereby the
depreciation values are not a part of the operating budget (cash values). He recognized the fairness of
the question but reiterated that value is typically not documented in the monthly financial statements.
Roy expressed concern that the LMCD is taking money out of the budget to replace the harvesters;
however, the report is not documenting the degradation of those harvesters.
McDonald offered to work with staff to enhance the monthly report if that is what the Board would prefer.
Nybeck stated that he was not familiar with the detailed depreciation scheduled that Knopik referenced;
however, he would be happy to work with Abdo Eick, & Meyers on this request.
Baasen entertained a motion from the Board in reference to Roy’s request.
MOTION:
Jabbour moved, Green seconded to place the depreciation values within the monthly
financial statements.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Thomas inquired on the inconsistent use of the word “personal” vs. “personnel” on pages 26 and 29 of the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 8
draft audit.
McDonald confirmed that the word “personal” was correctly utilized on page 26 of the draft audit. He
stated that word is utilized via the professional government accounting standards and that it was defined
as “salaries and benefits.” He concurred with Thomas that the two words were inconsistently utilized and
that “personnel” should be amended to “personal” on page 29.
Hughes stated that Board member Thomas previously asked a question of him relative to the audit term
“disclosure check list.” The City of Spring Park (city), in which he represents, utilizes that terminology, as
well. He read the following statement offered within the city’s audit, “He reported one matter involving the
city’s internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be a material weakness to the limited
size of office staff. The city has limited segregation of duties within certain areas.” He recognized the
similarities between the city and LMCD’s audit and asked McDonald to further expound on this matter.
McDonald stated that the “disclosure check list” refers to financial statements that the auditor prepares.
This is a list of accounting standards that need to be incorporated into the statements (70 currently in
effect). He stated it was a matter of interpreting each of those accounting standards and making sure the
disclosures of those standards are accurately reflected. Most clients are not heavily involved in preparing
the financial statements, which are difficult to complete and not an efficient use of their time (offering the
need to almost be a full time accountant). Most clients provide for the accountant to create the financial
statement and take the consistent documentation of such within their annual audit (recognizing that
compensating controls are in place).
Hughes asked Nybeck to provide an overview, for the Board’s education, of the LMCD’s set procedure in
receiving and processing the daily mail (referencing segregation of duties).
Nybeck stated that based on past audits and the notation that there is a deficiency in internal controls,
either he or Harper opens the mail. Administrative Clerk Tammy Duncan processes the mail and audit of
vouchers, with a second review by Herman and final review by himself. He stated that staff takes the
need to incorporate as much segregation as possible (for an office of four) very seriously.
McDonald clarified that the deficiency offered within the 2014 LMCD audit only refers to the preparation of
the year-end reports and not the monthly financial summary and balance sheets. He further clarified that
the audit did not offer a finding as to how the LMCD processes cash, makes payroll, bills out, etc.
Baasen thanked McDonald and Knopik for their presentation.
B. Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, consideration of 2015 Save the Lake grant proposal
Baasen stated that the LMCD has been working with Sheriff Stanek and representatives from his office to
enhance the public safety coverage for Lake Minnetonka. He asked Nybeck for an overview of this
agenda item.
Nybeck provided the following comments via a PowerPoint presentation:
 Background information that included: 1) announcing the availability of Save the Lake (STL) funds
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015


Page 9
on 10/9/14 with a deadline of 12/5/14, 2) three proposals were received (as outlined within his
presentation) in which one was from the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office (HCSO) for $52,164 to
provide added law enforcement, and 3) the STL Fund had $50,394 (25% of the 12/31/13 STL
Reserve Fund balance of $201,576) in available funds.
The review of the HCSO proposal was considered via the following avenues:
o December 16, 2014: STL Committee (tabled until after the annual HCSO/LMCD meeting);
o February 4, 2015: HCSO/LMCD annual meeting (discussed in general terms);
o February 19, 2015: STL Committee (Lt. Vnuk provided a detailed overview of the Water
Patrol’s staffing schedule, with the committee not providing a recommendation);
o March 9, 2015: Meeting with Major Storms and Sandra Westerman, Dir. of HCSO
Intergovernmental Relations, with Baasen, Jabbour and himself in attendance. Baasen
indicated at this meeting that the HCSO proposal of $52,164 might be too steep and that
any additional coverage provided via the approval of their proposal would be over and
above the current baseline coverage. In turn, Nybeck submitted a request to amend their
original proposal; and
o March 11, 2015: LMCD Board Meeting (unanimous support for more coordinated coverage).
Originally submitted HCSO proposal ($52,164) included: Memorial Day through Labor Day (peak
boating periods); Monday-Thursday (3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.), Friday, Saturday, and holidays (9:00
a.m. – 9 p.m.); 828 total coverage hours ($63 per hour).
Baasen reinforced that this proposal provided for additional coverage over and above the base
coverage already provided.




Amended HCSO proposal ($33,264) included: Memorial Day through Labor Day (peak boating
periods); no coverage proposed Monday – Wednesday; coverage offered Thursday, Friday,
Saturday, and holidays from 1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.; 528 total coverage hours ($63 per hour).
He recommended that any approval would require LeFevere to prepare an agreement between the
HCSO and LMCD for consideration at the Board’s 4/8/15 meeting (reiterating this is coverage over
and above the standard baseline coverage for Lake Minnetonka).
$35,214 of STL funds remains available.
He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Jabbour stated that it would be unfair to describe the proposal as “additional” coverage (offering this
proposal provides for a new Lake Minnetonka program). He recognized that it acts as a “catch 22” as the
state mandates that the HCSO provide coverage, in which the LMCD is entitled to. He stated that he had
previously worked with Hennepin County to provide two additional peace officers (as a single line item), in
which he asked why the county would give additional funds if we represent it as “additional” coverage. He
believed the LMCD should receive the law enforcement they are entitled to with the ability to substantially
augment that option for better coverage. Additionally, the new officer will be fully assigned to Lake
Minnetonka (short of a catastrophe off the Lake). Lastly, he stated that if the Water Patrol were to be built
today, it would not have been built in the same location based on the response time of 40 to 90 minutes
from Spring Park Bay to Wayzata Bay. Therefore, he has vowed to: 1) provide a station in the lower lake
that would significantly cut the response time down and 2) further promote the HCSO Special Deputy
Program by establishing a more attractive package for the volunteers.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 10
Baasen referenced Jabbour’s comment (made at a prior meeting) that Maynards, Lord Fletchers, and
Cruisers Cove (Big Island) make up the Bermuda Triangle of Lake Minnetonka, which offers a very busy
traffic flow. He further stated that this program may encourage additional stakeholder partnerships.
Hughes questioned if the proposal would be for a sworn deputy that could make driving while intoxicated
(DWI) arrests, in which Lt. Kent Vnuk, who was in attendance, confirmed it would.
Baasen thanked Lt. Vnuk for attending this meeting and invited him to address the Board.
Lt. Kent Vnuk, representing the HCSO Water Patrol, stated that he was pleased to be representing the
amended proposal being considered at this meeting. He stated that he lives in the area, keeps a boat on
the Lake, and has served with the Water Patrol Unit for seven years. He further expounded on what he
had offered to the STL Committee on February 19th. To this end, he made the following comments:
 The Boat and Water Safety Act mandates the Sheriff of each county provide law enforcement
(including search and rescue).
 The HCSO Water Patrol Unit is the largest unit in the Midwest. The unit maintains eight licensed
peace officers (six deputies, a sergeant, and himself); with Vnuk and the sergeant providing
100% and 50% of administrative duties, respectively.
 The HCSO is responsible for all water related incidents in Hennepin County (104 lakes and three
rivers). This also includes incidents pertaining to hot tubs and pools (in which he named
examples of).
 Two deputies are assigned to the day shift with four providing for night coverage. During the day,
two boats (one on Lake Minnetonka and one hooked to a trailer) stand ready; however, the
deputies do not stray far from the site based on the need to provide an efficient response time for
calls that may be received. During the night shift, one deputy is assigned to Lake Minnetonka
(with the remaining deputies responsible for the county-wide calls).
 HCSO expends approximately 85% to 90% of their resources to Lake Minnetonka. He
acknowledged that stakeholders from other bodies of water express concern for their lack of
presence; however, they do the best they can with the amount of coverage offered.
 Special deputies are increasing (recently welcoming six new special deputies). His goal is to
increase the current number of special deputies from 25 to 50 by the end of the year;
acknowledging that they will definitely reach 40 special deputies. He recently invited some
formerly retired special deputies to re-join the force, in which they did.
 To this end, the HCSO proposal currently being considered will provide great benefit to Lake
Minnetonka (even with the proposed increased number of special deputies).
 He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Jabbour asked Vnuk to expound on the proposed satellite station.
Vnuk stated that Jabbour worked with Major Storms on setting up a Water Patrol satellite station at the
Shorewood Yacht Club. This matter was raised based on the response time concerns during last year’s
historical high water levels. He stated that although they are exempt from traversing at regulated speeds
during an emergency, the public continues to question their ability to do so (even with the lights and
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 11
sirens activated) via multiple complaint calls at one time. Therefore, the HCSO is working with Jabbour to
place a boat at the Shorewood Yacht Club, which would cut down on response times. This option also
saves about 25 minutes of navigation time through the quiet water areas during non-emergency periods
to reach that area of the Lake. Additionally, it would be a plus to have a visual of that area at all times.
Shuff referred to a prior comment that there is more activity in the evening. She asked if that was true for
Lake Minnetonka.
Vnuk stated that Lake Minnetonka’s boating traffic generally starts picking up at 1:00 p.m. Mooring at Big
Island is busy by 2:00 p.m., in which it quiets down for dinner between 5:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. The more
serious time of the day is between 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. when patrons are leaving Maynard’s and
Lord Fletcher’s (offering violations of the quiet water areas and boating accidents).
Jabbour stated that when the legislature mandated that certain bars could stay open until 2:00 a.m., he
worked very diligently to have Maynard’s and Lord Fletcher’s close at the same time to prevent a surge of
traffic from one location to the other. Additionally, he was told that Lake Minnetonka is one of the safest
lakes in the United States for its size. However, he believed that status was slipping based on the
decrease in special deputies and the loss of three deputies from the Three Rivers Park District that used
to patrol the islands. It is his understanding that they are going to be re-activated this year.
Baasen expressed the Board’s appreciation for expanding their Special Deputy Program.
Vnuk confirmed that program offers four additional boats just for Lake Minnetonka. He stated the special
deputies are assigned to a crew that works every other Saturday or Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The HCSO try to get special deputies in beyond that; however, many of them also volunteer for side
teams (water recovery, swift, sonar, etc.) that mandate their time over and above every other weekend.
Those individuals are already volunteering 80 to 90 hours a year; therefore, having them come in for
additional coverage time over and above their assigned weekend is difficult.
Thomas complimented the HCSO for doing a terrific job with the amount of staff provided. He asked if the
amended proposal substantially changed from what was discussed at the HCSO/LMCD’s February 4th
annual meeting (i.e., adding more specific coverage requirements vs. offering funds that would be
absorbed into the current coverage).
Baasen confirmed the proposal being considered at this meeting has substantially changed from the
original proposal submitted last winter. He further stated that based on the February 4th meeting, he and
other representatives met with Storms and Vnuk to provide for a coordinated coverage proposal
(encompassing all their programs and logistics to find the best coverage needs).
Vnuk confirmed the approval of the amended proposal would provide for additional enforcement over and
above the staffing previously mentioned. Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
(MN DNR) annually provides a grant for an additional peace office, which is typically assigned to Lake
Minnetonka.
Green supported approving the amended proposal and thanked Vnuk for presenting this evening. He
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 12
believed the presence of officers on the Lower Lake would be a significant enhancement and thanked
Jabbour for offering Shorewood Yacht Club as a satellite station. He questioned if, for whatever reason,
the amended proposal was not approved, would the presence on Lower Lake still be possible.
Vnuk confirmed that option would still be viable. However, if the amended proposal was not approved,
the current coverage would then be reallocated in different areas of the Lake.
Green believed that the satellite option would enhance the Special Deputies Program (providing for a
more attractive package that could offer additional program training partnerships).
Baasen reiterated a comment previously offered by Storms, in which the approval of this proposal will
provide benefits beyond what is proposed.
Jabbour confirmed that the planning of the satellite was independent of the proposal under discussion.
He stated that one cannot win the war with just one issue and credited the HCSO for taking action to
address coverage concerns. He believed that the coverage was back on track.
MOTION:
Roy moved, Hughes seconded to direct LeFevere to prepare an agreement approving
the HCSO Save the Lake amended grant proposal in the amount of $33,264.
Lang stated that while in favor of this proposal, he asked if the ultimate goal was to demonstrate to the
State of Minnesota how Lake Minnetonka's public safety had improved (warranting additional state
funds).
Vnuk stated the primary funding for the Water Patrol comes from the Hennepin County Board. He stated
Sheriff Stanek regularly requests additional funding from the Hennepin County Board for more staffing;
however, he is regularly denied based on budget allotments.
Jabbour stated that he understood the Hennepin County Board had hired a consultant; however, he does
not think they are looking to expand the budget.
Baasen stated the next step is to take a serious look at how the proposed program is working prior to
consideration of municipal budgets. This does not always have to come from the same source of funding
(acknowledging it does fit the STL’s mission).
Vnuk confirmed the HCSO will provide detailed documentation of their services to this program. Lastly,
he recommended the hours proposed in the agreement (1:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) be amended to add two
hours either way due their normal shift time resulting in 10 vs. eight hours.
VOTE:
Motioned carried unanimously.
Hughes asked if the sworn MN DNR conservation officer will be on the Lake and can that person enforce
the LMCD ordinances.
Vnuk confirmed a sworn MN DNR officer will be on Lake Minnetonka; however, they are required to issue
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 13
citations based on state law.
Baasen thanked Vnuk on behalf of the Board.
C. Timetable for 2016 LMCD Budget Process
Baasen asked Nybeck for an overview of this agenda item.
Nybeck directed the Board to the staff memo, dated 3/18/15, which outlined the proposed timetable for
the 2016 budget process. He made the following comments:
 He referenced Minnesota Statute 103B.635 which outlines the LMCD’s funding. Specifically, he
referenced Subd. 1 that requires the Board to, on or before July 1 of each year, prepare and submit
a detailed budget of the LMCD’s needs for the next calendar year to the governing body of each
member city.
 The LMCD typically initiates the budget process by holding a workshop session in the office prior to
the initial review of such at an LMCD Regular Board meeting (scheduled for April 22nd). He
recommended that workshop be scheduled between April 10th and April 16th.
 At the April 22nd Board meeting, a budget is typically received and staff is directed to distribute
such to the member cities for their review and comments. He reminded the Board that some
member cities only have one city council meeting per month.
 A meeting is planned for June 4th in the LMCD office to review and discuss the budget with member
city officials.
 Final review and approval of the budget is planned for the June 10th Board Meeting. This meeting
is typically scheduled to allow for a back-up date should future quorum issues exist. If needed, a
final review is possible at the June 24th Board Meeting.
 A draft budget is currently being prepared and he anticipated that more than one option will be
available for Board consideration.
 He entertained questions and comments from the Board, in which there were none.
10. UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITTEES
Hughes stated the Public Safety Committee has met to further discuss the proposed amendment to the High
Water ordinance (providing an overview of the Board’s discussion). The committee will be bringing further
recommendations to the Board, which will include the recommendation for a subsequent public hearing.
Baasen questioned if the Board could consider this prior to the boating season, in which an agenda item was
scheduled for the April 8th Board meeting.
Green stated he was working with Harper on the upcoming Eurasian Watermilfoil Harvesting Program.
Baasen stated the Executive Committee met with two additional Board members to outline the year-end
review process of the Executive Director, which will be brought forward to the Board at the April 8th meeting.
Hughes asked Nybeck to provide an overview of the recent banking depository change from 4M to Beacon.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 14
Nybeck stated the transfer to Beacon Bank has transpired, in which staff had provided positive comments
relative to working with their system. He stated that a Finance Committee will be scheduling a meeting in the
near future to consider the depositing of additional Certificate of Deposits (CD).
Baasen stated Beacon Bank guarantees any needed collateralization of the funds based on the LMCD’s
approved investment policy. Additionally, they recognize the LMCD as a public agency. Therefore staff and
the Board Officers do not have to provide personal documentation for the depositing of funds into a CD (as
outlined within the Patriot Act requirements).
11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck reported on two matters. First a Water Quality Seminar will be held on April 8th, which is the same
day as a regularly scheduled LMCD Board meeting. He asked any Board members interested in attending to
communicate such so that he can confirm a quorum of the LMCD meeting will be present. Second, he was
working with Baasen, Zorn, Jewett, and Jabbour in identifying contractors for facilitating the strategic planning
process.
Baasen acknowledged both quality and time are important in this matter. He encouraged the Board to offer
any recommendations of professionals they may have in mind.
Zorn stated that she had a couple community contacts and expressed an interest in that the solicited
proposals offer apples to apples.
Nybeck stated the LMCD did not provide a scope of service when proposals were discussed with possible
contractors. The thought process for this was to allow the contractor the ability to propose the scope of work,
timeline, etc.
12. OLD BUSINESS
Jabbour stated that he would like to talk further about the survey being performed with the Carlson School of
Business as that matter seemed to be misconceived. He urged the Board to understand that the reaching out
to the community can deliver beyond the LMCD’s needs. He had been mentored in this process and had
worked with them on similar projects such as this (in which he named). He did not recall asking the LMCD to
be directly involved. He had asked the school to do a “need” study, in which his involvement is only to get the
school to focus on the LMCD’s value (where the LMCD excels) and to ascertain what the community’s
perception of the LMCD is (acknowledging the school could toss those efforts out). He believed there is a
perception that those that are involved are going to skew the process, which was unrealistic and unfair for a
premier college within this state. He stated he started this project prior to even considering serving on the
Board and is involved in at least 50 other independent projects. He confirmed the class had already started.
He reiterated that he previously asked Skramstad if he would like to be involved (prior to serving on the
Board). Skramstad attended the first meeting; after which, he expressed the lack of need for him to continue.
Jabbour informed him the door would remain open should he change his mind. He further stated that he is a
strong believer in being squeaky clean; acknowledging he did not want to violate Open Meeting Law (OML).
If this body assigned a committee to this task, he would have to post each gathering. He personally found
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 15
great value in participating in projects such as this. In regards to this survey, he had invited Zorn to personally
be involved and expressed an interest in her taking it over. To this end, he wanted the Board to know that
they will have the ability to participate when asked. He stated he would never sneak anything around the
Board and will take pleasure in reporting the completed project.
Baasen stated that he did not off any communication that provided suspicion of Jabbour. He met, as a
representative of the Board, with Jabbour and representatives of the school. He left that meeting impressed
with what was offered and recognized the need for timing. He believed that the only difference that he and
Jabbour may have, if there is a difference at all, is the interest in the LMCD having some involvement as this
matter is about the LMCD. For this reason, he reiterated that he, no more than a week ago, spoke with
Skramstad on the idea of representing the LMCD relative to this survey, in which Skramstad stated that he
was uncomfortable representing the LMCD unless the Board approved such. He stated he would be
comfortable with Zorn, who is a member of this Board, as well as a member of the Strategic Planning
Committee, representing the LMCD should the Board approve such.
Jabbour stated Zorn is not acting as a representative of the Board in this capacity but as a fellow resident of
the community, which prevents any violations of the OML.
Baasen and Jabbour asked LeFevere to confirm if two members of this Board (Zorn and Jabbour) can actively
participate in this project without posting the gatherings.
LeFevere stated that if the Board members do not have any status or authority given by action of the Board
but just happen to be on the Board, then there are no legal concerns. However, if the Board is approached on
this matter, the gathering would have to be posted. He further stated that complying with the OML is not
difficult; one must decide when and where the meeting will be held and then post notice.
Zorn stated that she was a former student of the Carlson School of Management. These are students who
are looking to take on a project and gain some insight on the matter at hand. Upon acceptance, it is their
project to take whatever direction they deem necessary. She was 110% confident that these students are
competent to handle this project with staff available to guide them when needed. As questions arise, the
students will call Jabbour or herself. She stated they may suggest an additional survey be completed in the
future. But at this time, she had no hesitations in offering her service to streamline the project.
Jabbour stated that the MN DNR held a recent service provider training session in which 80 people were in
attendance. Additionally, they will be holding a decontamination session at Tonka Bay Marina the second
week in June. He welcomed the Board to attend.
13. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
March 25, 2015
Page 16
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:08 p.m.
___________________________________
Dan Baasen Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM
5
LAKE MINNETONKA CONSERVATION DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
7:00 P.M., Wednesday, April 8, 2015
Wayzata City Hall
1. CALL TO ORDER
Baasen called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Members present: Dan Baasen, Wayzata; Jay Green, Mound; Gary Hughes, Spring Park; Gregg Thomas,
Tonka Bay; Jennifer Caron, Excelsior; James Doak, Woodland; Ann Hoelscher, Victoria; Gabriel Jabbour,
Orono; Chris Jewett, Deephaven; Dennis Klohs, Minnetonka Beach; Rob Roy, Greenwood; and Sue Shuff,
Minnetonka. Also present: Charlie LeFevere, LMCD Counsel; Greg Nybeck, Executive Director; Judd Harper,
Administrative Technician; and Emily Herman, Administrative Assistant.
Members absent: Dave Lang, Minnetrista and Deborah Zorn, Shorewood
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
MOTION: Doak moved, Jewett seconded to approve the agenda as submitted.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
4. CHAIR ANNOUNCEMENTS, Chair Baasen
Baasen made the following two Chair announcements: First, he directed the Board to additional
documentation within their handout folders relative to the consideration of obtaining a facilitator for updating
the LMCD’s Strategic Plan. Second, the Executive Committee and a few additional Board members met to
discuss the Executive Director’s annual performance review. At that time, he agreed to roll back the input
offered to those in attendance prior to scheduling a closed session for discussion by the full Board. He
anticipated that roll back to take place within a couple days and the scheduling of the closed session by the
end of April.
5. APPROVAL OF MINUTESThere were no minutes offered for approval.
6. APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA
Green requested the removal of agenda item 6B from the consent agenda.
Hughes directed the Board to an amended Audit of vouchers within their handout folder (adding check #20566 to
Abdo Eick & Meyers LLP for the performance of the 2014 audit). He requested the consent agenda be approved as
amended.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 2
Baasen asked Nybeck to provide an update on the timeline in considering agenda item 6F.
Nybeck stated that the LMCD has nearly finalized the mandatory Environmental Assessment process (in
accordance with the Environmental Quality Board rules) and that a public hearing was tentatively scheduled for the
May 13th LMCD Board Meeting.
Roy moved, Shuff seconded to approve the consent agenda as amended, making the changes noted above.
Motion carried unanimously. Items so approved included 6A) Audit of vouchers (4/1/15 - 4/15/15); 6C) Belle
Properties, LLC, draft Findings of Fact and Order denying non-conforming, non-multiple dock permit application for
four Boat Storage Units at 5040 Enchanted Road; 6D) Hennepin County Sheriff's Office, draft agreement
approving 2015 proposal for use of Save the Lake Funds for additional Water Patrol coverage hours on Lake
Minnetonka; 6E) MCWD, approval of 2015 grant request for Lake Minnetonka Watercraft Inspection Program; and
6F) T & T Boatworks Marina, LLC, approval of draft Record of Decision and LMCD Resolution 140 ordering a
negative declaration on the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Mandatory Environmental
Assessment Worksheet (EAW) document.
6B) LMCIT Liability Coverage Waiver Form, approving the selection, “The member DOES NOT WAIVE the
monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04”;
Baasen asked Green to provide his comments on this matter.
Green questioned why the LMCD is required to annually approve this agenda item and requested clarification on the
options offered.
LeFevere stated that the Board considers this document on an annual basis as the League of Minnesota Cities
Insurance Trust (LMCIT) requires all members to consider such within their annual renewal process. In regards to
the two options (to waive or not to waive the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by the state
statute), about 80% or more of the member cities, including the LMCD, have historically chosen not to waive the
limits. That option leaves the protection of the tort liability in place. He stated the LMCD has more insurance than
one person can sue for (i.e., if a person slips and falls based on negligence of the LMCD, that individual can sue for
a maximum of $500,000). However, if the LMCD waives the liability limit, then the LMCD can be sued for up to
$2,000,000. Additionally, the LMCD would pay a higher premium. The reason the LMCD has more insurance
available than what the statutory cap provides for is that there are other claims that do not fall under the tort liability
coverage, i.e., civil rights claims which are Federal law. The only reason he could think for the Board to consider
waiving vs. not waiving the liability, is to preserve the right to award an individual $2,000,000 based on the Board’s
belief that they were damaged to that level.
MOTION:
Green approved, Baasen seconded to approve item 6B as recommended, “The member DOES
NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes,
Section 466.04.”
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 3
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS- Persons in attendance, subjects not on the agenda (limited to 5 minutes)
There were no public comments.
8. PUBLIC HEARING
 City of Wayzata, new multiple dock and special density license application to: 1) increase the number of Boat
Storage Units from 116 to 149 by adding 33 transient slips near the Depot and Broadway Docks and 2) install a
swim dock at the Wayzata Beach
Baasen asked Nybeck to provide an overview of this agenda item.
Nybeck directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 4/2/15. He provided the following comments via a
PowerPoint presentation:
 The City of Wayzata (city) submitted new multiple dock, special density license, and variance applications
last August for the 2015 boating season (an initial step in implementing the Wayzata Lake Effect project).
 A detailed overview of the city’s currently approved license, which included: 1) licensed Boat Storage
Units (BSU) and respective density, 2) shoreline measurement, 3) location of licensed sites, and 4) the
storage of the city fire boat. He offered current aerial photographs of the site(s).
 A detailed overview of the proposed changes that involved the relocation of the fire boat, the addition of
15 and 18 transient BSUs at the Depot and Broadway dock, respectively (all BSUs measuring 12’ x 24’);
and an amended proposal to add a 100’ long swim dock at the Wayzata Beach. He provided aerial
drawings of each respective proposed change.
 A detailed overview of the relevant LMCD Code that pertains to the applications; restricted watercraft
storage allowance, public amenity requirements, and authorized dock use area (DUA) requirements.
 A detailed overview of an 8/13/14 LMCD public hearing that was held on this matter. The Board generally
supported the applications, with the exception of the presented “preferred” Broadway dock site plan. This
site plan offered the placement of BSUs within Burlington Northern Railroad’s (BNR) DUA resulting in the
Board’s inability to consider the variance application for such. The Board requested the city resolve their
ability to have control of the shoreline with BNR. The Board continued the consideration of the
applications to allow the city time to resolve the prior matter (directing staff to re-publish the continued
public hearing notice once the city set that date).
 The city requested the rescheduled public hearing be held this date, in which the public hearing was
published to consider the multiple dock and special density license applications within the 3/24/14 edition
of the Lakeshore Weekly News.
 Staff comments were as follows:
o City staff has made progress with the BRN for control of the shoreline to the east of the Broadway
dock, in which a city representative was present to speak to.
o The proposed changes would be contained within the city’s DUA.
o Staff supported the proposed relocation of the Wayzata Fire Boat from the lower lagoon area to
the Depot dock, which does not, per Code, count against the watercraft storage density.
o The city has adequate non-continuous shoreline to amend their approved special density license
(offering 1:23’ density relative to the proposal to add 33 transient BSUs with a maximum of 1:10’
subject to the city providing public amenities for density greater than the 1:50’ General Rule).
This option would require the city to provide a minimum of 40 public amenity points (directing the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015


Page 4
Board to the approved license dated 2/23/00). He further directed the Board to an amended list
of proposed public amenities and a staff assessment of such with a recommendation of 59 points
(also offered within the packet).
o The proposed variance application was not necessary and staff recommended the Board
consider refunding the $500 application fee.
He believed the Board could direct LeFevere to prepare draft Findings of Fact and Order for approval of
the city’s 2015 new multiple and special density license applications (including the documentation of the
updated public amenities list). He reiterated his recommendation for the Board to approve the refunding
of the variance application fee of $500.
He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Green requested clarification of the following: 1) approval of this application would not pertain to the use of the
BNR property based on their relocation of the proposed BSUs, 2) whether the currently approved Depot docks
are permanent (including whether the proposed docks would be floating), and 3) if the proposed docks are
floating, will the depth of the water at that location provide for the necessary anchoring of the dock structures.
Nybeck offered the following respective responses:
1. The city is requesting that the LMCD consider the back-up proposed site plan at the Depot Dock (located
to the west of the current dock). A pending question remained as to the ownership of the shoreline
between the Broadway and Depot docks, in which a representative of the city was present to address.
2. The permanent and floating docks as depicted by Green was correct. He further stated it was his
understanding that the city would be floating them to the existing area near the Depot Dock or would be
freezing them in the lagoon area during the winter season.
3. He recommended the city representative address the question of adequate water depths for anchoring.
Baasen stated that the city is proposing temporary dock structures at this time for trial purposes in working
through their ongoing Lake Effect Project
Jabbour asked Nybeck to clarify the following statement offered on the second page of his staff memo, “Staff
believes that Wayzata has made progress with BNR for control of the shoreline to the east of Broadway Dock.
A Wayzata representative will be in attendance to provide an update on this.” He stated that this comment had
initially confused him and thought it would be of benefit to further clarify. To this end, he believed the city is now
proposing that their dock structures be placed within their shoreline; providing for this application to stand
entirely on their own merit (without the use of BNR’s shoreline).
Nybeck confirmed that was his interpretation, as well. He confirmed the proposed dock structures have been
moved to the west and BNR’s property is to the east. He believed the city representative could offer further
clarification on this.
Baasen invited a representative from the city to address the Board.
City Manager Heidi Nelson thanked the Board for scheduling this agenda item. She offered the following
comments:
 The question of shoreline ownership is an ongoing conversation between the city and BNR. She
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015






Page 5
recognized there was a lot to consider with BNR as the prior configuration had the proposed transient
docks placed further to the east (for simplicity purposes, water depths, better access, etc.). To this end,
BNR recommended the city move their proposed docks back to the west with the opportunity to
continue to communicate as they move through their Lake Front Plan.
Consideration of this application is one of the first steps to implementing the Lake Front Plan of their
Lake Effect Project, in which one of their goals is to increase transient boat access to the downtown
area. She confirmed that the configuration and design of the proposed dock structures are unknown as
they are working through the Lake front improvements. With regard to the Lake Front Plan, the city is
going out for design of the central Lake front project within the next few months, which would involve
renovations from the foreman’s home east to the Depot. To this end, the application before the Board is
an interim increase in transient docks.
Public Services Director Dave Dudinsky was in attendance to speak to the Board on any dock design
questions they may have (offering the purchase of are currently out for bids).
Confirmation that Nybeck’s comments relative to the placement of the dock structures during the winter
season were correct. She stated the city was respectful of the LMCD’s formerly expressed concerns in
not expanding the current de-icing area; hence, they had chosen to go with floating docks. In response
to Green’s question on the anchoring of the floating dock structures with the current water depths, the
city had spoken with a few dock installers who believed they could manage such within the currently
proposed location.
Staff members will be present at the dock to logistically address the number of watercraft and space
needs for the larger boats. Additionally, the city will be tracking the usage of those docks.
City Attorney David Schelzel has had recent conversations with LeFevere and was in attendance at this
meeting, as well.
She entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Baasen asked the Board if they had any questions of the city representatives.
Klohs recognized the application as a test strategy, in which their plans will evolve over time. He informed the
city that the LMCD has been updating the ordinances in an effort to be more sensitive to the stakeholder’s
varying needs. Therefore, he encouraged the city to communicate any challenges the LMCD’s ordinances may
present for further consideration.
Nelson thanked Klohs for that comment and will keep the communication open. She stated that as they move
through this process there are a number of multi-jurisdictional agencies that they are working with. Their goal is
to incorporate designs that improve water quality, safety, etc.
Klohs found it beneficial for the LMCD to not have an ordinance that would automatically force an applicant into
a variance application. He stated it is possible the LMCD ordinance could be amended to address any future
concerns.
Thomas asked if the city had taken the pedestrian traffic crossing the railroad into consideration.
Nelson stated they had BNR come out and performed a diagnostic review of the crossings. The city
collaborated with BRN to replace the pedestrian crossing by the Depot last fall. Although improvements are
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 6
offered, the city believes there is room for improvements to better guide and control the pedestrians (possibly
offering future pedestrian crossing gates and improved handicap accessibility). With regard for the Broadway
crossing, the city will probably be doing some crossing ramp improvements. To this end, future improvements
are planned. She had not previously commented on the “H” dock and wanted to offer that one of the goals of
the Parks and Trails Board was to increase activities for the youth; therefore, they had budgeted for this capital
improvement (offering additional amenities for the beach area). She referred back to a former “H” dock that was
present in the 1950’s.
Baasen stated that the “H” design provided an area of safety on the beach side for the smaller children. He
opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m.
Mr. Brad Hoyt, 326 Ferndale Road in Wayzata, owns a number of commercial properties within the city
(including across from T&T Boatworks Marina). He stated that, historically, the LMCD has denied expansion of
transient docks at that marina (just to the east of the beach) and that this was an inappropriate place to expand
what he believed was also a marina. He made that comment based on the following concerns: 1) the city
having 1,900 dining seats for a city of 3,800 in population and 2) the current parking situation is catastrophic to
the point where the city is talking about building a surface parking ramp at the most active corners of the city.
He strenuously spoke against the proposed docks at the Depot site based on the need to cross the railroad
tracks. Additionally, he stated those docks would require a tremendous amount of parking, in which there is
already a concern for (offering a recently approved brewery within the Boatworks building). To this end, the
proposed docks are going to provide additional space for people to drink and get back into the boats.
Baasen stated that he believed a number of the comments raised by Mr. Hoyt were city based issues. There
being no further comments, Baasen closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. He entertained further Board
discussion of a motion.
MOTION:
Jabbour moved, Klohs seconded to: 1) direct LeFevere to prepare draft Findings of Fact and
Order approving the City of Wayzata’s 2015 new multiple dock and special density license
applications and 2) refund the City of Wayzata's $500 application fee relative to their variance
application.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
9. OTHER BUSINESS
A. Seton Village Association, consideration of request for changes to marker buoys at Seton Channel
Baasen asked Nybeck for an overview of this agenda item.
Nybeck directed the Board to his staff memo, dated 4/1/15. He provided the following comments via a
PowerPoint presentation.
 Seton Village Association (Seton Village) has submitted a request, dated 3/2/14, to change the location
of the marker buoys in the north Seton Channel area. Seton Village has proposed one additional
minimum wake buoy within the channel and adding one additional pair of red and green buoys on the
north side of the channel.
 Seton Village is located on the east side of the channel with the placement of their licensed multiple
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015






Page 7
dock on Harrison Bay (east of the channel).
Staff has worked with Mr. Tony Brough of Hennepin County Environment and Energy on this request.
Brough communicated concerns about adding three buoys to this area because of economic
constraints and the precedent it could set for the other county maintained channels on Lake
Minnetonka. However, he offered the following buoy configuration changes to this area:
o Moving the existing red and green navigational buoys to the north (commenting that this may
assist with the public rounding the corner near the Seton Village multiple dock).
o Moving the minimum wake buoy closest to the east end of the Seton View multiple dock to the
north so that it is at least 150 feet from the dock.
o Moving one of the three current minimum wake buoys installed into the channel area (as
requested by Seton View).
He directed the Board to buoy maps within the packet that detailed current and proposed plans.
He provided an overview of an approved Quiet Water Area (QWA), in which he offered: 1) an overview
of how a watercraft is required to navigate within an approved QWA, 2) that this area was designated
as an approved QWA since 1979, in which he quoted the description of its approved buoy placement,
and 3) that the current Code is consistent with Ordinance #52 (adopted prior to the 1982 boating
season).
He offered the following comments: 1) Lt. Vnuk (Hennepin County Sheriff’s Water Patrol) did not have
concerns with the changes offered by Brough, 2) Seton Village Board Member Phil Ludemann, who
was in attendance at this meeting, has communicated his support for these changes, in which staff has
confirmed with him that the LMCD Board would need to approve such, and 3) approval of either the
current or proposed site plan would require an amendment of the LMCD Code.
He recommended the Board direct LeFevere to prepare an ordinance amendment to the LMCD Code
for the changes offered by Brough above (offering approval of such at the Board’s 4/22/15 meeting).
He entertained questions and comments from the Board.
Green stated, for the record, that he did not have a concern approving Brough’s proposed configuration.
However, he did not believe it would change boating habits (i.e., speed violations and cutting the corner going
out into Harrison and West Arm Bay).
Nybeck stated that Brough had the same concerns and confirmed that Brough would monitor the boating
behavior to see if the proposed configuration would need to be changed back or amended.
MOTION:
Green moved, Roy seconded to direct LeFevere to prepare a draft ordinance amending LMCD
Code to reflect the above changes offered by Brough at Seton Channel.
VOTE:
Motion carried unanimously.
B. Public Safety Committee, update of proposed changes to LMCD Code Section 3.021 for "High Water"
Baasen asked Hughes for an update on this agenda item.
Hughes stated that this matter was originally addressed last fall; however, was placed on hold for consideration
until the committee and Board considered a previous Quiet Water Area request. He directed the Board to the
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 8
committee recommendations within his memo, dated 4/2/15. In summary, the recommendations offered were
to highlight: 1) better enforcement for the Water Patrol and 2) to clean up some of the language within the
current ordinance (i.e., the timeframe in which the Board can declare and remove High Water). He
recommended the Board make a decision as to whether they want to amend the ordinance. If that is confirmed,
he recommended the Board then discuss the details of the amendment and offer a future public hearing for
such. Additionally, discussions were held amongst the committee on offering a second public hearing for
stakeholders to comment on the general use of the Lake. He asked Nybeck to expound on this matter.
Nybeck stated that the committee recommended specific changes to the current High Water ordinance. He
directed the Board and offered an overview of the following discussion topics offered in consideration of such:
o Consensus that the 600 foot minimum wake restriction from the shore cannot be enforced by the
Sheriff's Water Patrol and was problematic for the public to understand and comply with.
o General consensus of maintaining the proposed trigger point at elevation 930.25 feet (although there
was some feedback to keep it at 930.00 feet).
o Consensus that the definition of "minimum wake" in the draft ordinance needed to be re-evaluated. In
particular, it should take into consideration how the Sheriff's Water Patrol interprets a minimum wake
"white rolling wake from bow to stern."
o Consensus that a public hearing should be scheduled for any changes proposed to the current
ordinance.
o Limited discussion took place on other possible changes to the current ordinance (i.e., adding additional
bays that would be entirely minimum wake).
o Anecdotal feedback was received from two Baldur Park Road residents and a resident from
Woodpecker Ridge Road (their flooding experiences from 2014 compared to past declared "High
Water" years). He believed that the anecdotal feedback was valuable as it provided documentation as
to when the water went over the dock, reached the lawn, driveway, etc. (recognizing this was a rare
occurrence).
He reiterated Hughes’ comment that it would be good to find out from the Board if they want to amend the
ordinance; offering a draft ordinance within their packet for consideration or an amendment of. He further
believed that any draft ordinance could provide for a public hearing (as soon as May). Should a public hearing
be held, he asked the Board whether they would like to receive testimony at a public hearing strictly on the
ordinance amendment or on the use of the lake in general.
Hughes stated that the committee discussed additional “out of the box” comments, in which he asked Jabbour
to expound on as he had offered one of them.
Jabbour stated that he was extremely against the 600 foot minimum wake restriction when the High Water
ordinance was originally adopted (knee jerk reaction). At that time, he communicated that High Water would be
the norm due to the placement wetlands and being a part of the watershed district. He believed it would be
extremely overreaching to consider making the Lake entirely quiet waters at the same elevation the 600 foot
buffer is enacted. At the same time, he understands the challenges the Water Patrol has in citing watercraft
operators for violation of the 600 foot minimum wake restriction. At the time he was appointed to serve on the
committee, the consensus was to make one cookie cutter (the entire Lake) minimum wake. He did not believe
all the bays on the Lake, based on their location and logistical shape, should all be treated the same (in which
he provided examples of). He asked the Board to consider the adopted management plan that acknowledges
the watercraft for hire (charter boat) businesses as essential amenities. Those businesses would have to
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 9
change their tours based on enacting a whole Lake minimum wake restriction. To this end, he would be against
amending the ordinance for such restriction.
Baasen asked the Board to remember the economic struggles offered during last year’s historical high water
levels. He understood that the largest concern to address was the 600 foot restriction based on the inability to
enforce such.
Jabbour stated that a precedent has existed for over 30 years in which certain bays are minimum wake at
various times (e.g., Grays Bay).
Thomas questioned if Hughes was proposing any changes at this meeting or whether the Board should
consider specific changes at another time, in which Hughes confirmed that was correct. Therefore, Thomas
recommended this matter be directed back to the committee for specific amendment recommendations.
Nybeck stated that the committee has made recommendations for the Board to consider at this meeting. He did
not have a concern in re-evaluating the recommendations; however, he recommend that this matter be kept at
the Board level rather than referring it back to the committee (allowing him to work with Board member Jabbour
and other interested members for additional considerations).
Baasen, in respect to the committee's prior work on this matter, recommended they continue to consider this
matter at the committee level (with the knowledge that the Board is open to changes to the ordinance).
Klohs concurred with Baasen and believed the general consensus was to consider changes to the 600 foot
restriction.
Jewett requested specific data be utilized and presented when considering additional amendments to the
ordinance.
Hughes recommended that the next committee meeting be held just prior to a Board meeting so that additional
members could attend and offer their thoughts.
Nybeck acknowledged that a number of Board members already sit on the committee. Additional committee
members include representatives of Hennepin County Environment and Energy, Hennepin County Water Patrol,
and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. These committee members have already communicated
that this is a Board decision. Therefore, he recommended a Board workshop vs. another committee meeting.
Baasen believed staff could bring this matter back via whatever avenue would be more efficient. However, to
Jewett’s point, more specific data needs to be offered to consider specific amendments.
C. LMCD Strategic Plan, update on search for contracted facilitator
Baasen stated that the strategic planning committee was directed by the Board to obtain a facilitator for
updating the LMCD’s plan. Three facilitators were interviewed last week, in which he provided a detailed
overview of. The committee unanimously believed that one of the facilitator’s (Craig Rapp, LLC) best fit the
LMCD’s needs. In follow-up to Board member Zorn’s communication with Rapp to clarify and obtain additional
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 10
information, he directed the Board to an amended proposal within their handout folders (acknowledging a
significant increase in costs). He believed, based on the increased costs, the committee needed to go one step
further in clarifying his proposal.
Jewett reaffirmed that the committee did ask Rapp to revise his proposal with little parameters given. Had the
other two been asked to revise their proposals, the LMCD may have received just as high of an amended
proposal as Rapp’s. He believed Rapp was communicating exactly what the Board was looking for (offering the
importance of making sure the LMCD obtains the right facilitator).
Baasen reiterated his interest in obtaining further clarification of the price difference of the two proposals.
Roy referenced how Rapp quickly assessed and articulately defined the LMCD’s scope of needs. He believed
he was offering more than the other facilitators for the proposed amount and was comfortable proceeding.
Klohs concurred that Rapp was absolutely the right person. He provided a proposed amount based on the
scope requested. He recognized the Board could remove some areas of the proposal for a smaller number but
believed the proposal was what the LMCD asked for.
Baasen reassured the Board he was not saying he did not want to obtain his services. Based on his inability to
start until June, he believed it would be productive to further discuss the specifics of his proposal.
Shuff stated that she would have voted for the second interviewee. She believed that if one facilitator was
offered the ability to provide additional information, the others should be afforded the same playing field.
Baasen questioned what impact the proposed service of $16,500 would have on the budget.
Nybeck acknowledged that funding for a facilitator is unbudgeted. However, there is a $10,000 contingency line
item budgeted (a portion of which is allocated to compensation adjustment expenses). Additionally, he believed
that the 2014 LMCD General Fund savings, documented in the 2014 audit, could cover the entire $16,500.
Green stated that he would like to see that budget analysis presented.
Jabbour believed (based on the description of Rapp’s proposed service and references) this was the most
important thing the LMCD could do. He stated that the value offered is more important than obtaining the
lowest proposal. He stated that he is personally very cautious with tax payers’ funds and would rather spend
his money vs. theirs. However, in this case he was comfortable moving forward in obtaining Rapp (subject to
directing a few representatives to further define the parameters of this proposal).
MOTION:
Jabbour moved, Thomas seconded to allocate $16,500 for contracting with Craig Rapp, LLC as
a facilitator (subject to further defining the scope of the proposal).
Nybeck proposed scheduling a committee meeting next week, which would allow for Board consideration of a
draft agreement on April 22nd.
VOTE:
Ayes (10), Nays (2, Green and Shuff); motion carried.
Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
Regular Board Meeting
April 8, 2015
Page 11
LeFevere stated the Data Practice Act does not come up often; however, he wanted to advise that the
responses to the request for proposals are not public data. Upon receipt of the proposal, the names are public
but their proposal is not until the Board enters into a contract with one of them. At that time, all proposals are
public. For this reason, staff had not placed the proposals that are offered within the Board’s handout folders in
the public or extra copies offered in the back of the room. Additionally, the Board should not treat the copies
received as public data, as well. If one is not comfortable walking out the door with those proposals, he asked
them to leave them with Herman and she will dispose of the documents. He further asked them to delete any
reference of the proposals that may be offered in their personal computers or emails. In closing, he stated that
this matter does not mean the Board cannot discuss what they offered above as an Open Meeting Law trumps
the Data Privacy Act.
10. UPDATE FROM STANDING LMCD COMMITTEES
Klohs stated that the Ordinance Review Committee was holding off scheduling a meeting to allow attendance
in obtaining the strategic planning facilitator.
Nybeck stated the LMCD has been in receipt of the yacht clubs and sailing schools’ proposal for amended
ordinances. He recommended the Executive Committee consider scheduling a date to review such.
11. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
Nybeck reported on the following:
1. The first Lake level reading was taken last Friday, April 3rd, in which it was 928.50’. He directed the
Board to his report that offered historical first readings.
2. He and Jabbour will be attending the West Metro AIS Workshop held this Friday.
3. He proposed a special meeting prior to the Board’s March 22nd meeting to review the draft 2016
LMCD Budget (5:30 p.m. at Wayzata City Hall). No objections were raised by the Board and the
meeting was confirmed.
12. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
13. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
14. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
___________________________________
Dan Baasen Chair
___________________________________
Gregg Thomas, Secretary
ITEM 68
LMGD MONTHLY CASH FLOW CHART
FEBRUARY, 20'45
Administration
2015 General Reven ue/Expense
S8o,ooo
STo,ooo
$6o,ooo
s50,000
s40,000
s30,000
s20,000
s10,000
)-
r
-.)) ;),.
i;'**"
Expense (That Month Only)
".*' "u:,"'E
20L5 General Ending Cash
s350,000
oa
$300,000
$250,000
s2oo,ooo
s150,000
$10o,ooo
550,000
$-
*\
gd)-
*\ .$ o"-.)- v..t
,.tt .$\
\"
tsx \t'
^p *t- od"*t .r,-t ,""t
",a;.rN
oEo' "\9'
rrt,ors o?i"al oot,n.."ro""r$t
cash
Generat ending
dl-
OQy
Budget (16"2 ot
ITEM 68
LMCD MONTHLY CASH FLOW CHART
MARCH,2015
Administration
2OtS General Reven ue/Expense
s8o,ooo
STo,ooo
S6o,ooo
550,000
$40,000
$3o,ooo
s20,o0o
s10,000
s-
r
Expense (That Month...
20LS General Ending Cash
s400,000
s350,000
S3oo,ooo
s250,000
s200,000
5150,000
5100,000
r_H
S5o,ooo
5-
- r""' rto
.t
-."
*.o""- *rsu ."".
SaC oo
""..tQd"o,.Nt
lregnglslendinscash {-Budset(16*"rrorrfa?ll,oor,r]r*o.".ii